Primary prevention of peristomial hernias via parietal prostheses: A randomized, multicentric study (GRECCAR 7 trial).

BACKGROUND: Peristomal hernia (PH) is a common complication of colostomy. It often leads to a decrease in the patient's quality of life. Surgical procedures for PH are difficult and present high failure and morbidity rates. This randomized, double blind, multicentre trial was conducted to determine the benefits and risks of mesh reinforcement vs conventional stoma formation in preventing PH. METHODS: 200 patients undergoing a permanent end colostomy are randomized into two groups. In the mesh group an end-colostomy is created inserting a lightweight (<50g/m(2)) monofilament mesh in a sublay location, and compared to a group with traditional stoma creation. The presence or absence of a PH is determined by another practitioner by clinical exam and by a CT scan or MRI after 24 months of follow-up. 19 university hospitals participate during a 3-year inclusion period. The primary endpoint is the comparison of the PH incidence. To find a difference of 20% with a power of 80% a total number of 174 patients must be included. CONCLUSION: This GRECCAR study is a multicentre, double blind, and randomized trial conducted to determine whether a preventive insertion of a prosthetic mesh decreases the incidence of a PH with an acceptable morbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01380860.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) for Sphincter-Saving Surgery: Is There Any Difference in the Transanal TME Rectal Approach? : A Single-Center Series of 120 Consecutive Patients.

BACKGROUND: Robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME), a novel way for minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer, was shown in previous studies to be safe and effective. However, comparison with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) has drawn contradictory disputes, especially concerning operative high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare R-TME and L-TME on the rectal technical approach. METHODS: Between October 2009 and March 2013, a total of 120 consecutive rectal carcinomas, operated for sphincter-saving procedure, were enrolled. The patient population included the last 60 laparoscopic procedures and the first 60 robotic surgeries (six hybrid approaches, then 54 full robotic surgeries). There were no exclusions. RESULTS: Patients' baseline characteristics were similar in both the R-TME and L-TME groups. Outcomes were equivalent for blood loss (200 vs. 100 mL), postoperative hospital stay (12 vs. 11 days), conversion rate (3.2 vs. 4.8 %), lymph nodes yield (15 vs. 19), no positive distal margin (0 %), positive radial margin (6.4 vs. 9.3 %), diverting ileostomy (73 vs. 58 %) and severe morbidity (28 vs. 20 %). Significant differences were found for median operative time (274 vs. 228 min; p = 0.003) and proctectomy performed via transanal approach (1.7 vs. 16.7 %; p = 0.004). The R-TME operative time curve stabilized to 245 min after the first 25 procedures. CONCLUSIONS: For rectal cancer, R-TME may be as feasible and safe as L-TME in terms of technique. In our practice and for difficult cases, R-TME allows complete rectal dissection by an abdominal approach, while L-TME requires a transanal approach.

Preoperative intraperitoneal oxaliplatin for unresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal carcinomatosis in colorectal cancer is an advanced stage of the disease where improved survival can be attained whenever the resection associated with hyperthermic intreperitoneal chemotherapy is possible. In unresectable cases, systemic chemotherapy is administered to obtain conversion to resectability but results have not yet been clearly evaluated. Local chemotherapy in this setting has been proven useful in several similar situations. The aim of the present pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility of pre-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy with oxaliplatin in these patients. METHODS: Six patients with unresectable peritoneal disease of colorectal origin were included in the study. An intraperitoneal implantable chamber catheter was inserted during the laparotomy that evaluated the extent of the peritoneal disease (peritoneal carcinomatosis index 25 to 39). Patients then underwent intraperitoneal chemotherapy with oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 in combination with systemic chemotherapy (FOLFIRI or simplified LV5FU) and a targeted therapy every 2 weeks. RESULTS: Two catheter perfusion incidents were reported due to the abdominal wall thickness. Two patients completed the four intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy cycles without major toxicity. One patient developed grade 3 or 4 diarrhea requiring a short intensive care unit (ICU) stay, though it is not clear whether the event was induced by intravenous irinotecan, IP oxaliplatin or the combination of both. Grade 3 fatigue and abdominal pain were also recorded. For one patient with aggressive disease, best supportive care was initiated after the first course of chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to assess intraperitoneal oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in the preoperative setting for patients with unresectable peritoneal metastases. The tolerance was acceptable for 85 mg/m2 IP oxaliplatin combined with systemic therapy in these patients. Our results justify carrying on with a phase I/II trial to determine the recommended dose of oxaliplatin in this clinical context and its efficacy.

[Lymph node dissection: what for? From esophagus to rectum: surgical and lymph node related prognostic factors]. / De l'œsophage au rectum: les facteurs pronostiques ganglionnaires et chirurgicaux.

Surgery has still a key role in curative treatment of digestive carcinomas, and for almost all localisations, lymph node status is a major prognostic factor. As far as oesophageal and gastric cancer are concerned, there is not yet any internationally standardized approach. Occidental guidelines recommend more limited lymph node dissections than Asiatic ones. Lymph node numbers requested during surgery of such cancers remain high, at least 23 lymph nodes for oesophageal cancer, and 25 for a D2 or D1.5 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. Generalisation of neo-adjuvant and adjuvant treatments has not yet modified these standards. On the other hand, rectal cancer surgery is well standardized since the global adoption of Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) for the late eighties. Development of mini-invasive techniques (laparoscopy and robot-assisted surgery) enabled an important decrease of surgery related morbidity as well as an enhanced post-operative recovery. However, rectal cancer surgery still has an important morbidity. Development of neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy as well as in-depth knowledge of risk factor of lymph node invasion opened up the path for transanal full thickness resection without lymphadenectomy. The goal of such an approach is to avoid TME's morbidity without risking local recurrence rate increase. As a consequence, this technique might need to be completed with a TME case histological factors are not favorable.