INTESTINAL ENDOMETRIOSIS: OUTCOMES FROM A MULTIDISCIPLINARY SPECIALIZED REFERRAL CENTER.

BACKGROUND: Deep penetrating endometriosis (DE) can affect abdominal and pelvic organs like the bowel and bladder, requiring treatment to alleviate symptoms. AIMS: To study and investigate clinical and surgical outcomes in patients diagnosed with DE involving the intestines, aiming to analyze the effectiveness of surgical treatments. METHODS: All cases treated from January 2021 to July 2023 were included, focusing on patients aged 18 years or older with the disease affecting the intestines. Patients without intestinal involvement and those with less than six months of post-surgery follow-up were excluded. Intestinal involvement was defined as direct invasion of the intestinal wall or requiring adhesion lysis for complete resection. Primary outcomes were adhesion lysis, rectal shaving, disc excision (no-colectomy group), and segmental resection (colectomy group) along with surgical complications like anastomotic leak and fistulas, monitored for up to 30 days. RESULTS: Out of 169 patients with DE surgically treated, 76 met the inclusion criteria. No colectomy treatment was selected for 50 (65.7%) patients, while 26 (34.2%) underwent rectosigmoidectomy (RTS). Diarrhea during menstruation was the most prevalent symptom in the RTS group (19.2 vs. 6%, p<0.001). Surgical outcomes indicated longer operative times and hospital stays for the segmental resection group, respectively 186.5 vs. 104 min (p<0.001) and 4 vs. 2 days, (p<0.001). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) had an overall prevalence of 6 (7.9%) cases, without any difference between the groups. There was no mortality reported. Larger lesions and specific symptoms like dyschezia and rectal bleeding were associated with a higher likelihood of RTS. Bayesian regression highlighted diarrhea close to menstruation as a strong predictor of segmental resection. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with DE involving the intestines, symptoms such as dyschezia, rectal bleeding, and menstrual period-related diarrhea predict RTS. However, severe complication rates did not differ significantly between the segmental resection group and no-colectomy group.

Surgical and medical outcomes in robotic compared to laparoscopic colectomy global prospective cohort from the American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the outcomes benefits of robotic approach, when compared to a laparoscopic approach, in colectomy remain limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the value of robotic approach compared to laparoscopic approach in minimally invasive colectomy. DESIGN: Cohort study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). SETTING: This study included data from the NSQIP from 1/2016 to 12/2021. PATIENT: Adult patients undergoing minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) colorectal surgery. INTERVENTION: Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk ratios for the incidence of medical and surgical morbidity and overall mortality. RESULTS: Compared to laparoscopic, robotic colectomy was associated with a significant decrease in postoperative morbidity [RR 0.84 (95%CI 0.72-0.96), P < 0.001], a significant reduction in postoperative mortality [RR 0.83 (95%CI 0.79-0.90), P 0.010)], and in post operative ileus [RR: 0.80 (95%CI 0.75-0.84), P < 0.001]. Yet, robotic approach was associated with a significant increase in total operative time despite a significant decrease in total length of stay. No benefit was observed regarding anastomotic leak. LIMITATIONS: Observational nature of the study cannot exclude residual bias. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort from the NSQIP, robotic colectomy was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative ileus, unplanned conversion to open surgery, morbidity, and overall mortality when compared to laparoscopic colectomy.

Bowel preparation for elective colectomy in Crohn's disease: results from a global cohort study using the NSQIP database.

AIM: The role of bowel preparation before colectomy in Crohn's disease patients remains controversial. This retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with mechanical and antibiotic colon preparation in patients diagnosed with Crohn's disease undergoing elective colectomy. METHOD: Data were collected from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participant user files from 2016 to 2021. A total of 6244 patients with Crohn's disease who underwent elective colectomy were included. The patients were categorized into two groups: those who received combined colon preparation (mechanical and antibiotic) and those who did not receive any form of bowel preparation. The primary outcomes assessed were the rate of anastomotic leak and the occurrence of deep organ infection. Secondary outcomes included all-cause short-term mortality, clinical-related morbidity, ostomy creation, unplanned reoperation, operative time, hospital length of stay and ileus. RESULTS: Combined colon preparation was associated with significantly reduced risks of anastomotic leak (relative risk 0.73, 95% CI 0.56-0.95, P = 0.021) and deep organ infection (relative risk 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.83, P < 0.001). Additionally, patients who underwent colon preparation had lower rates of ostomy creation, shorter hospital stays and a decreased incidence of ileus. However, there was no significant difference in all-cause short-term mortality or the need for unplanned reoperation between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study shows that mechanical and antibiotic colon preparation may have clinical benefits for patients with Crohn's disease undergoing elective colectomy.

ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS FOR ABDOMINAL SURGERY: WHEN TO RECOMMEND? BRAZILIAN COLLEGE OF DIGESTIVE SURGERY POSITION PAPER.

BACKGROUND: Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis is an essential component of perioperative care. The use of prophylactic regimens of antibiotics is a well-established practice that is encouraged to be implemented in preoperative/perioperative protocols in order to prevent surgical site infections. AIMS: The aim of this study was to emphasize the crucial aspects of antibiotic prophylaxis in abdominal surgery. RESULTS: Antibiotic prophylaxis is defined as the administration of antibiotics before contamination occurs, given with the intention of preventing infection by achieving tissue levels of antibiotics above the minimum inhibitory concentration at the time of surgical incision. It is indicated for clean operations with prosthetic materials or in cases where severe consequences may arise in the event of an infection. It is also suitable for all clean-contaminated and contaminated operations. The spectrum of action is determined by the pathogens present at the surgical site. Ideally, a single intravenous bolus dose should be administered within 60 min before the surgical incision. An additional dose should be given in case of hemorrhage or prolonged surgery, according to the half-life of the drug. Factors such as the patient's weight, history of allergies, and the likelihood of colonization by resistant bacteria should be considered. Compliance with institutional protocols enhances the effectiveness of antibiotic use. CONCLUSION: Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with reduced rates of surgical site infection, hospital stay, and morbimortality.

The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique.

Background: Existing reporting guidelines pay insufficient attention to the detail and comprehensiveness reporting of surgical technique. The Surgical techniqUe rePorting chEcklist and standaRds (SUPER) aims to address this gap by defining reporting standards for surgical technique. The SUPER guideline intends to apply to articles that encompass surgical technique in any study design, surgical discipline, and stage of surgical innovation. Methods: Following the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach, 16 surgeons, journal editors, and methodologists reviewed existing reporting guidelines relating to surgical technique, reviewed papers from 15 top journals, and brainstormed to draft initial items for the SUPER. The initial items were revised through a three-round Delphi survey from 21 multidisciplinary Delphi panel experts from 13 countries and regions. The final SUPER items were formed after an online consensus meeting to resolve disagreements and a three-round wording refinement by all 16 SUPER working group members and five SUPER consultants. Results: The SUPER reporting guideline includes 22 items that are considered essential for good and informative surgical technique reporting. The items are divided into six sections: background, rationale, and objectives (items 1 to 5); preoperative preparations and requirements (items 6 to 9); surgical technique details (items 10 to 15); postoperative considerations and tasks (items 16 to 19); summary and prospect (items 20 and 21); and other information (item 22). Conclusions: The SUPER reporting guideline has the potential to guide detailed, comprehensive, and transparent surgical technique reporting for surgeons. It may also assist journal editors, peer reviewers, systematic reviewers, and guideline developers in the evaluation of surgical technique papers and help practitioners to better understand and reproduce surgical technique. Trial Registration: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/#SUPER.

The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique: explanation and elaboration.

Background: Surgical technique plays an essential role in achieving good health outcomes. However, the quality of surgical technique reporting remains heterogeneous. Reporting checklists could help authors to describe the surgical technique more transparently and effectively, as well as to assist reviewers and editors evaluate it more informatively, and promote readers to better understand the technique. We previously developed SUPER (surgical technique reporting checklist and standards) to assist authors in reporting their research that contains surgical technique more transparently. However, further explanation and elaboration of each item are needed for better understanding and reporting practice. Methods: We searched surgical literature in PubMed, Google Scholar and journal websites published up to January 2023 to find multidiscipline examples in various article types for each SUPER item. Results: We explain the 22 items of the SUPER and provide rationales item by item alongside. We provide 69 examples from 53 literature that present optimal reporting of the 22 items. Article types of examples include pure surgical technique, and case reports, observational studies and clinical trials that contain surgical technique. Examples are multidisciplinary, including general surgery, orthopaedical surgery, cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, gastrointestinal surgery, neurological surgery, oncogenic surgery, and emergency surgery etc. Conclusions: Along with SUPER article, this explanation and elaboration file can promote deeper understanding on the SUPER items. We hope that the article could further guide surgeons and researchers in reporting, and assist editors and peer reviewers in reviewing manuscripts related to surgical technique.

ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS FOR ABDOMINAL SURGERY: WHEN TO RECOMMEND? BRAZILIAN COLLEGE OF DIGESTIVE SURGERY POSITION PAPER. / Antibioticoprofilaxia em cirurgia digestiva: quando recomendar? Posicionamento do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgia Digestiva.

Background: Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis is an essential component of perioperative care. The use of prophylactic regimens of antibiotics is a well-established practice that is encouraged to be implemented in preoperative/perioperative protocols in order to prevent surgical site infections. Aims: To emphasize the crucial aspects of antibiotic prophylaxis in abdominal surgery. Results: Antibiotic prophylaxis is defined as the administration of antibiotics before contamination occurs, given with the intention of preventing infection by achieving tissue levels of antibiotics above the minimum inhibitory concentration at the time of surgical incision. It is indicated for clean operations with prosthetic materials or in cases where severe consequences may arise in the event of an infection. It is also suitable for all clean-contaminated and contaminated operations. The spectrum of action is determined by the pathogens present at the surgical site. Ideally, a single intravenous bolus dose should be administered within 60 minutes before the surgical incision. An additional dose should be given in case of hemorrhage or prolonged surgery, according to the half-life of the drug. Factors such as the patient's weight, history of allergies, and the likelihood of colonization by resistant bacteria should be taken into account. Compliance with institutional protocols enhances the effectiveness of antibiotic use. Conclusions: Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with reduced rates of surgical site infection, hospital stay, and morbimortality.

Racional: A antibioticoprofilaxia é um componente importante dos cuidados perioperatórios. Objetivos: Abordar os principais aspectos da antibioticoprofilaxia em cirurgia digestiva. Resultados: Ela é definida como a redução da carga de bactérias no sítio operatório através da obtenção de níveis séricos de antibiótico acima da concentração inibitória mínima no momento da incisão cirúrgica. Está indicada em cirurgias limpas com próteses e nas quais a consequência de uma eventual infecção seja grave, bem como em todas as cirurgias limpas-contaminadas e contaminadas. O espectro de ação do antibiótico deve ser de acordo com a flora esperada no sítio cirúrgico e deve ser administrado 60 minutos antes da incisão, em bolus, por via endovenosa e preferencialmente em dose única. Nos casos de hemorragia importante ou cirurgias mais longas, uma nova dose pode ser administrada. O peso do paciente, a história de alergia a medicamentos e a possibilidade de colonização por bactérias multirresistentes devem ser levados em conta. A aderência a protocolos institucionais aumenta a chance de uso adequado da antibioticoprofilaxia. Conclusões: A antibioticoprofilaxia está associada à redução das taxas de infecção do sítio cirúrgico, tempo de internação e morbidade.

Reporting guidelines for surgical technique could be improved: a scoping review and a call for action.

OBJECTIVES: To identify reporting guidelines related to surgical technique and propose recommendations for areas that require improvement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A protocol-guided scoping review was conducted. A literature search of MEDLINE, the EQUATOR Network Library, Google Scholar, and Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations was conducted to identify surgical technique reporting guidelines published up to December 31, 2021. RESULTS: We finally included 55 surgical technique reporting guidelines, vascular surgery (n = 18, 32.7%) was the most common among the clinical specialties covered. The included guidelines generally showed a low degree of international and multidisciplinary cooperation. Few guidelines provided a detailed development process (n = 14, 25.5%), conducted a systematic literature review (n = 13, 23.6%), used the Delphi method (n = 4, 7.3%), or described post-publication strategy (n = 6, 10.9%). The vast majority guidelines focused on the reporting of intraoperative period (n = 50, 90.9%). However, of the guidelines requiring detailed descriptions of surgical technique methodology (n = 43, 78.2%), most failed to provide guidance on what constitutes an adequate description. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates significant deficiencies in the development methodology and practicality of reporting guidelines for surgical technique. A standardized reporting guideline that is developed rigorously and focuses on details of surgical technique may serve as a necessary impetus for change.

Antibioticoprofilaxia em cirurgia adominal: quando recomendar? Posicionamento do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgia Digestiva / Antibiotic prophylaxis for abdominal surgery: when to recommend? brazilian college of digestive surgery position paper

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis is an essential component of perioperative care. The use of prophylactic regimens of antibiotics is a well-established practice that is encouraged to be implemented in preoperative/perioperative protocols in order to prevent surgical site infections. AIMS: The aim of this study was to emphasize the crucial aspects of antibiotic prophylaxis in abdominal surgery. RESULTS: Antibiotic prophylaxis is defined as the administration of antibiotics before contamination occurs, given with the intention of preventing infection by achieving tissue levels of antibiotics above the minimum inhibitory concentration at the time of surgical incision. It is indicated for clean operations with prosthetic materials or in cases where severe consequences may arise in the event of an infection. It is also suitable for all clean-contaminated and contaminated operations. The spectrum of action is determined by the pathogens present at the surgical site. Ideally, a single intravenous bolus dose should be administered within 60 min before the surgical incision. An additional dose should be given in case of hemorrhage or prolonged surgery, according to the half-life of the drug. Factors such as the patient's weight, history of allergies, and the likelihood of colonization by resistant bacteria should be considered. Compliance with institutional protocols enhances the effectiveness of antibiotic use. CONCLUSION: Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with reduced rates of surgical site infection, hospital stay, and morbimortality.

RESUMO RACIONAL: A antibioticoprofilaxia é um componente importante dos cuidados perioperatórios. OBJETIVOS: Abordar os principais aspectos da antibioticoprofilaxia em cirurgia digestiva. RESULTADOS: Ela é definida como a redução da carga de bactérias no sítio operatório através da obtenção de níveis séricos de antibiótico acima da concentração inibitória mínima no momento da incisão cirúrgica. Está indicada em cirurgias limpas com próteses e nas quais a consequência de uma eventual infecção seja grave, bem como em todas as cirurgias limpas-contaminadas e contaminadas. O espectro de ação do antibiótico deve ser de acordo com a flora esperada no sítio cirúrgico e deve ser administrado 60 minutos antes da incisão, em bolus, por via endovenosa e preferencialmente em dose única. Nos casos de hemorragia importante ou cirurgias mais longas, uma nova dose pode ser administrada. O peso do paciente, a história de alergia a medicamentos e a possibilidade de colonização por bactérias multirresistentes devem ser levados em conta. A aderência a protocolos institucionais aumenta a chance de uso adequado da antibioticoprofilaxia. CONCLUSÕES: A antibioticoprofilaxia está associada à redução das taxas de infecção do sítio cirúrgico, tempo de internação e morbidade.

Nonoperative vs Operative Management of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Appendectomy remains the standard of care for uncomplicated acute appendicitis despite several randomized clinical trials pointing to the safety and efficacy of nonoperative management of this disease. A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials may contribute to the body of evidence and help surgeons select which patients may benefit from surgical and nonsurgical treatment. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of nonoperative management vs appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Data Sources: A systematic review was conducted using indexed sources (Embase and PubMed) to search for published randomized clinical trials in English comparing nonoperative management with appendectomy in adult patients presenting with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. To increase sensitivity, no limits were set for outcomes reported, sex, or year of publication. All nonrandomized or quasi-randomized trials were excluded, and validated primers were used. Study Selection: Among 1504 studies imported for screening, 805 were duplicates, and 595 were excluded for irrelevancy. A further 96 were excluded after full-text review, mainly owing to wrong study design or inclusion of pediatric populations. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for the meta-analysis. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Meta-extraction was conducted with independent extraction by multiple reviewers using the Covidence platform for systematic reviews and in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Data were pooled by a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Treatment success and major adverse effects at 30 days' follow-up. Results: The main outcome (treatment success proportion at 30 days of follow-up) was not significantly different in the operative and nonoperative management cohorts (risk ratio [RR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.66-1.11). Likewise, the percentage of major adverse effects was similar in both cohorts (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29-1.79). However, in the nonoperative management group, length of stay was significantly longer (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.26-1.70), and a median cumulative incidence of 18% of recurrent appendicitis was observed. Conclusions and Relevance: These results point to the general safety and efficacy of nonoperative management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. However, this strategy may be associated with an increase in duration of hospital stay and a higher rate of recurrent appendicitis. This meta-analysis may help inform decision-making in nonoperative management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

Gastrectomy for elderly gastric cancer patients: A propensity score-matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although D2-gastrectomy is the most effective treatment for resectable gastric cancer (GC), it is unclear whether elderly patients have increased risk of morbidity and worse survival. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of older age (OA) patients with those of less advanced age (LAA). METHODS: GC patients undergoing curative gastrectomy were retrospectively analyzed and divided into two groups: OA (>75 years) and LAA (<75 years). Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis using seven variables was conducted to reduce selection bias. RESULTS: Among 586 patients, 494 (84.3%) were classified as LAA and 92 (15.7%) as OA. OA patients had worse clinical status, higher rates of D1-lymphadenectomy, subtotal gastrectomy, and Lauren type; higher mortality and worse survival. No difference in pathological tumor-node-metastasis (pTNM) stage was observed between groups. Preoperative chemotherapy was performed more frequently in the LAA group. After PSM (92 OA: 92 LAA), all variables included in PSM were matched, and mortality rates and survival became similar between groups. In multivariate analysis, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score III/IV was an independent factor associated with a 90-day mortality after PSM. CONCLUSION: Gastrectomy in elderly GC patients has similar outcomes compared with younger ones. Clinical status and disease stage are more important than the patient's age.

Developing the surgical technique reporting checklist and standards: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Standardized and transparent reporting of surgical technique is the cornerstone of effective dissemination, implementation and improvement. However, current reporting of surgical techniques is inadequate. The existing guidelines potentially applied to guide surgical technique reporting are with a minimal highlight of the surgical technique, lack requirements explaining what extent and dimensions need to be described in detail, or are unlikely to extrapolate to a wide range of surgical techniques. This study aims to formulate a rigorous protocol to develop a surgical technique reporting checklist and standards (SUPER) that defines what a clear, comprehensive and detailed surgical technique report should be contained. METHODS: This protocol is designed following the classic guidance for developing reporting guidelines recommended by the EQUATOR network. RESULTS: The development team will consist of surgeons (~80%), methodologists, and journal editors. The draft checklist sources will include a scoping review of existing reporting guidelines related to surgical technique, surgical technique articles from 15 top journals published in the last year, and brainstorming by the multidisciplinary development team. The final SUPER checklist will be formed after three rounds of Delphi surveys, one round of face-to-face meeting, and a month-long pilot test. The SUPER checklist will be published as open-access and be used in combination with existing reporting guidelines related to surgical techniques (e.g., IDEAL). This protocol will steer the SUPER checklist's development, allowing us to further elaborate surgical technique reporting for all surgical specialties, and enabling a more favorable experience for surgeons, nurses, medical students, residents, editors, and reviewers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at the EQUATOR network on December 18th, 2020. Available at: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/.

Evidence on reporting guidelines for surgical technique in clinical disciplines: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The reporting of surgical techniques is of mixed quality, with most at a very minimal level. Reporting guidelines that could be applied to guide surgical technique reporting vary in methodology for development, discipline coverage, dimension coverage and detail requested. However, a scoping review that could indicate the gaps and efforts needed in surgical technique reporting guidelines is lacking and warranted. This study aims to design a methodological rigour protocol to guide the development of a scoping review of surgical technique reporting guidelines. METHODS: This protocol is designed following the 2020 manual proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. To further ensure the soundness of the protocol, we also included multidisciplinary professionals (including methodologists, clinicians, and journal editors) to refine the protocol. DISCUSSION: Seven key steps for developing the scoping review are identified and presented in detail, including (I) identifying the research questions; (II) inclusion criteria; (III) search strategy; (IV) source of evidence selection; (V) data extraction; (VI) analysis of the evidence; and (VII) presentation of the results. Guided by this protocol, the subsequent scoping review will inform us the overview of surgical technique reporting guidelines and precisely guide our direction and next steps in improving surgical technique reporting guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol is not registered as the PROSPERO database only accepts registration of systematic review protocols while does not accept registration of scoping review protocols.

BRAZILIAN GASTRIC CANCER ASSOCIATION GUIDELINES (PART 2): UPDATE ON TREATMENT.

BACKGROUND: : The II Brazilian Consensus on Gastric Cancer of the Brazilian Gastric Cancer Association BGCA (Part 1) was recently published. On this occasion, countless specialists working in the treatment of this disease expressed their opinion in the face of the statements presented. AIM: : To present the BGCA Guidelines (Part 2) regarding indications for surgical treatment, operative techniques, extension of resection and multimodal treatment. METHODS: To formulate these guidelines, the authors carried out an extensive and current review regarding each declaration present in the II Consensus, using the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library and SciELO databases initially with the following descriptors: gastric cancer, gastrectomy, lymphadenectomy, multimodal treatment. In addition, each statement was classified according to the level of evidence and degree of recommendation. RESULTS: : Of the 43 statements present in this study, 11 (25,6%) were classified with level of evidence A, 20 (46,5%) B and 12 (27,9%) C. Regarding the degree of recommendation, 18 (41,9%) statements obtained grade of recommendation 1, 14 (32,6%) 2a, 10 (23,3%) 2b e one (2,3%) 3. CONCLUSION: : The guidelines complement of the guidelines presented here allows surgeons and oncologists who work to combat gastric cancer to offer the best possible treatment, according to the local conditions available.

ROBOTIC GASTRECTOMY: TECHNIQUE STANDARDIZATION.

BACKGROUND: Trocars position for the Si model (position is similar for the Xi, although trocars stay more in line). Robotic gastrectomy is gaining popularity worldwide. It allows reduced blood loss and lesser pain. However, it widespread use is limited by the extensive learning curve and costs. AIM: To describe our standard technique with reduced use of robotic instruments. METHODS: We detail the steps involved in the procedure, including trocar placement, necessary robotic instruments, and meticulous surgical description. RESULTS: After standardizing the procedure, 28 patients were operated with this budget technique. For each procedure material used was: 1 (Xi model) or 2 disposable trocars (Si) and 4 robotic instruments. Stapling and clipping were performed by the assistant through an auxiliary port, limiting the use of robotic instruments and reducing the cost. CONCLUSION: This standardization helps implementing a robotic program for gastrectomy in the daily practice or in one`s institution.

Brazilian gastric cancer association guidelines (part 2): update on treatment / Diretrizes da associação brasileira de câncer gástrico (parte 2): atualização sobre o tratamento

ABSTRACT Background : The II Brazilian Consensus on Gastric Cancer of the Brazilian Gastric Cancer Association BGCA (Part 1) was recently published. On this occasion, countless specialists working in the treatment of this disease expressed their opinion in the face of the statements presented. Aim : To present the BGCA Guidelines (Part 2) regarding indications for surgical treatment, operative techniques, extension of resection and multimodal treatment. Methods: To formulate these guidelines, the authors carried out an extensive and current review regarding each declaration present in the II Consensus, using the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library and SciELO databases initially with the following descriptors: gastric cancer, gastrectomy, lymphadenectomy, multimodal treatment. In addition, each statement was classified according to the level of evidence and degree of recommendation. Results : Of the 43 statements present in this study, 11 (25,6%) were classified with level of evidence A, 20 (46,5%) B and 12 (27,9%) C. Regarding the degree of recommendation, 18 (41,9%) statements obtained grade of recommendation 1, 14 (32,6%) 2a, 10 (23,3%) 2b e one (2,3%) 3. Conclusion : The guidelines complement of the guidelines presented here allows surgeons and oncologists who work to combat gastric cancer to offer the best possible treatment, according to the local conditions available.

RESUMO Racional: O II Consenso Brasileiro de Câncer Gástrico da Associação Brasileira de Câncer Gástrico ABCG (Parte 1) foi recentemente publicado. Nesta ocasião inúmeros especialistas que atuam no tratamento desta doença expressaram suas opiniões diante declarações apresentadas. Objetivo: Apresentar as Diretrizes da ABCG (Parte 2) quanto às indicações de tratamento cirúrgico, técnicas operatórias, extensão de ressecção e terapia combinada. Métodos: Para formulação destas diretrizes os autores realizaram extensa e atual revisão referente a cada declaração presente no II Consenso, utilizando as bases Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library e SciELO, inicialmente com os seguintes descritores: câncer gástrico, gastrectomia, linfadenectomia, terapia combinada. Ainda, cada declaração foi classificada de acordo com o nível de evidência e grau de recomendação. Resultados: Das 43 declarações presentes neste estudo, 11 (25,6%) foram classificadas com nível de evidência A, 20 (46,5%) B e 12 (27,9%) C. Quanto ao grau de recomendação, 18 (41,9%) declarações obtiveram grau de recomendação 1, 14 (32,6%) 2a, 10 (23,3%) 2b e um (2,3%) 3. Conclusão: O complemento das diretrizes aqui presentes possibilita que cirurgiões e oncologistas que atuam no combate ao câncer gástrico possam oferecer o melhor tratamento possível, de acordo com as condições locais disponíveis.

BRAZILIAN GASTRIC CANCER ASSOCIATION GUIDELINES (PART 1): AN UPDATE ON DIAGNOSIS, STAGING, ENDOSCOPIC TREATMENT AND FOLLOW-UP.

BACKGROUND: The II Brazilian Consensus on Gastric Cancer by the Brazilian Gastric Cancer Association (ABCG) was recently published. On this occasion, several experts in gastric cancer expressed their opinion before the statements presented. AIM: To present the ABCG Guidelines (part 1) regarding the diagnosis, staging, endoscopic treatment and follow-up of gastric cancer patients. METHODS: To forge these Guidelines, the authors carried out an extensive and current review regarding each statement present in the II Consensus, using the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library and SciELO databases with the following descriptors: gastric cancer, staging, endoscopic treatment and follow-up. In addition, each statement was classified according to the level of evidence and degree of recommendation. RESULTS: Of the 24 statements, two (8.3%) were classified with level of evidence A, 11 (45.8%) with B and 11 (45.8%) with C. As for the degree of recommendation, six (25%) statements obtained grade of recommendation 1, nine (37.5%) recommendation 2a, six (25%) 2b and three (12.5%) grade 3. CONCLUSION: The guidelines presented here are intended to assist professionals working in the fight against gastric cancer with relevant and current information, granting them to be applied in the daily medical practice.