Should be a locally advanced colon cancer still considered a contraindication to laparoscopic resection?

BACKGROUND: The role of elective laparoscopic resection (LR) for the treatment of locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) is unclear. Most studies have retrospectively investigated the outcomes of LR for pT4 cancers, while clinical T4 (cT4) cancers are excluded in the large randomized controlled trials comparing LR and open resection (OR). The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes in patients undergoing elective LR for LACC. METHODS: A prospective single-institution database including consecutive patients undergoing elective LR for clinical LACC (high-risk T3 or T4 N0-2) between March 1996 and March 2017 was retrospectively reviewed. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of conversion to OR and risk factors for adverse oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients undergoing LR for LACC were included. A multi-visceral resection was needed in 17 (5.7%) patients. A total of 63 (21%) LRs were converted to OR, mainly due to suspected adjacent organ invasion (82.5%) or obesity (9.5%). Overall postoperative Clavien-Dindo 3-4 complication rate was 4.7%, with no significant differences between completed and converted LRs. Final pathology showed 18 (6%) pT2, 215 (71.7%) pT3, 54 (18%) pT4a, and 13 (4.3%) pT4b cancers. A R0 resection was achieved in 98.3% of patients. On multivariate analysis, tumor size ≥ 7 cm and tumor site (splenic flexure) were the independent risk factors for conversion to OR. A pT4 colon cancer and LNR of 0.25 or greater, but not conversion to OR, were independently associated with both poorer OS and DFS. CONCLUSION(S): Clinical LACC should not be considered a contraindication to LR itself. Bulky tumors ≥ 7 cm and splenic flexure cancers are at higher risk of conversion to OR; however, there is no increased postoperative morbidity or adverse oncologic outcomes in converted patients.

Comparison of the outcome of laparoscopic procedures for GERD.

A total laparoscopic fundoplication has become the procedure of choice for the surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients with normal esophageal motility, with reduced postoperative pain, faster recovery and similar long-term outcomes compared to conventional open total fundoplication. Most controversial surgical aspects are the division of the short gastric vessels and the insertion of a bougie to calibrate the wrap. The anterior 180° and the posterior partial fundoplications lead to similar control of heartburn when compared to total fundoplication with lower risk of dysphagia. However, when performed, 24-h pH monitoring shows pathologic reflux more frequently after partial than total fundoplication. Disappointing results are achieved by anterior 90° partial fundoplication. More recently, a magnetic sphincter augmentation with the LINX Reflux Management System (Torax Medical) and the lower esophageal sphincter Electrical Stimulation (EndoStim) have been developed, seeking for a durable and effective minimally invasive alternative to laparoscopic fundoplication for the treatment of reflux. Both devices seem to be promising, with very low postoperative complications and good short-term functional outcomes. Large randomized controlled trials comparing them with laparoscopic fundoplication over a long period of follow-up are needed to verify their indications and outcomes.