Laparoscopic vs. ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) is effective for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. However, evidence regarding the optimal delivery method, either laparoscopic (L-TAPB) or ultrasound-guided (U-TAPB) is lacking. Our study aimed to compare the effectiveness of these delivery methods. METHODS: We carried out a literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases to include randomized studies comparing patients receiving either L-TAPB or U-TAPB during minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The primary endpoint was opioid consumption in the first 24 h after surgery. Risk of bias was assessed with the RoB-2 tool. Effect size was estimated for each study with 95% confidence interval and overall effect measure was estimated with a random effect model. RESULTS: The literature search revealed 294 articles, of which four randomized trials were eligible. A total of 359 patients were included, 176 received a L-TAPB and 183 received a U-TAPB. We established the non-inferiority of L-TAPB, as the absolute difference of - 2.6 morphine-mg (95%CI - 8.3 to 3.0) was below the pooled non-inferiority threshold of 8.1 morphine-mg (low certainty level). No difference in opioid consumption was noted at 2, 6, 12, and 48 h (low to very low certainty level). Postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting were similar between groups at different timepoints (low to very low certainty level). No TAPB-related complications were recorded. Finally, the length of hospital stay was similar between groups. CONCLUSION: For postoperative multimodal analgesia both L-TAPB and U-TAPB may result in little to no difference in outcome in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Registration Prospero CRD42023421141.

Ondansetron for Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS): A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Cross-Over, Randomized Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to examine the efficacity and safety of ondansetron, a serotonin receptor antagonist, to treat patients with low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). BACKGROUND: LARS after rectal resection is common and debilitating. Current management strategies include behavioral and dietary modifications, physiotherapy, antidiarrheal drugs, enemas, and neuromodulation, but the results are not always satisfactory. METHODS: This is a randomized, multicentric, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, and cross-over study. Patients with LARS (LARS score >20) no longer than 2 years after rectal resection were randomized to receive either 4 weeks of ondansetron followed by 4 weeks of placebo (O-P group) or 4 weeks of placebo followed by 4 weeks of ondansetron (P-O group). The primary endpoint was LARS severity measured using the LARS score; secondary endpoints were incontinence (Vaizey score) and irritable bowel syndrome quality of life (IBS-QoL questionnaire). Patients' scores and questionnaires were completed at baseline and after each 4-week treatment period. RESULTS: Of 46 randomized patients, 38 were included in the analysis. From baseline to the end of the first period, in the O-P group, the mean (SD) LARS score decreased by 25% [from 36.6 (5.6) to 27.3 (11.5)] and the proportion of patients with major LARS (score >30) went from 15/17 (88%) to 7/17 (41%), ( P =0.001). In the P-O group, the mean (SD) LARS score decreased by 12% [from 37 (4.8) to 32.6 (9.1)], and the proportion of major LARS went from 19/21 (90%) to 16/21 (76%). After crossover, LARS scores deteriorated again in the O-P group receiving placebo, but further improved in the P-O group receiving ondansetron. Mean Vaizey scores and IBS QoL scores followed a similar pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron is a safe and simple treatment that appears to improve both symptoms and QoL in LARS patients.

Long-term outcomes in elderly patients after elective surgery for colorectal cancer within an ERAS protocol: a retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: The number of elderly patients with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing. Considering short life expectancy and multiple comorbidities, surgery may not always be the best treatment option. METHODS: We included all consecutive patients aged 80 years and older who underwent elective resection for CRC following Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocol between January 2011 and May 2021. The primary endpoint was overall survival, secondary endpoints were 30-day morbidity, and the rate of return to pre-operative living conditions 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were included. Mean age was 84.6 ± 3.6 years, 49 patients (52%) were female. Most patients (77.6%) were ASA score ≥ 3. Laparoscopic resections were performed in 85 patients (90.4%), involving 69 (73.4%) colonic and 25 (26.6%) rectal resections. A stoma was constructed in 22 patients (23%), and reversed in 12 (54.5%). Twenty-two patients (23.4%) experienced a Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complication, and 2 patients (2.1%) died. The median length of hospital stay was 8 (interquartiles: 6-15) days. Sixty-six patients (70.2%) were discharged home directly and 26 (27.7%) to rehabilitation or postacute care institutes. At three months after surgery, eighty-two patients (96.5%) returned to their pre-operative living conditions directly or after short-term rehabilitation. Mean follow-up was 53 ± 33 months, estimated 5-year overall survival was 60.3% (95%CI 49.5-71.1%), and disease-free survival was 86.3% (95%CI 78.1-94.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that elderly patients undergoing elective surgery have a high potential to return to preoperative living conditions and good overall- and disease-free survivals, despite significant postoperative morbidity.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections: propensity-matched comparison of two-center experience.

BACKGROUND: The advantages of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) are still debated. This study compares the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) liver resections in propensity score matched cohorts. METHODS: Data regarding minimally invasive liver resections in two liver surgery units were retrospectively reviewed. A propensity score matched analysis (1:1 ratio) identified two groups of patients with similar characteristics. Intra- and post-operative outcomes were then compared. The difficulty of MILS was based on the IWATE criteria. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-nine patients underwent MILS between January 2014 and December 2021 (LLR = 192; RLR = 77). Propensity score matching identified 148 cases (LLR = 74; RLR = 74) consisting of compensated cirrhotic patients (100%) underwent non-anatomic resection of IWATE 1-2 class (90.5%) for a solitary tumor < 5 cm in diameter (93.2%). In such patients, RLRs had shorter operative time (227 vs. 250 min, p = 0.002), shorter Pringle's cumulative time (12 vs. 28 min, p < 0.0001), and less blood loss (137 vs. 209 cc, p = 0.006) vs. LLRs. Conversion rate was nihil (both groups). In RLRs compared to LLRs, R0 rate (93 vs. 96%, p > 0.71) and major morbidity (4.1 vs. 5.4%, p > 0.999) were similar, without post-operative mortality. Hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group (6.2 vs. 6.6, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study supports the non-inferiority of RLR over LLR. In compensated cirrhotic patients underwent resection of low-to-intermediate difficulty for a solitary nodule < 5 cm, RLR was faster, with less blood loss despite the shorter hilar clamping, and required shorter hospitalization compared to LLR.

Laparoscopic versus ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block in colorectal surgery: a non-inferiority, multicentric randomized double-blinded clinical trial.

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess if laparoscopic-assisted transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block (L-TAPB) is as efficient as ultrasound-guided TAP block (U-TAPB) in postoperative pain control. METHOD: In all, 112 patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic colon resection from February 2018 to December 2021 at two Swiss hospitals were included and randomized in a 1:1 ratio before surgery with either L-TAPB or U-TAPB. The primary end-point was the non-inferiority of the L-TAPB compared to U-TAPB with regard to the total opioid consumption within the first 24 h after surgery. Data regarding patients' characteristics, opioid consumption, pain on the visual analogue scale, operative and anaesthesia induction time, complications and length of stay were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were allocated to the L-TAPB and fifty-seven to the U-TAPB. No significant difference was found in the overall dose of opioids within 24 h, and the non-inferiority of the L-TAPB was confirmed. There were almost twice as many patients in the L-TAPB group requesting opioid reserves compared to the U-TAPB group (54.5% vs. 29.8%, P = 0.008). The anaesthesia induction time was significantly longer in the U-TAPB group (17 ± 11 min vs. 23 ± 12 min, P = 0.014). For all other variables (pain on the visual analogue scale, opioid consumption, need of epidural analgesia, operating time, postoperative complications and hospital stay) no statistically significant difference between the L-TAPB and the U-TAPB groups was noted. CONCLUSION: Our results showed the non-inferiority of the laparoscopic delivery compared to ultrasound-guided administration of the TAP block, with the advantage of not affecting anaesthesia times. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2017-02017 CE 3294, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04575233.

Minimally-invasive versus open pancreatic enucleation: systematic review and metanalysis of short-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Enucleation, either laparoscopic or robot-assisted, is rarely performed. The aim of this study was to offer the current available evidence about the outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatic enucleations and explore the possible advantage of this approach over traditional surgery. METHODS: PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library and Embase (ELSEVIER) medical databases were searched for articles published from January 1990 to March 2022. Studies which included more than 10 cases of minimally-invasive pancreatic enucleation were included. Data on the outcomes were synthetized and meta-analyzed when appropriate. RESULTS: Twenty studies published between 2009 and 2022 with a total of 552 patients were included in the systematic review: three hundred fifty-one patients (63.5%) had a laparoscopic intervention, two hundred and one (36.5%) robot-assisted with a cumulative incidence of conversion rate of 5%. Minimally-invasive surgery was performed in 63% of cases on the body/tail of the Pancreas and in 37% of the cases on the head/uncinate process of the Pancreas. The cumulative post-operative 30 days - mortality rate was 0.2% and the major postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo III-IV-V) 35%. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula was observed in 17% of the patients. Compared with the standardized open approach (n: 366 patients), mean length of hospital stay was significantly reduced in patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatic enucleation (2.45 days, p = 0.003) with a favorable trend for post-operative major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo III-IV) (- 24% RR, p: 0.13). Operative time, blood loss and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate were comparable between the two groups. One hundred and fourteen robot-assisted enucleations entered in a subgroup analysis with comparable results to open surgery. CONCLUSION: Minimally-Invasive approach for pancreatic enucleation is safe, feasible and offers short-term clinical outcomes comparable with open surgery. The potential benefit of robotic surgery will need to be verified in further studies.

Safety and Feasibility of a Discharge within 23 Hours after Colorectal Laparoscopic Surgery.

Background: Enhanced or accelerating recovery programs have significantly reduced hospital length stay after elective colorectal interventions. Our work aims at reporting an initial experience with ambulatory laparoscopic colectomy (ALC) to assess the criteria of discharge and outcomes. Methods: Between 2006 and 2016, data regarding patients having benefited from elective laparoscopic colorectal resections in two main centres in the United Kingdom have been analysed. Both benign and malignant pathologies were included. A standardised enhanced recovery program was performed for each patient, except epidural analgesia was replaced with single shot spinal infiltration. Patients were followed up through a telephone call system by a nurse. Short-term clinical outcomes were analysed. Results: A total of 833 patients were included and 51 (6.1%) were discharged within 24 h following surgery. Of these, 4 out of 51 (7.8%) patients came back hospital within 30 days of discharge; 2 (3.9%) required reoperation (Small bowel obstruction and wound abscess drainage). Conclusions: This study highlights that a 24-h discharge following elective laparoscopic colorectal interventions seems safe and feasible in selected patients. Although challenging to achieve, a standardised approach to laparoscopic surgery in combination with strict adherence to an enhanced recovery protocol are the fundamental elements of this path.

A Pilot, Prospective, Observational Study to Investigate the Value of NGS in Liquid Biopsies to Predict Tumor Response After Neoadjuvant Chemo-Radiotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: The LiBReCa Study.

Introduction: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) correlates with the response to therapy in different types of cancer. However, in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), little is known about how ctDNA levels change with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (Na-ChRT) and how they correlate with treatment response. This work aimed to explore the value of serial liquid biopsies in monitoring response after Na-ChRT with the hypothesis that this could become a reliable biomarker to identify patients with a complete response, candidates for non-operative management. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five consecutive LARC patients undergoing long-term Na-ChRT therapy were included. Applying next-generation sequencing (NGS), we characterized DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded diagnostic biopsy and resection tissue and plasma ctDNA collected at the following time points: the first and last days of radiotherapy (T0, Tend), at 4 (T4), 7 (T7) weeks after radiotherapy, on the day of surgery (Top), and 3-7 days after surgery (Tpost-op). On the day of surgery, a mesenteric vein sample was also collected (TIMV). The relationship between the ctDNA at those time-points and the tumor regression grade (TRG) of the surgical specimen was statistically explored. Results: We found no association between the disappearance of ctDNA mutations in plasma samples and pathological complete response (TRG1) as ctDNA was undetectable in the majority of patients from Tend on. However, we observed that the poor (TRG 4) response to Na-ChRT was significantly associated with a positive liquid biopsy at the Top. Conclusions: ctDNA evaluation by NGS technology may identify LARC patients with poor response to Na-ChRT. In contrast, this technique does not seem useful for identifying patients prone to developing a complete response.

Transanal (TaTME) vs. laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of early and long-term outcomes.

PURPOSE: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been proposed as an alternative to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LapTME) in distal rectal tumors. Despite encouraging reports, mid- and long-term oncological results are limited. In this study, we aimed at comparing TaTME versus LapTME in patients with mid and low rectal cancer. METHODS: From January 2012 to December 2019, all patients undergoing either TaTME or LapTME for rectal adenocarcinoma ≤ 12 cm from the anal verge were included. Demographic, clinical, and follow-up data were retrieved from a prospective and audited database, and a propensity score-matched analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients were included, 38 underwent TaTME, and 106 LapTME. The median age was 68.0 (60.2-75.8) years, and 96 (66.7%) patients were male. Median follow-up was 30.6 (20.2-39.8) months in the TaTME group and 49.5 (22.6-68.5) months in the LapTME group. There was one (2.6%) local recurrence in the TaTME group and two (1.9%) in the LapTME group (p = 0.788). There was no difference in the 3-year disease-free survival between groups both in the primary (93% vs. 86%, p = 0.274) and the propensity score-matched analyses (93% vs. 81%, p = 0.132). Conversion to open surgery was less frequent in the TaTME group (none vs. 4 (11.4%), p = 0.041). Intra- and postoperative complications, length of stay, specimen quality, and resection margins were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, TaTME was associated with a less frequent conversion to open surgery but otherwise had similar post-operative results compared to LapTME. Local recurrence and 3-year survival rates were similar.

Personalized Therapy and Liquid Biopsy-A Focus on Colorectal Cancer.

(1) Background: Resistance mechanisms represent a barrier to anti-cancer therapies. Liquid biopsies would allow obtaining additional information in order to develop targeted therapies to thwart the resistance phenomena but also to follow in time real response to treatment and be able to adapt it the most quickly possible way in case of resistance. (2) Methods: herein we summarize the different liquid biopsies which are currently under research; we then review the literature and focalize on one of their potential roles: the theranostic one and especially in the cases of colorectal cancers. (3) Results: few studies targeting liquid biopsy as a potential tool to adapt cancer treatments are present in the literature and encompass few patients. (4) Conclusions: further research is needed to prove the efficiency of LB. Indeed, it seems a promising tool to guide treatment by targeting actionable mutations with detection of resistant mutations.

The Use of a Stoma Rod/Bridge to Prevent Retraction: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: We evaluated evidence related to the use of a rod (bridge) to prevent stoma retraction during loop ostomy construction. METHODS: We completed a systematic review of the literature. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases up to December 4, 2019. We posed the following question based on a PICO format. Do adult patients undergoing ostomy surgery experience less stomal retraction when compared to patients managed without placement of a stoma rod? FINDINGS: Our initial search returned 182 articles; after reading studies in full, 5 articles were identified that collectively enrolled 1058 participants. Four studies were randomized controlled trials and one was a prospective cohort study. Meta-analysis could not be performed because of the small number of studies and the heterogeneity of outcomes measurements. The incidence of stoma retraction ranged between 0%-8% in patients managed with a rod and 0.78%-8.2% in patients with no rod. The number of reported adverse events was low. Placement of a stoma rod was associated with more adverse outcomes than in patients managed without a rod. Adverse events included local edema, stoma necrosis, skin necrosis, peristomal moisture-associated skin damage (irritant dermatitis), peristomal abscess, bleeding, and mucocutaneous separation. CONCLUSIONS: Stoma rod does not seem to reduce the risk of stoma retraction and might result in other adverse events. IMPLICATIONS: We recommend avoidance of stoma rod/bridge placement during ostomy surgery.

Correction to: Conservative Sinusectomy vs. excision and primary off-midline closure for pilonidal disease: a randomized controlled trial.

The original version of this article, unfortunately, contained an error. The given names and family names of the authors were interchanged and are now presented correctly. The original article has been corrected.].

Total mesorectal excision with and without lateral lymph node dissection: a systematic review of the literature.

PURPOSE: Treatment of lateral lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer is still under debate. While these nodes are routinely resected by Japanese teams, neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy alone is performed in Western countries. We aimed to systematically report the current literature assessing the overall and disease-free survivals of patients with rectal cancer treated with total mesorectal resection (TME) with or without lateral lymph node dissection (LLND). METHODS: MEDLINE/Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched from database implementation until 19 January 2019. Studies reporting overall survival or recurrence-free survival in patients with LLND for rectal cancer were included. We excluded studies including patients with recurrent rectal cancer, multivisceral resection, and/or without control group (patients with rectal surgery without LLND). RESULTS: Eleven studies were included, accounting for a total of 4159 patients. Overall survival ranged between 55.6 and 92.6% for TME with LLND versus 49.2 and 90.2% for TME alone, with one study reporting statistically significant benefit of LLND. Recurrence-free survival ranged between 58.3 and 74.1% for TME with LLND versus 39.5 and 76.5% for TME alone. Two studies showed statistically significant differences between the two strategies, one randomized controlled trial showed improved recurrence-free survival in TME alone group (74.5% versus 74.1% with LLND at 5 years) and one observational retrospective study reported increased recurrence-free survival with more extensive resection (65.4% versus 39.5% without LLND, at 5 years). CONCLUSION: Benefits of LLND are not clear and further randomized controlled trials should be performed to determine which strategy would allow improving survival in rectal cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO prior to study screening (CRD42019123181) and published in September 2019.