Multimodal opioid sparing onco-anesthesia: A consensus practice guideline from Society of Onco-Anesthesia and Perioperative Care (SOAPC).

Opioids are an indispensable part of perioperative pain management of cancer surgeries. Opioids do have some side effects and abuse potential, and some laboratory data suggest a possible association of cancer recurrence with perioperative opioid use. Opioid-free anesthesia and opioid-sparing anesthesia are emerging new concepts worldwide to safeguard patients from adverse effects of opioids and potential abuse. Opioid-free anesthesia could lead to ineffective pain management, leaving the perioperative physician with limited options, while opioid-sparing anesthesia may be a rational approach. This consensus guideline includes general considerations of the safe use of perioperative opioids along with concomitant use of central neuraxial or regional blockade and systematic nonopioid analgesics. Region-specific onco-surgeries with their specific recommendations and consensus statements for judicious use of opioids are suggested. Use of epidural analgesia or regional catheter during thoracic, abdominal, pelvic, and lower limb surgeries and use of regional nerve blocks/catheter in head neck, neuro, and upper limb onco-surgeries, wherever possible along with nonopioids analgesics, are suggested. Short-acting opioids in small aliquots may be allowed to control breakthrough pain for expedient control of pain. The purpose of this consensus practice guideline is to provide the practicing anesthesiologists with best practice evidence and consensus recommendations by the expert committee of the Society of Onco-Anesthesia and Perioperative Care for safe opioid use in onco-surgeries.

Operative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer.

Background There is a recent rise in the incidence of esophageal carcinoma in India. Surgical resection with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiation is the current treatment modality of choice. Postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications, affect many patients who undergo open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) could reduce the pulmonary complications and reduce the postoperative stay. Methodology We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 114 patients with esophageal cancer in the department of surgical oncology at a tertiary cancer center in South India between January 2019 and March 2020. We included patients with resectable cancer of middle or lower third of the esophagus, and gastroesophageal junction tumors (Siewert I). MIE was performed in 27 patients and 78 patients underwent open esophagectomy (OE). The primary outcome measured was postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo grade II or higher within 30 days. Other outcomes measured include overall mortality within 30 days, intraoperative complications, operative duration and the length of hospital stay. Results A postoperative complication rate of 18.5% was noted in the MIE group, compared with 41% in the OE group ( p = 0.034). Pulmonary complications were noted in 7.4% in the MIE group compared to 25.6% in the OE group ( p = 0.044). Postoperative mortality rates, intraoperative complications, and other nonpulmonary postoperative complications were almost similar with MIE as with open esophagectomy. Although the median operative time was more in the MIE group (260 minutes vs. 180 minutes; p < 0.0001), the median length of hospital stay was shorter in patients undergoing MIE (9 days vs. 12 days; p = 0.0001). Conclusions We found that MIE resulted in lower incidence of postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications. Although, MIE was associated with prolonged operative duration, it resulted in shorter hospital stay.

Society of Onco-Anesthesia and Perioperative Care (SOAPC) advisory regarding perioperative management of onco-surgeries during COVID-19 pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has gripped the world and is evolving day by day with deaths every hour. Being immunocompromised, cancer patients are more susceptible to contract the infection. Onco-surgeries on such immunocompromised patients have an increased risk of infection of COVID-19 to patients and health care workers. The society of Onco-Anesthesia and Perioperative Care (SOAPC) thereby came out with an advisory for safe perioperative management of cancer surgery during this challenging time of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Modified Heidelberg technique of pancreatic anastomosis postpancreaticoduodenectomy - 10 years of experience.

CONTEXT: Pancreatic fistula has forever been a dreaded complication after pancreatic anastomosis (PA). We present a retrospective analysis of 10 years of experience with the Modified Heidelberg technique (MHT) that has been recently described. AIM: The aim of the study is to establish postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rates after MHT. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This is a retrospective observational study carried out at a tertiary cancer center in South India in the Department of Surgical Oncology. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Two hundred and eight consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and PA with MHT for a variety of proximal pancreatic lesions from January 2008 to February 2018 were included in this study. The incidence of POPF was recorded by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula 2005 and 2016 definitions. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Epidemiological and clinical data are expressed in ratios and percentage and presented in table format. RESULTS: Between January 2008 and March 2016, 186 patients underwent PD, and MHT was used for PA. Five (2.7%) patients developed Grade A POPF whereas Grades B and C were seen in three (1.6%) patients each with one death. Between April 2016 and February 2018, 22 patients underwent PD. Two patients (9%) had biochemical leak whereas none of them developed clinically relevant POPF. No deaths were recorded in this period. Overall, Grade B and Grade C POPF rates were 1.4% each, whereas 30-day mortality was 0.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study indicate that MHT is a safe, reliable, easy to learn, and adopt technique of pancreatic reconstruction after PD.

Is there difference between anastomotic site and remnant stump carcinoma in gastric stump cancers?-a single institute analysis of 90 patients.

BACKGROUND: Little has been reported regarding differences between malignancies that develop at the anastomotic site (ASC) and those that develop at the remnant stump (RSC) in gastric stump carcinomas (GSC). The purpose of our study was to compare clinical, pathological and survival characteristics of ASC patients with those of RSC patients. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery for GSC between January 2005 and December 2017 were analyzed. Of the total 112 patients, 22 patients were excluded from the study due to extensive loss of data. Ninety patients underwent curative resection and were evaluated based on anatomic site at which they developed malignancy, i.e., ASC and RSC. Clinical, pathological and survival characteristics were assessed. RESULTS: As per Lauren's classification, diffuse and intestinal variety were significantly associated with ASC (P=0.0001) and RSC (P=0.0001) respectively. RSC was associated with lower pT [pT2, 15/33 (45.5%), P=0.0002]. ASC was significantly associated with higher pN [pN3, 30/57 (52.6%), P=0.0013], stage [stage III, 48/57 (84.2%), P=0.0022], positive mesenteric nodes (P=0.006) and poor 3-year survival (10.5% versus 36.4%, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: ASC is substantially different than RSC. ASC is more aggressive disease compared to RSC and has different pathophysiology, higher rates of nodal involvement (both primary and mesenteric), presents with higher stage and has significantly poor 3-year survival.