Short-term outcomes of chemoradiotherapy and local excision versus total mesorectal excision in T2-T3ab,N0,M0 rectal cancer: a multicentre randomised, controlled, phase III trial (the TAU-TEM study).

BACKGROUND: The standard treatment of T2-T3ab,N0,M0 rectal cancers is total mesorectal excision (TME) due to the high recurrence rates recorded with local excision. Initial reports of the combination of pre-operative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) have shown reductions in local recurrence. The TAU-TEM study aims to demonstrate the non-inferiority of local recurrence and the improvement in morbidity achieved with CRT-TEM compared with TME. Here we describe morbidity rates and pathological outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial including patients with rectal adenocarcinoma staged as T2-T3ab,N0,M0. Patients were randomised to the CRT-TEM or the TME group. Patients included, tolerance of CRT and its adverse effects, surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo and Comprehensive Complication Index classifications) and pathological results (complete response in the CRT-TEM group) were recorded in both groups. Patients attended follow-up controls for local and systemic relapse. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01308190. RESULTS: From July 2010 to October 2021, 173 patients from 17 Spanish hospitals were included (CRT-TEM: 86, TME: 87). Eleven were excluded after randomisation (CRT-TEM: 5, TME: 6). Modified intention-to-treat analysis thus included 81 patients in each group. There was no mortality after CRT. In the CRT-TEM group, one patient abandoned CRT, 1/81 (1.2%). The CRT-related morbidity rate was 29.6% (24/81). Post-operative morbidity was 17/82 (20.7%) in the CRT-TEM group and 41/81 (50.6%) in the TME group (P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval 42.9% to 16.7%). One patient died in each group (1.2%). Of the 81 patients in the CRT-TEM group who received the allocated treatment, 67 (82.7%) underwent organ preservation. Pathological complete response in the CRT-TEM group was 44.3% (35/79). In the TME group, pN1 were found in 17/81 (21%). CONCLUSION: CRT-TEM treatment obtains high pathological complete response rates (44.3%) and a high CRT compliance rate (98.8%). Post-operative complications and hospitalisation rates were significantly lower than those in the TME group. We await the results of the follow-up regarding cancer outcomes and quality of life.

European guidelines on achalasia: United European Gastroenterology and European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Achalasia is a primary motor disorder of the oesophagus characterised by absence of peristalsis and insufficient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxation. With new advances and developments in achalasia management, there is an increasing demand for comprehensive evidence-based guidelines to assist clinicians in achalasia patient care. METHODS: Guidelines were established by a working group of representatives from United European Gastroenterology, European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology and the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery in accordance with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Recommendations were voted upon using a nominal group technique. RESULTS: These guidelines focus on the definition of achalasia, treatment aims, diagnostic tests, medical, endoscopic and surgical therapy, management of treatment failure, follow-up and oesophageal cancer risk. CONCLUSION: These multidisciplinary guidelines provide a comprehensive evidence-based framework with recommendations on the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of adult achalasia patients.

Randomized clinical trial of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right colectomy (IEA trial).

BACKGROUND: Several non-randomized and retrospective studies have suggested that intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) has advantages over extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) in laparoscopic right colectomy, but scientific evidence is lacking. The aim was to compare short-term outcomes and to define the possible benefits of IA compared with EA in elective laparoscopic right colectomy. METHODS: An RCT was conducted from May 2015 to June 2018. The primary endpoint was duration of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were intraoperative technical events and postoperative clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients were randomized. Duration of surgery was longer for procedures with an IA than in those with an EA (median 149 (range 95-215) versus 123 (60-240) min; P < 0·001). Wound length was shorter in the IA group (median 6·7 (4-9·5) versus 8·7 (5-13) cm; P < 0·001). Digestive function recovered earlier in patients with an IA (median 2·3 versus 3·3 days; P = 0·003) and the incidence of paralytic ileus was lower (13 versus 30 per cent; P = 0·022). Less postoperative analgesia was needed in the IA group (mean(s.d.) weighted analgesia requirement 39(24) versus 53(26); P = 0·001) and the pain score was also lower (P = 0·035). The postoperative decrease in haemoglobin level was smaller (mean(s.d.) 8·8(1·7) versus 17·1(1·7) mg/dl; P = 0·001) and there was less lower gastrointestinal bleeding (3 versus 14 per cent; P = 0·031) in the IA group. IA was associated with a significantly better rate of grade I and II complications (P = 0·016 and P = 0·037 respectively). The duration of hospital stay was slightly shorter in the IA group (median 5·7 (range 2-19) versus 6·6 (2-23) days; P = 0·194). CONCLUSION: Duration of hospital stay was similar, but IA was associated with less pain and fewer complications. Registration number: NCT02667860 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

ANTECEDENTES: Varios estudios no aleatorizados y retrospectivos sugieren que la anastomosis intracorpórea (intracorporeal anastomosis, IA) tiene ventajas sobre la anastomosis extracorpórea (extracorporeal anastomosis, EA) en la colectomía laparoscópica derecha, pero no hay suficientes evidencias científicas. El objetivo del estudio fue comparar los resultados a corto plazo y definir los posibles beneficios de la anastomosis intracorpórea versus extracorpórea en la colectomía derecha laparoscópica electiva. MÉTODOS: Se realizó un ensayo clínico prospectivo y aleatorizado de mayo de 2015 a junio de 2018. El criterio de valoración principal fue la duración de la estancia hospitalaria. Los criterios de valoración secundarios fueron los eventos técnicos intraoperatorios y los resultados clínicos postoperatorios. RESULTADOS: Se aleatorizaron 140 pacientes. El tiempo quirúrgico fue más largo para la IA que para la EA (149,49 ± 27,24 versus 123,35 ± 36,56 min; P = 0,001). La longitud de la herida fue más corta en la IA (6,65 ± 1,21 versus 8,72 ± 1,44 cm; P < 0,001). La función digestiva se recuperó antes en la IA que en la EA (2,3 versus 3,3 días, P = 0,003) y la incidencia de íleo paralítico fue menor (13% versus 30%, P = 0,022). Los requisitos de analgesia postoperatoria fueron menores con la IA (39 ± 24,3 versus 53 ± 26; P < 0,001) y la puntuación de dolor (EVA) también fue menor (P < 0,035). El descenso de la hemoglobina en el postoperatorio y la hemorragia gastrointestinal baja fueron menores en la IA que en la EA (-8,83 ± 1,7 versus -17,07 ± 1,7 mg/dl; P = 0,001) y (2,8% versus 14%; P = 0,031), respectivamente. La clasificación de Clavien-Dindo mostró que la IA se asoció con resultados significativamente mejores que la EA: grado I (10% versus 27% P = 0,016); grado II (18% versus 35%, P = 0,0369). La puntuación del índice de complicación integral (comprehensive complication index, CCI) fue menor en el grupo IA (5,33 ± 9,2 versus 11,15 ± 14,34; P = 0,006). La estancia hospitalaria fue más corta en el grupo de IA pero sin diferencia significativa (5,65 ± 3,75 versus 6,58 ± 4,63 días; P = 0,194). CONCLUSIÓN: La IA presenta ventajas clínicas sobre la EA en la colectomía derecha laparoscópica.

A propensity-score-matched analysis of laparoscopic vs open surgery for rectal cancer in a population-based study.

AIM: The oncological risk/benefit trade-off for laparoscopy in rectal cancer is controversial. Our aim was to compare laparoscopic vs open surgery for resection of rectal cancer, using unselected data from the public healthcare system of Catalonia (Spain). METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study of all patients who had surgery with curative intent for primary rectal cancer at Catalonian public hospitals from 2011 to 2012. We obtained follow-up data for up to 5 years. To minimize the differences between the two groups, we performed propensity score matching on baseline patient characteristics. We used multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses to assess locoregional relapse at 2 years and death at 2 and 5 years. RESULTS: Of 1513 patients with Stage I-III rectal cancer, 933 (61.7%) had laparoscopy (conversion rate 13.2%). After applying our propensity score matching strategy (2:1), 842 laparoscopy patients were matched to 517 open surgery patients. Multivariate Cox analysis of death at 2 years [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65, 95% CI 0.48, 0.87; P = 0.004] and 5 years (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.5, 0.75; P < 0.001) and of local relapse at 2 years (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27, 0.72; P = 0.001) showed laparoscopy to be an independent protective factor compared with open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy results in lower locoregional relapse and long-term mortality in rectal cancer in unselected patients with all-risk groups included. Studies using long-term follow-up of cohorts and unselected data can provide information on clinically relevant outcomes to supplement randomized controlled trials.

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in right hemicolectomy assisted by laparoscopy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent cancer diagnosed in men and the second in women. Laparoscopic surgery has been a technical revolution in colorectal surgery, facilitating a better recovery of patients with lower morbidity and better esthetic results, compared to traditional surgery via laparotomy, without compromising safety and long-term oncological results. PURPOSE: The trial is a randomized controlled trial indented to evaluate the two interventions with thorough measurements of the postoperative variables and complications to improve the evaluation of the surgical technique. The primary endpoint is to compare the hospital stay, which will be measured in days between both groups. The purpose of the study at secondary endpoints is to compare intraoperative and postoperative events between both groups in terms of operating time, anastomotic performance time, intraoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes, need for blood transfusion, length of the surgical wound, start and tolerance of oral intake, beginning of digestive functionality, postoperative pain, need for analgesic administration, surgical wound infection, paralytic ileus, anastomosis leakage or dehiscence, need for surgical reintervention, and hospital readmission within the first 30 days after surgery. METHODS: This trial is a prospective, randomized, single-blind, and single-center clinical trial comparing intracorporeal anastomosis versus extracorporeal anastomosis for right laparoscopic hemicolectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Nowadays, there are several retrospective trials comparing the benefits for extracorporeal anastomosis versus intracorporeal anastomosis in right colon cancer patients. Considering the impact for laparoscopic surgery, we think it is necessary to do a randomized trial comparing extracorporeal versus intracorporeal anastomosis modalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov No. NCT02667860 and Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau Research Institute No. IIBSP-AIE-2015-01.

Imaging-Guided Preoperative Localization of Intra-Abdominal Local Recurrences of Colorectal Cancer Using the Harpoon Technique.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Intra-abdominal local recurrences of colorectal cancer can be difficult to localize and excise because they are not easily visible or palpable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We report on our experience using the computed tomography-guided harpoon technique to locate and resect these nodules in seven patients. RESULTS: No complications were recorded during the procedures. Six nodes were malignant and all margins were tumor free. CONCLUSIONS: Harpoon placement for intra-abdominal local recurrences of colorectal cancer is a feasible and useful technique that provides direct localization and complete excision of lesions.

Non-inferiority multicenter prospective randomized controlled study of rectal cancer T2-T3s (superficial) N0, M0 undergoing neoadjuvant treatment and local excision (TEM) vs total mesorectal excision (TME).

PURPOSE: The standard treatment of rectal adenocarcinoma is total mesorectal excision (TME), in many cases requires a temporary or permanent stoma. TME is associated with high morbidity and genitourinary alterations. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) allows access to tumors up to 20 cm from the anal verge, achieves minimal postoperative morbidity and mortality rates, and does not require an ostomy. The treatment of T2, N0, and M0 cancers remains controversial. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in association with TEM reduces local recurrence and increases survival. The TAU-TEM study aims to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the oncological outcomes and the improvement in morbidity and quality of life achieved with TEM compared with TME. METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial includes patients with rectal adenocarcinoma less than 10 cm from the anal verge and up to 4 cm in size, staged as T2 or T3-superficial N0-M0. Patients will be randomized to two areas: CRT plus TEM or radical surgery (TME). Postoperative morbidity and mortality will be recorded and patients will complete the quality of life questionnaires before the start of treatment, after CRT in the CRT/TEM arm, and 6 months after surgery in both arms. The estimated sample size for the study is 173 patients. Patients will attend follow-up controls for local and systemic relapse. CONCLUSIONS: This study aims to demonstrate the preservation of the rectum after preoperative CRT and TEM in rectal cancer stages T2-3s, N0, M0 and to determine the ability of this strategy to avoid the need for radical surgery (TME). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01308190. Número de registro del Comité de Etica e Investigación Clínica (CEIC) del Hospital universitario Parc Taulí: TAU-TEM-2009-01.

Perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal excision or extralevator abdominoperineal excision: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal excision and extralevator abdominoperineal excision ranges from 1 to 26%. In this systematic review, we compared surgical options and postoperative outcomes of perineal hernia repair in this setting from 2012 to 2016 with findings in a review of publications 1944-2011. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database using the keywords "hernia" AND "perineum" identified 392 papers published from 1946 to 2016. Two hundred and ninety-six papers published before 2012 were excluded and 96 were found to be potentially relevant. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies with a total of 108 patients were included in the final analysis. Perineal hernia repair was performed using the perineal approach in 75 patients (69.44%), the laparoscopic approach in 25 patients (23.14%), the open abdominal approach in three patients (2.77%) and the laparoscopic perineal approach in three patients (2.77%) and the open abdominoperineal approach in two patients (1.8%). Non-absorbable mesh was used in 41 (37.96%) of cases, composite mesh in 20 (18.51%) and biological mesh in 19 (17.59%). Flap reconstruction was used in 25 patients (23.14%). First and second recurrences were observed in 26 (24.07%) and 7 (26.92%) cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of perineal hernia repair from 1944 to 2011 and from 2012 to 2016 showed that perineal and laparoscopic approaches are currently the most commonly used techniques. Primary defect closure was abandoned in favor of synthetic or composite mesh placement. Use of flap reconstruction spread rapidly and the recurrence rate was low. Randomized control trials and a larger sample size are needed to confirm these data and to develop a gold standard treatment for secondary hernia repair after abdominoperineal excision or extralevator abdominoperineal excision.

EGFR ligands and DNA repair genes: genomic predictors of complete response after capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activation by radiation leads to increased cell proliferation and acts as a radioresistance mechanism. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation is the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer, and to date, no biomarkers of response have been found. We analyzed polymorphisms in the EGFR and its ligands, DNA repair genes and the thymidylate synthase in 84 stages II and III rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant capecitabine plus radiotherapy. The rs11942466 polymorphism in the amphiregulin (AREG) gene region was associated with a pathological complete response (ypCR) (odds ratio: 0.26; 95% confidence interval: 0.06-0.79; P=0.014). The rs11615 C>T polymorphism in the ERCC1 gene also correlated with the ypCR as no patients with a C/C genotype achieved ypCR; P=0.023. This is the first work to propose variants within the AREG and the ERCC1 genes as promising predictive biomarkers of ypCR in rectal cancer.

ATOM, the all-inclusive, nominal EAES classification of bile duct injuries during cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Several studies seem to indicate at least a 2-fold increase in bile duct injuries (BDI) since the inception of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Moreover, injuries seem to be more proximal, seem to be revealed earlier, are expressed by leaks more often than by strictures, are repaired more frequently by nonspecialists (either during the index operation or soon after), and appear to be more often associated with loss of substance and ischemia. The plethora of prior classifications probably attests to the evolving clinical spectrum, the mounting wealth of ever-increasing diagnostic methods, and an acknowledgment of insufficiencies or lack of data in earlier classification reports. Previous attempts at uniformity remain incomplete. The purpose of this study was to devise a nominal classification, combining all existing classification items, taking into account the changing pattern of BDI. METHODS: Extensive bibliographic research, analysis of each category within the individual classifications combined into one uniform classification. RESULTS: Fifteen classifications were retained. All items were integrated into the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) classification, using semantic connotations, grouped in three easy-to-remember categories, A (for anatomy), To (for time of), M (for mechanism): (1) the anatomic characteristics of the injury: NMBD for non-main bile duct or MBD for main bile duct (followed by a number 1-6, corresponding to the anatomic level on the MBD), followed by Oc (for occlusion) or D (division), P (partial) or C (complete), LS (loss of substance), VBI (vasculobiliary injury in general), and whenever known, the vessel; (2) time of detection: Ei (early intraoperative), Ep (early postoperative) or L (late); and (3) mechanism of injury: Me (mechanical) or ED (energy-driven). CONCLUSIONS: The EAES composite, all-inclusive, nominal classification ATOM (anatomic, time of detection, mechanism) should allow combination of all information on BDI, irrespective of the original classification used, and thus facilitate epidemiologic and comparative studies; indicate simple, appropriate preventive measures; and better guide therapeutic indications for iatrogenic BDI occurring during cholecystectomy.

Late-onset achalasia after esophageal atresia repair.

The development of achalasia in a patient with a history of esophageal atresia (EA) is rare. Here, we report a patient who had undergone surgery for EA at birth and presented achalasia at 30 years of age. He was successfully treated with laparoscopic surgery.

Prevention and treatment of bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES).

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures in Europe (and the world) and has become the standard procedure for the management of symptomatic cholelithiasis or acute cholecystitis in patients without specific contraindications. Bile duct injuries (BDI) are rare but serious complications that can occur during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Prevention and management of BDI has given rise to a host of publications but very few recommendations, especially in Europe. METHODS: A systematic research of the literature was performed. An international expert panel was invited to appraise the current literature and to develop evidence-based recommendations. Statements and recommendations were drafted after a consensus development conference in May 2011, followed by presentation and discussion at the annual congress of the EAES held in Torino in June 2011. Finally, full guidelines were consented and adopted by the expert panel via e-mail and web conference. RESULTS: A total of 1,765 publications were identified through the systematic literature search and additional submission by panellists; 671 publications were selected as potentially relevant. Only 46 publications fulfilled minimal methodological criteria to support Clinical Practice Guidelines recommendations. Because the level of evidence was low for most of the studies, most statements or recommendations had to be based on consensus of opinion among the panel members. A total of 15 statements and recommendations were developed covering the following topics: classification of injuries, epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis, and management of BDI. CONCLUSIONS: Because BDI is a rare event, it is difficult to generate evidence for prevention, diagnosis, or the management of BDI from clinical studies. Nevertheless, the panel has formulated recommendations. Due to the currently limited evidence, a European registry should be considered to collect and analyze more valid data on BDI upon which recommendations can be based.

Laparoscopic extraperitoneal rectal cancer surgery: the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES).

BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic approach is increasingly applied in colorectal surgery. Although laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer has been proved to be safe and feasible with equivalent long-term oncological outcome compared to open surgery, safety and long-term oncological outcome of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remain controversial. Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery might be efficacious, but indications and limitations are not clearly defined. Therefore, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has developed this clinical practice guideline. METHODS: An international expert panel was invited to appraise the current literature and to develop evidence-based recommendations. The expert panel constituted for a consensus development conference in May 2010. Thereafter, the recommendations were presented at the annual congress of the EAES in Geneva in June 2010 in a plenary session. A second consensus process (Delphi process) of the recommendations with the explanatory text was necessary due to the changes after the consensus conference. RESULTS: Laparoscopic surgery for extraperitoneal (mid- and low-) rectal cancer is feasible and widely accepted. The laparoscopic approach must offer the same quality of surgical specimen as in open surgery. Short-term outcomes such as bowel function, surgical-site infections, pain and hospital stay are slightly improved with the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is not inferior to the open in terms of disease-free survival, overall survival or local recurrence. Laparoscopic pelvic dissection may impair genitourinary and sexual function after rectal resection, like in open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery for mid- and low-rectal cancer can be recommended under optimal conditions. Still, most level 1 evidence is for colon cancer surgery rather than rectal cancer. Upcoming results from large randomised trials are awaited to strengthen the evidence for improved short-term results and equal long-term results in comparison with the open approach.

COLOR II. A randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer has been proven efficacious but morbidity and oncological outcome need to be investigated in a randomized clinical trial. TRIAL DESIGN: Non-inferiority randomized clinical trial. METHODS: The COLOR II trial is an ongoing international randomized clinical trial. Currently 27 hospitals from Europe, South Korea and Canada are including patients. The primary endpoint is loco-regional recurrence rate three years post-operatively. Secondary endpoints cover quality of life, overall and disease free survival, post-operative morbidity and health economy analysis. RESULTS: By July 2008, 27 hospitals from the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Denmark, South Korea and Canada had included 739 patients. The intra-operative conversion rate in the laparoscopic group was 17%. Distribution of age, location of the tumor and radiotherapy were equal in both treatment groups. Most tumors are located in the mid-rectum (41%). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer is feasible. The results and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer remain unknown, but are subject of interim analysis within the COLOR II trial. Completion of inclusion is expected by the end of 2009. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT00297791 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Laparoscopic low rectal anastomosis using a new stapling device: early experience with the Contour stapler.

Rectal cancer was initially considered a contraindication for the laparoscopic approach to low rectal resection due to the greater difficulty of deep pelvic dissection, but several studies have demonstrated its potential clinical advantages. The currently accepted technique for this intervention includes total mesorectal excision, which entails complete dissection of the mesorectum followed by low transection of the rectum. The laparoscopic approach provides good visualization and magnification of the operative field, but transection of the rectum may be more difficult. This is illustrated by the conversion rate of around 15% in most series, mainly due to technical difficulties. Contour placement may overcome these difficulties. Two key points support the interest in the use of devices with the features of the Contour. First, the current feeling and evidence indicate that with presently available laparoscopic devices, the section of the low rectum in selected patients (males and mid-third rectal tumors) is often difficult. Secondly, although the Contour device was designed for open surgery, surgeons have the intuitive perception that it perfectly accomplishes the functions an ideal laparoscopic stapler should include. There is clearly a need for more appropriate laparoscopic instruments for low rectal transection. The Contour device could be considered a prototype because it meets the surgeon's requirements when operating on the low rectum, providing one shot, simultaneous sewing and cutting function and a symmetric rectum section. However, a number of technical modifications would enhance the utility of the instrument in this setting.

Laparoscopic splenectomy: the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES).

BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) has become the standard approach for most splenectomy cases, some areas still remain controversial. To date, the indications that preclude laparoscopic splenectomy are not clearly defined. In view of this, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has developed clinical practice guidelines for LS. METHODS: An international expert panel was invited to appraise the current literature and to develop evidence-based recommendations. A consensus development conference using a nominal group process convened in May 2007. Its recommendations were presented at the annual EAES congress in Athens, Greece, on 5 July 2007 for discussion and further input. After a further Delphi process between the experts, the final recommendations were agreed upon. RESULTS: Laparoscopic splenectomy is indicated for most benign and malignant hematologic diseases independently of the patient's age and body weight. Preoperative investigation is recommended for obtaining information on spleen size and volume as well as the presence of accessory splenic tissue. Preoperative vaccination against meningococcal, pneumococcal, and Haemophilus influenzae type B infections is recommended in elective cases. Perioperative anticoagulant prophylaxis with subcutaneous heparin should be administered to all patients and prolonged anticoagulant prophylaxis to high-risk patients. The choice of approach (supine [anterior], semilateral or lateral) is left to the surgeon's preference and concomitant conditions. In cases of massive splenomegaly, the hand-assisted technique should be considered to avoid conversion to open surgery and to reduce complication rates. The expert panel still considered portal hypertension and major medical comorbidities as contraindications to LS. CONCLUSION: Despite a lack of level 1 evidence, LS is a safe and advantageous procedure in experienced hands that has displaced open surgery for almost all indications. To support the clinical evidence, further randomized controlled trials on different issues are mandatory.

Unusual upper gastrointestinal diseases associated with achalasia: laparoscopic approach.

BACKGROUND: As a result of the high success rate associated with the laparoscopic approach for achalasia, surgery for the disease has become the treatment of choice in recent years. With the greater number of patients undergoing surgery, surgeons may encounter other upper gastroesophageal illnesses associated with achalasia, and these may require evaluation for simultaneous surgical treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of gastroesophageal diseases associated with achalasia, and to determine the possibility for simultaneous management using the laparoscopic approach. METHODS: From January 1999 to May 2006, 81 patients were referred from the Service of Gastroenterology to the Service of General and Digestive Surgery as candidates for the surgical management of achalasia. Data for this group were recorded prospectively in laparoscopic surgery databases at the Hospital Sant Pau and the Hospital de Igualada. A total of 78 patients underwent laparoscopic Heller myotomy with gastric fundoplication. RESULTS: In 8 of 81 patients, nine additional gastroesophageal diseases (11.1%) were found: three cases of pseudoachalasia (3.7%), three cases of paraesophageal hiatal hernia (3.7%), two cases of esophageal diverticulum (2.5%), and one case of gastric volvulus (1.2%). Pseudoachalasia was diagnosed for three patients. The diagnosis was made preoperatively for one of these patients. For the other two patients, an adenocarcinoma arising from the gastroesophageal junction was diagnosed during the laparoscopy. In three cases, a paraesophageal hiatal hernia was found and treated by laparoscopic Heller myotomy, sac excision, hiatal closure, and posterior fundoplication. Esophageal diverticulectomy was performed for one patient. Another patient presented with an organoaxial gastric volvulus associated with achalasia, for which laparoscopic Heller myotomy, posterior fundoplication, and anterior gastropexy were performed. The median follow-up period was 39 months, with no recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their infrequency, several gastroesophageal diseases may be found in association with achalasia. Laparoscopic surgery may be useful for the diagnosis and/or treatment of both diseases.