RESUMEN

AIM: Laparoscopic surgery is widely used for small gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) (≤ 5 cm) but remains a controversial approach for larger gastric GISTs (> 5 cm). This study aims to compare short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic resection in comparison with open resection for gastric GISTs measuring over 5 cm. METHOD: All patients receiving surgery for gastric GIST > 5 cm between 2000 and 2021 in a single tertiary hospital were included. Data were collected from prospectively maintained records. Kaplan-Meier method and log rank test were used to compare survival outcomes. RESULTS: Among 108 included patients, 59 patients had minimally invasive (MI) surgery (54.6%) whereas 49 patients had open surgery (46.4%). The rate of overall postoperative morbidity was 14.8% and the median length was significantly shorter in the MI group [4 (range 2-30) vs. 7 (range 4-33) days; P = 0.007]. The overall R0 resection rate was 98.2% and the rate of tumor rupture was 13%, not different between the two groups. Recurrence occurred in 24% of the whole population without any difference between groups (20.3% vs. 28.7%, p = 0.31). Minimally invasive surgery was not found as a negative prognostic disease-free survival factor. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery could be a safe and feasible alternative to open surgery in large gastric GIST, bringing the benefits of minimally invasive surgery without compromising oncologic results.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Literature suggests colonic resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) instead of Hartmann's procedure (HP) for the treatment of left-sided colonic emergencies. We aim to evaluate the surgical options globally used to treat patients with acute left-sided colonic emergencies and the factors that leading to the choice of treatment, comparing HP and RPA. METHODS: This is a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total 1215 patients with left-sided colonic emergencies who required surgery were included from 204 centers during the period of March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. with a 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: 564 patients (43.1%) were females. The mean age was 65.9 ± 15.6 years. HP was performed in 697 (57.3%) patients and RPA in 384 (31.6%) cases. Complicated acute diverticulitis was the most common cause of left-sided colonic emergencies (40.2%), followed by colorectal malignancy (36.6%). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) were higher in the HP group (P < 0.001). 30-day mortality was higher in HP patients (13.7%), especially in case of bowel perforation and diffused peritonitis. 1-year follow-up showed no differences on ostomy reversal rate between HP and RPA. (P = 0.127). A backward likelihood logistic regression model showed that RPA was preferred in younger patients, having low ASA score (≤ 3), in case of large bowel obstruction, absence of colonic ischemia, longer time from admission to surgery, operating early at the day working hours, by a surgeon who performed more than 50 colorectal resections. CONCLUSIONS: After 100 years since the first Hartmann's procedure, HP remains the most common treatment for left-sided colorectal emergencies. Treatment's choice depends on patient characteristics, the time of surgery and the experience of the surgeon. RPA should be considered as the gold standard for surgery, with HP being an exception.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

(1) Background: Here we report on a retrospective study of an international multicentric cohort after minimally invasive liver resection (SIMMILR) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) from six centers. (2) Methods: Resections were divided by the approach used: open liver resection (OLR), laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and robotic liver resection (RLR). Patients with macrovascular invasion, more than three metastases measuring more than 3 cm or a solitary metastasis more than 5 cm were excluded, and any remaining heterogeneity found was further analyzed after propensity score matching (PSM) to decrease any potential bias. (3) Results: Prior to matching, 566 patients underwent OLR, 462 LLR and 36 RLR for CRLM. After PSM, 142 patients were in each group of the OLR vs. LLR group and 22 in the OLR vs. RLR and 21 in the LLR vs. RLR groups. Blood loss, hospital stay, and morbidity rates were all highly statistically significantly increased in the OLR compared to the LLR group, 636 mL vs. 353 mL, 9 vs. 5 days and 25% vs. 6%, respectively (p < 0.001). Only blood loss was significantly decreased when RLR was compared to OLR and LLR, 250 mL vs. 597 mL, and 224 mL vs. 778 mL, p < 0.008 and p < 0.04, respectively. (4) Conclusions: SIMMILR indicates that minimally invasive approaches for CRLM that follow the Milan criteria may have short term advantages. Notably, larger studies with long-term follow-up comparing robotic resections to both OLR and LLR are still needed.