RESUMEN
AIM: In gastric cancer (GC), D2 lymph node dissection is, alongside negative-margins gastrectomy, of paramount importance. There is a debate between Western and Eastern scientific communities concerning the risk-benefit balance with respect to splenectomy, as Western countries are inclined to perform spleen-preserving gastrectomy due to an increased risk for postoperative complications. In Eastern countries (such as Japan) this is not the case. Our study aimed to determine whether or not spleen-sacrificing total gastrectomy for GC was associated with a higher rate of early postoperative morbidity or mortality. METHOD: We performed a retrospective case-control study in which we included patients who underwent total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for GC (stages I-III) with curative intent, in a single high-volume tertiary oncologic centre. We divided the cases into two groups: spleenpreserving (SP) and spleen-sacrificing (SS) and evaluated the early complications rate following surgery. Afterwards, we performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analysis of the two groups. Results: We included 74 patients, 29 in the SS group and 45 in the SP group. Fifteen cases (20.2%) developed early postoperative complications and the complication rate was 53% (n=8) in the SS group and 46% (n=7) in the SP group. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 2.7%. Conclusions: Splenectomy is not associated with increased early morbidity following total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy if performed by an experienced surgeon.
Asunto(s)
Esplenectomía , Neoplasias Gástricas , Humanos , Esplenectomía/efectos adversos , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Estudios Retrospectivos , Puntaje de Propensión , Resultado del Tratamiento , Gastrectomía/métodos , Escisión del Ganglio Linfático/métodos , Neoplasias Gástricas/patología , Morbilidad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiologíaRESUMEN
AIM: The aim of this work is to describe a protocol and assess the feasibility of harvesting and analysing the mesocolic apical fragment (MAF) for the presence of central lymph node (LN) metastasis and extra lymphatic free tumour cells in a random subgroup extracted from a cohort of complete mesocolic excision colectomies with central vascular ligation. METHOD: Forty-seven patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer were included. A 2/2 cm pyramid of tissue was cut around the central tie and sent for pathological examination. The MAF was sectioned into 16 slices. High-definition images were taken from the slices which were merged into a panoramic three-dimensional image of the MAF. The distribution of LNs in the MAF was quantified. Immunohistochemistry staining for cytokeratin 14 was used to identify isolated tumour cells and micrometastases in the extranodal tissue. RESULTS: No tumoural cells migrating through the apical zone, outside of the LNs, were identified. Margins of resection, mesocolic tissue and LNs were all negative in the subgroup of ultrastaged MAFs. The number of examined central LNs varied between 0 and 24, with positive MAF LNs being identified only in pN2 stages. The rate of positive apical LNs in our cohort was 4.2% (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS: The MAF can be easily extracted from standard specimens, allowing for accurate analysis of lymphatic and extra-nodal tumour cells on the central resection margins, in central LNs and in the apical mesocolic tissue. Future research on larger cohorts is required to establish if analysing the MAF has an impact on patient staging, prognosis and management.