The unprecedented pandemic of COVID-19 has impacted many lives and affects the whole healthcare systems globally. In addition to the considerable workload challenges, surgeons are faced with a number ...of uncertainties regarding their own safety, practice, and overall patient care. This guide has been drafted at short notice to advise on specific issues related to surgical service provision and the safety of minimally invasive surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although laparoscopy can theoretically lead to aerosolization of blood borne viruses, there is no evidence available to confirm this is the case with COVID-19. The ultimate decision on the approach should be made after considering the proven benefits of laparoscopic techniques versus the potential theoretical risks of aerosolization. Nevertheless, erring on the side of safety would warrant treating the coronavirus as exhibiting similar aerosolization properties and all members of the OR staff should use personal protective equipment (PPE) in all surgical procedures during the pandemic regardless of known or suspected COVID status. Pneumoperitoneum should be safely evacuated via a filtration system before closure, trocar removal, specimen extraction, or conversion to open. All emergent endoscopic procedures performed during the pandemic should be considered as high risk and PPE must be used by all endoscopy staff.
OBJECTIVES:The objectives of this systematic review and pooled analysis were to examine long-term survival, morbidity, and mortality following surgical resection of gastric cancer hepatic metastases ...and to identify prognostic factors that improve survival.
BACKGROUND:Patients with hepatic metastases from gastric cancer are traditionally treated with palliative chemotherapy.
METHODS:A systematic literature search was undertaken (1990 to 2015). Publications were included if they studied more than 10 patients undergoing hepatectomy for hepatic metastasis from gastric adenocarcinoma in the absence of peritoneal disease or other distant organ involvement. The primary outcome was the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival. The influence of liver metastasis related factors; multiple vs single and metachronous vs synchronous upon survival was also assessed.
RESULTS:The median number of resections for the 39 studies included was 21 (range 10 to 64). Procedures were associated with a median 30-day morbidity of 24% (0% to 47%) and mortality of 0% (0% to 30%). The median 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival were 68%, 31%, and 27%, respectively. Survival was improved in Far Eastern compared with Western studies; 1-year (73% vs 59%), 3-year (34% vs 24.5%), and 5-year (27.3% vs 16.5%). Surgical resection of hepatic metastases was associated with a significantly improved overall survival (HR = 0.50; P < 0.001). Meta-analysis confirmed the additional survival benefit of solitary compared with multiple hepatic metastases (odds ratio = 0.31; P = 0.011).
CONCLUSIONS:The observed improved survival rates following the resection of hepatic metastasis from gastric adenocarcinoma in selected patients merit a prospective study to formally address the survival benefits and the influence on quality of life of such approach.
The aim of our study was to evaluate the external validity of the MIRO randomized controlled trial findings in a similar nationwide setting “real life” population, especially the benefit of a hybrid ...approach in esophageal resection for pulmonary complication. The external validity of randomized controlled trial findings to the general population with the same condition remains problematic because of the inherent selection bias and rigid inclusion criteria.
This study was a cohort study from a National Health Database (Programme de Medicalisation des Systemes d’Informations) between 2010 and 2022. All adult patients operated on using Ivor Lewis resection for esophageal cancer were included. We first validated the detection algorithm of postoperative complications in the health database. Then, we assessed the primary outcome, which was the comparison of postoperative severe pulmonary complications, leak rate, and 30-day mortality between the 2 surgical approaches (hybrid versus open) over a decade.
Between 2010 and 2012, 162 of 205 patients in the MIRO trial were anonymously identified in the health care database. No difference between randomized controlled trials and healthcare database measurements was found within severe respiratory complications (24% vs 22%, respectively) nor within leak rate (10% vs 9%, respectively). After application of selection criteria according to the MIRO trial, 3,852 patients were included between 2013 and 2022. The hybrid approach was a protective factor against respiratory complications after adjustment for confounding variables (odds ratio = 0.83; 95% confidence interval = 0.71–0.98, P = .025). No significant difference in the 30-day mortality rate or 30-day leakage rate between the types of approach was reported.
This national cohort study demonstrates the external validity of the MIRO randomized controlled trial findings in a real-life population within France.
There is concern that digital public health initiatives used in the management of COVID-19 may marginalise certain population groups. There is an overlap between the demographics of groups at risk of ...digital exclusion (older, lower social grade, low educational attainment and ethnic minorities) and those who are vulnerable to poorer health outcomes from SARS-CoV-2. In this national survey study (n = 2040), we assessed how the UK population; particularly these overlapping groups, reported their preparedness for digital health strategies. We report, with respect to using digital information to make health decisions, that those over 60 are less comfortable (net comfort: 57%) than those between 18 and 39 (net comfort: 78%) and lower social grades are less comfortable (net comfort: 63%) than higher social grades (net comfort: 75%). With respect to a preference for digital over non-digital sources in seeking COVID-19 health information, those over 60 (net preference: 21%) are less inclined than those between 18 and 39 (net preference: 60%) and those of low educational attainment (net preference: 30%) are less inclined than those of high educational attainment (net preference: 52%). Lastly, with respect to distinguishing reliable digital COVID-19 information, lower social grades (net confidence: 55%) are less confident than higher social grades (net confidence: 68%) and those of low educational attainment (net confidence: 51%) are less confident than those of high educational attainment (net confidence: 71%). All reported differences are statistically significant (p < 0.01) following multivariate regression modelling. This study suggests that digital public health approaches to COVID-19 have the potential to marginalise groups who are concurrently at risk of digital exclusion and poor health outcomes from SARS-CoV-2.
OBJECTIVE:The objectives of this study were to establish if R1 resection margin after esophagectomy was (i) a poor prognostic factor independent of patient and tumor characteristics, (ii) a marker of ...tumor aggressiveness and (iii) to look at the impact of adjuvant treatment in this subpopulation.
METHODS:Data were collected from 30 European centers from 2000 to 2010. Patients with an R1 resection margin (n = 242) were compared with those with an R0 margin (n = 2573) in terms of short- and long-term outcomes. Propensity score matching and multivariable analyses were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics.
RESULTS:Independent factors significantly associated with an R1 resection margin included an upper third esophageal tumor location, preoperative malnutrition, and pathological stage III. There were significant differences between the groups in postoperative histology, with an increase in pathological stage III and TRG 4–5 in the R1 group. Total average lymph node harvests were similar between the groups; however, there was an increase in the number of positive lymph nodes seen in the R1 group. Propensity matched analysis confirmed that R1 resection margin was significantly associated with reduced overall survival and increased overall, locoregional, and mixed tumor recurrence. Similar observations were seen in the subgroup that received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. In R1 patients adjuvant therapy improved survival and reduced distant recurrence however failed to affect locoregional recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS:This large multicenter European study provides evidence to support the notion that R1 resection margin is a prognostic indication of aggressive tumor biology with a poor long-term prognosis.
We aimed to identify the presence and length of esophagectomy proficiency gain curves in terms of short- and long-term mortality for esophageal cancer.
Patients who underwent esophagectomy for ...esophageal cancer between 1987 and 2010 with follow-up until 2014 were identified from a well-established, population-based, nationwide Swedish cohort study. Proficiency gain curves were created by using risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis for 30-day, 90-day, 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year all-cause and disease-specific mortality measures. Similarly, the proficiency gain curves for lymph node harvest, resection margin status, and reoperation incidence were assessed as performance-contributing factors to the observed changes in long-term survival.
Esophagectomies in 1,821 patients with esophageal cancer were conducted by 139 surgeons. The change-point in proficiency gain curve for all-cause 30-day mortality was early, at 15 cases, when mortality decreased from 7.9% to 3.1% (P < .001). Later change-points, which ranged from 35 to 59 cases, were observed for 1-, 3- and 5-year mortality rates, for which all-cause mortality decreased from 34.9% to 27.7% (P = .011), from 47.4% to 41.5% (P = .049), and from 31.4% to 19.1% (P = .009), respectively. Similar change-points were observed in disease-specific mortality at 1 and 3 years. There was a continuous increase in lymph node harvest, which did not plateau. Also, change-points were observed for resection margin with tumor involvement at 17 cases, with a reduction from 20.9% to 15.2% (P = .004), and for reoperation rate at 55 cases, with a reduction from 12.6% to 5.0% (P < .001).
The gain of proficiency in esophagectomy for cancer is associated with measurable changes in short- and long-term mortality results. These findings indicate a need for structured national training and mentorship programs for esophageal cancer surgery.
Background
Adhesional small bowel obstruction (SBO) occurs in 14–17 % of patients within 2 years of open colorectal or general surgery. The aim of this pooled analysis is to compare the safety and ...efficacy of laparoscopic versus open treatment of SBO.
Methods
An electronic search of Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were calculated for the effect size of laparoscopic surgery on continuous variables, and pooled odds ratios (PORs) were calculated for discrete variables.
Results
There were eleven non-randomized comparative studies included this review. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (POR = 0.31; 95 % CI 0.16–0.61;
P
= 0.0008), overall morbidity (POR = 0.34; 95 % CI 0.27–0.78;
P
< 0.0001), pneumonia (POR = 0.31; 95 % CI 0.20–0.49;
P
< 0.0001), wound infection (POR = 0.29; 95 % CI 0.12–0.70;
P
= 0.005), and length of hospital stay (WMD = −7.11; 95 % CI −8.47 to −5.75;
P
< 0.0001). The rates of bowel injury and reoperation were not significantly different between the two groups. Operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (WMD = 72.31; 95 % CI 60.96–83.67;
P
< 0.0001).
Conclusion
Laparoscopic surgery for treatment of adhesional SBO improves clinical outcomes and can be performed safely in selected cases with similar rates of bowel injury and reoperation to open surgery. Large scale randomized controlled trials are needed to validate the findings of this pooled analysis of non-randomized data.
Oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer was recently defined by consensus as the presence of no more than two metastases and an 18-week period of oncological stability during chemotherapy. The number ...of patients who fit this criterion and whether their oncological outcome differs from those with multi-metastatic disease is unknown. We analysed a database of 497 patients from 2017 to 2021 with metastatic oesophageal cancer. In total, 36 (7.2%) had oligometastatic disease and significantly improved median overall survival (mOS) versus multi-metastatic disease. In synchronous OMD, mOS was 26.8 months versus 7.3 months and in metachronous OMD, 38.6 months versus 6.1 months (both p < 0.0001). A subset of oligometastatic patients who underwent surgical management of their oligometastases after primary tumour resection demonstrated significantly increased mOS compared with systemic treatment alone (60 months versus 24.4 months; p < 0.038). Oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is associated with improved oncological outcome when compared to multi-metastatic disease. Further work is needed to identify patients who will benefit from aggressive treatment of metastatic oesophagogastric cancer.
Backgrounds
Due to a lack of randomized and large studies, the optimal surgical approach for Siewert 2 gastroesophageal junctional (GEJ) adenocarcinoma remains unknown. This population-based cohort ...study aimed to compare survival between esophagectomy and total gastrectomy for the treatment of Siewert 2 GEJ adenocarcinoma.
Methods
Data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2010 to 2016 was used to identify patients with non-metastatic Siewert 2 GEJ adenocarcinoma who received either esophagectomy (
n
= 999) or total gastrectomy (
n
= 8595). Propensity score-matching (PSM) and multivariable analyses were used to account for treatment selection bias.
Results
Comparison of the unmatched cohort’s baseline demographics showed that the patients who received esophagectomy were younger, had a lower burden of medical comorbidities, and had fewer clinical positive lymph nodes. The patients in the unmatched cohort who received gastrectomy had a significantly shorter overall survival than those who received esophagectomy (median, 47 vs. 68 months
p
< 0.001; 5-year survival, 45 % vs. 53 %). After matching, gastrectomy was associated with significantly reduced survival compared with esophagectomy (median, 51 vs. 68 months
p
< 0.001; 5-year survival, 47 % vs. 53 %), which remained in the adjusted analyses (hazard ratio HR, 1.22; 95 % confidence interval CI, 1.09–1.35;
p
< 0.001).
Conclusions
In this large-scale population study with propensity-matching to adjust for confounders, esophagectomy was prognostically superior to gastrectomy for the treatment of Siewert 2 GEJ adenocarcinoma despite comparable lymph node harvest, length of stay, and 90-day mortality. Adequately powered randomized controlled trials with robust surgical quality assurance are the next step in evaluating the prognostic outcomes of these surgical strategies for GEJ cancer.
PDF
