Main Recommendations
The following recommendations should only be applied after a thorough diagnostic evaluation including a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan.
1
ESGE recommends colonic ...stenting to be reserved for patients with clinical symptoms and radiological signs of malignant large-bowel obstruction, without signs of perforation. ESGE does not recommend prophylactic stent placement.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
2
ESGE recommends stenting as a bridge to surgery to be discussed, within a shared decision-making process, as a treatment option in patients with potentially curable left-sided obstructing colon cancer as an alternative to emergency resection.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
3
ESGE recommends colonic stenting as the preferred treatment for palliation of malignant colonic obstruction.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
4
ESGE suggests consideration of colonic stenting for malignant obstruction of the proximal colon either as a bridge to surgery or in a palliative setting.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
5
ESGE suggests a time interval of approximately 2 weeks until resection when colonic stenting is performed as a bridge to elective surgery in patients with curable left-sided colon cancer.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
6
ESGE recommends that colonic stenting should be performed or directly supervised by an operator who can demonstrate competence in both colonoscopy and fluoroscopic techniques and who performs colonic stenting on a regular basis.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
7
ESGE suggests that a decompressing stoma as a bridge to elective surgery is a valid option if the patient is not a candidate for colonic stenting or when stenting expertise is not available.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
Background
Although definitive long-term results are not yet available, the global safety of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer treatment remains controversial. We evaluated differences in the ...safety of laparoscopic rectal resection versus open surgery for cancer.
Methods
A systematic review from 2000 to 2011 was performed searching the Medline and Embase databases (prospero registration CRD42012002406). We included randomized and prospective controlled clinical studies comparing laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer. Primary end points were 30-day mortality and overall morbidity. Then a meta-analysis was conducted by a fixed-effect model, performing a sensitivity analysis by a random-effect model. Relative risk (RR) was used as an indicator of treatment effect; a RR of less than 1.0 was in favor of laparoscopy. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and heterogeneity by the
I
2
test and subgroup analysis on surgical and medical complications.
Results
Twenty-three studies, representing 4,539 patients, met the inclusion criteria; eight were randomized for a total of 1,746 patients. Mortality was observed in 1.0 % of patients in the laparoscopic group and in 2.4 % of patients in the open group. The overall RR was 0.46 (95 % confidence interval 0.21–0.99,
p
= 0.048). The raw incidence of overall complications was lower in the laparoscopic group (31.8 %) compared to the open group (35.4 %). The overall RR was 0.83 (95 % confidence interval 0.76–0.91,
p
< 0.001).
Conclusions
On the basis of evidence of both randomized and prospective controlled series, mortality and morbidity RR, including subgroup analysis, were significantly lower after laparoscopic compared to open surgery.
Background and Aims Twenty years after the first description of the technique, the debate is still open on the role of self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement as a bridge to elective surgery ...for symptomatic left-sided malignant colonic obstruction. The aim was to compare morbidity rates after colonic stenting bridge to surgery (SBTS) versus emergency surgery (ES) for left-sided malignant obstruction. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on SBTS or ES for acute symptomatic malignant left-sided large bowel obstruction. The primary outcome was overall morbidity within 60 days after surgery. Results The meta-analysis included 8 RCTs and 497 patients. Overall mortality within 60 days after surgery was 9.6% in SBTS-treated patients and 9.9% in ES-treated patients (relative risk RR, 0.99; P = .97). Overall morbidity within 60 days after surgery was 33.9% in SBTS-treated patients and 51.2% in ES-treated patients (RR, 0.59; P = .023). The temporary stoma rate was 33.9% after SBTS and 51.4% after ES (RR, 0.67; P < .001). The permanent stoma rate was 22.2% after SBTS and 35.2% after ES (RR, 0.66; P = .003). Primary anastomosis was successful in 70.0% of SBTS-treated patients and 54.1% of ES-treated patients (RR, 1.29; P = .043). Conclusions SBTS was associated with lower short-term overall morbidity and lower rates of temporary and permanent stoma. Depending on multiple factors such as local expertise, clinical status including level of obstruction, and level of certainty of diagnosis, SBTS does offer some advantages with less risk than ES for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction in the short term.
This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage ...(NVUGIH).
Main Recommendations
MR1.
ESGE recommends immediate assessment of hemodynamic status in patients who present with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH), with prompt intravascular volume replacement initially using crystalloid fluids if hemodynamic instability exists (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
MR2.
ESGE recommends a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy that aims for a target hemoglobin between 7 g/dL and 9 g/dL. A higher target hemoglobin should be considered in patients with significant co-morbidity (e. g., ischemic cardiovascular disease) (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
MR3.
ESGE recommends the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Outpatients determined to be at very low risk, based upon a GBS score of 0 – 1, do not require early endoscopy nor hospital admission. Discharged patients should be informed of the risk of recurrent bleeding and be advised to maintain contact with the discharging hospital (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
MR4.
ESGE recommends initiating high dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPI), intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour), in patients presenting with acute UGIH awaiting upper endoscopy. However, PPI infusion should not delay the performance of early endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence).
MR5.
ESGE does not recommend the routine use of nasogastric or orogastric aspiration/lavage in patients presenting with acute UGIH (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
MR6.
ESGE recommends intravenous erythromycin (single dose, 250 mg given 30 – 120 minutes prior to upper gastrointestinal GI endoscopy) in patients with clinically severe or ongoing active UGIH. In selected patients, pre-endoscopic infusion of erythromycin significantly improves endoscopic visualization, reduces the need for second-look endoscopy, decreases the number of units of blood transfused, and reduces duration of hospital stay (strong recommendation, high quality evidence).
MR7.
Following hemodynamic resuscitation, ESGE recommends early (≤ 24 hours) upper GI endoscopy. Very early (< 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy may be considered in patients with high risk clinical features, namely: hemodynamic instability (tachycardia, hypotension) that persists despite ongoing attempts at volume resuscitation; in-hospital bloody emesis/nasogastric aspirate; or contraindication to the interruption of anticoagulation (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
MR8.
ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with spurting or oozing bleeding (Forrest classification Ia and Ib, respectively) or with a nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) receive endoscopic hemostasis because these lesions are at high risk for persistent bleeding or rebleeding (strong recommendation, high quality evidence).
MR9.
ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with an adherent clot (Forrest classification IIb) be considered for endoscopic clot removal. Once the clot is removed, any identified underlying active bleeding (Forrest classification Ia or Ib) or nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) should receive endoscopic hemostasis (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
MR10.
In patients with peptic ulcers having a flat pigmented spot (Forrest classification IIc) or clean base (Forrest classification III), ESGE does not recommend endoscopic hemostasis as these stigmata present a low risk of recurrent bleeding. In selected clinical settings, these patients may be discharged to home on standard PPI therapy, e. g., oral PPI once-daily (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
MR11.
ESGE recommends that epinephrine injection therapy not be used as endoscopic monotherapy. If used, it should be combined with a second endoscopic hemostasis modality (strong recommendation, high quality evidence).
MR12.
ESGE recommends PPI therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with adherent clot not receiving endoscopic hemostasis. PPI therapy should be high dose and administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence).
MR13.
ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy as part of the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). However, in patients with clinical evidence of rebleeding following successful initial endoscopic hemostasis, ESGE recommends repeat upper endoscopy with hemostasis if indicated. In the case of failure of this second attempt at hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) or surgery should be considered (strong recommendation, high quality evidence).
MR14.
In patients with NVUGIH secondary to peptic ulcer, ESGE recommends investigating for the presence of
Helicobacter pylori
in the acute setting with initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy when
H. pylori
is detected. Re-testing for
H. pylori
should be performed in those patients with a negative test in the acute setting. Documentation of successful
H. pylori
eradication is recommended (strong recommendation, high quality evidence).
MR15.
In patients receiving low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis who develop peptic ulcer bleeding, ESGE recommends aspirin be resumed immediately following index endoscopy if the risk of rebleeding is low (e. g., FIIc, FIII). In patients with high risk peptic ulcer (FIa, FIb, FIIa, FIIb), early reintroduction of aspirin by day 3 after index endoscopy is recommended, provided that adequate hemostasis has been established (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
Laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer is associated with quicker return of bowel function, reduced postoperative morbidity rates and shorter length of hospital stay compared to open ...surgery, with no differences in long-term survival. Conversion to open surgery is reported in up to 30% of patients enrolled in randomized control trials comparing open and laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer. In this review, reasons for conversion are anatomical-related factors, disease-related-factors and surgeon-related factors. Body mass index, local tumour extension and co-morbidities are independent predictors of conversion. The current evidence has shown that patients with converted resection for colon cancer have similar outcomes compared to patients undergoing a laparoscopic completed or open resection. The few studies that have assessed the outcomes after conversion of laparoscopic rectal resection reported significantly higher rates of complications and longer length of hospital stay in converted patients compared to laparoscopically treated patients. No definitive conclusions can be drawn when converted and open rectal resections are compared. Early and pre-emptive conversion appears to have more favourable outcomes than reactive conversion; however, further large studies are needed to better define the optimal timing of conversion. With regard to long-term oncologic outcome, overall and disease-free survival in the case of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery seems to be worse than those achieved in patients in whom resection was successfully completed by laparoscopy. Although a worse long-term oncologic outcome has been suggested, it remains difficult to draw a proper conclusion due to the heterogeneity of the long-term outcomes as well as the inclusion of both colon and rectal cancer patients in most of the studies. Therefore, we discuss the currently available evidence of the impact of conversion in laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer on both short-term outcomes and long-term survival.
Background
The evidence regarding the impact of anastomotic leak (AL) after anterior resection (AR) for rectal cancer on oncologic outcomes is controversial, and there are no data about the ...prognostic relevance of the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer (ISREC) AL classification. The aim was to evaluate the oncologic outcomes in patients with AL after AR for rectal cancer. The prognostic value of the ISREC AL grading system was also investigated.
Methods
It is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database including all patients undergoing curative elective AR for rectal cancer (April 1998–September 2013). AL severity was defined according to the ISREC criteria. A multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of poor survival.
Results
A total of 532 patients underwent curative AR (69% laparoscopic) for rectal cancer. The overall AL rate was 7.9%: 15 grade B and 27 grade C ALs. With a median follow-up of 80 (range 12–266) months, 5-year overall survival (OS) was 67.2% in patients with AL and 86.5% in those without AL (
P
= 0.001). Five-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 50.5% and 80.3%, respectively (
P
< 0.001). Local recurrence and distant metastases developed more frequently in AL patients (
P
< 0.05). Grade B AL and no administration or delay of adjuvant chemotherapy were independent predictors for poorer OS and DFS. Grade B AL independently affected also the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy. Circulating C-reactive protein levels at 2 weeks after AL treatment were higher in grade B than grade C patients (
P
= 0.006) and in patients with tumor relapse (
P
= 0.011).
Conclusion
AL after curative AR for rectal cancer and impaired use of adjuvant chemotherapy are associated with poor survival. Postoperative systemic inflammation seems to be more sustained in grade B than that in grade C AL patients, with possible adverse impact on long-term survival.
Background
The evidence supporting the use of the air leak test (ALT) after laparoscopic left-sided colon resection (LLCR) to test the colorectal anastomosis (CA) integrity aiming at reducing the ...rate of postoperative CA leakage (CAL) is not conclusive. The aim of this study was to challenge the use of ALT after elective LLCR.
Methods
It is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database including all patients undergoing elective LLCR with primary CA and no proximal bowel diversion between January 1996 and June 2017. The decision to perform the ALT was based on the individual surgeon routine practice. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for CAL.
Results
A total of 777 LLCR without proximal diversion were included in the analysis: the CA was tested in 398 patients (ALT group), while intraoperative ALT was not performed in 379 patients (No-ALT group). The two groups were similar in demographic characteristics, indication, and type of procedure. Intraoperative ALT was positive in 20 (5%) patients: a stoma was created in 14 (70%) patients, while 6 (30%) patients had a suture repair alone. Overall, postoperative CAL occurred in 32 patients (4.1%): the postoperative CAL rate was lower in ALT patients (2.5% vs. 5.8%,
p
= 0.025). A reoperation was needed in 87.5% of cases. No CAL occurred in the 20 patients with intraoperative positive ALT. Multivariate analysis showed that ASA score 3–4 (OR 5.39, 95% CI 2.53–11.51,
p
< 0.001) and male sex (OR 3.96, 95% CI 1.66–9.43,
p
= 0.002) were independent risk factors for postoperative CAL, while intraoperative ALT independently reduced the postoperative CAL rate (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18–0.88,
p
= 0.022).
Conclusion
Intraoperative ALT allows to detect AL defects after LLCR that can be effectively managed intraoperatively, leading to a significant lower risk of postoperative CAL.
Background
Through-the-scope clips are commonly used for endoscopic hemostasis of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, but their efficacy can be suboptimal in patients with complex bleeding lesions. The ...over-the-scope clip (OTSC) could overcome the limitations of through-the-scope clips by allowing compression of larger amounts of tissue, allowing a more efficient hemostasis. We analyzed the use of OTSC in a consecutive case series of patients with acute GI bleeding unresponsive to conventional endoscopic treatment modalities.
Methods
In a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data in tertiary referral centers, patients undergoing emergency endoscopy for severe acute nonvariceal GI bleeding were treated with the OTSC after failure of conventional techniques. All patients underwent repeat endoscopy 2–4 days after the procedure. Data analysis included primary hemostasis, complications, and 1-month follow-up clinical outcome.
Results
During a 10-month period, 30 patients entered the study consecutively. Bleeding lesions unresponsive to conventional endoscopic treatment (saline/adrenaline injection and through-the-scope clipping) were located in the upper and lower GI tract in 23 and 7 cases, respectively. Primary hemostasis was achieved in 29 of 30 cases (97 %). One patient with bleeding from duodenal bulb ulcer required emergent selective radiological embolization. Rebleeding occurred in two patients 12 and 24 h after the procedure; they were successfully treated with conventional saline/adrenaline endoscopic injection.
Conclusions
OTSC is an effective and safe therapeutic option for severe acute GI bleeding when conventional endoscopic treatment modalities fail.
This article focuses on ethical issues raised by increasing levels of autonomy for surgical robots. These ethical issues are explored mainly by reference to state-ofart case studies and imminent ...advances in Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) and Microsurgery. In both area, surgicalworkspace is limited and the required precision is high. For this reason, increasing levels of robotic autonomy can make a significant difference there, and ethically justified control sharing between humans and robots must be introduced. In particular, from a responsibility and accountability perspective suitable policies for theMeaningfulHuman Control (MHC) of increasingly autonomous surgical robots are proposed. It is highlighted how MHC should be modulated in accordance with various levels of autonomy for MIS and Microsurgery robots. Moreover, finer MHC distinctions are introduced to deal with contextual conditions concerning e.g. soft or rigid anatomical environments.
Background and aims
This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the treatment of ...flat and sessile colorectal lesions >20 mm preoperatively assessed as noninvasive.
Methods
We reviewed the literature published between January 2000 and March 2014. Pooled estimates of the proportion of patients with en bloc, R0 resection, complications, recurrence, and need for further treatment were compared in a meta-analysis using fixed and random effects.
Results
A total of 11 studies and 4678 patients were included. The en bloc resection rate was 89.9% for ESD vs 34.9% for EMR patients (RR 1.93 p < 0.001). The R0 resection rate was 79.6% for ESD vs 36.2% for EMR patients (RR 2.01 p < 0.001). The rate of perforation was 4.9% for the ESD group and 0.9% for EMR (RR 3.19, p < 0.001), while the rate of bleeding was 1.9% for ESD and 2.9% for EMR (RR 0.68, p = 0.070). Therefore, the overall need for further surgery, including surgery for oncologic reasons and surgery for complications, was 7.8% for ESD and 3.0% for EMR (RR 2.40, p < 0.001).
Conclusions
ESD achieves a higher rate of en bloc and R0 resection compared to EMR, at the cost of a higher risk of complications. This, added to an increased need for surgery for oncologic reasons for a plausible tendency to extend indication for endoscopic excision, increases the risk of further surgery after ESD.
PDF
