18 research outputs found

    Laparoscopyc versus laparotomic adrenalectomy. Preliminary reports

    No full text
    The authors report their experience about laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of adrenal tumours. Three laparoscopic right adrenalectomies were performed. From a comparison with five open adrenalectomies, microinvasive surgery is more advantageous than traditional management: recovery is earlier, incisions are smaller, post-operative discomfort is less, physiologic functions recover in a short time, return to full professional activity in one week

    Laparoscopic versus laparotomic adrenalectomy: preliminary experiences

    No full text
    The authors report their experience about laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of adrenal tumours. Three laparoscopic right adrenalectomies were performed. From a comparison with five open adrenalectomies, microinvasive surgery is more advantageous than traditional management: recovery is earlier, incisions are smaller, post-operative discomfort is less, physiologic functions recover in a short time, return to full professional activity in one week

    Correction to: Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: the SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e Nuove Tecnologie) network prospectivetrial on 1225 cases comparing intra corporeal versus extra corporeal ileo‐colic side‐to‐side anastomosis (Surgical Endoscopy, (2019), 10.1007/s00464-019-07255-2)

    No full text
    Due to an error in production the members of SICE CoDIG (Colon Dx Italian Group) listed in the Acknowledgments were not tagged correctly as authors in the XML of this article. This listing is presented again here: SICE CoDIG (ColonDxItalianGroup): V. Adamo (S Lazzaro Alba – CN), A. Agrusa (Palermo), G. Alemanno (Firenze), M.E. Allaix (Torino), A. Alò (Orbassano TO), A. Altamura (Tricase – LE), A. Ambrosi (Foggia), M. Antoniutti (Bassano del Grappa – VI), D. Apa (Roma), G. Arcuri (Gubbio – PG), G.L Baiocchi (Brescia), A. Balani (Gorizia), G. Baldazzi (Milano), M. Basti (Pescara), C. Benvenuto (Protogruaro – VE), S. Berti (La Spezia), L. Boni (Milano), F. Borghi (Cuneo), E. Botteri (Brescia), R. Brachet Contul (Aosta), A. Brescia (Roma), A. Budassi (Frabriano - AN), L. Cafagna (Andria), M. Calgaro (S Lazzaro Alba – CN), P.G. Calò (Cagliari), R. Campagnacci (Jesi – AN), G. Canova (Borgosesia – VC), G.L. Canu (Cagliari), V. Caracino (Pescara), P. Carcoforo (Ferrara), M. Carlini (Roma), L. Casali (Fidenza – PR), D. Cassetti (Siena), E. Cassinotti (Milano), M. Catarci (Ascoli Piceno), M. Cesari (Città di Castello – PG), P. Checcacci (Firenze), P. Ciano (Ascoli Piceno), M. Clementi (L’ Aquila), G. Cocorullo (Palermo), F. Colombo (Milano), G. Concone (Milano), A. Contine (Città di Castello – PG), M. Coppola (Lanusei – NU), A. Coratti (Firenze), F. Corcione (Napoli), P. Corleone (Trieste), L. Covotta (Contrada Pozzillo – AV), D. Cuccurullo (Napoli), P. Cumbo (Chieri – TO), G. D’Ambrosio (Roma), F. De Angelis (Latina), M. De Luca (Montebelluna –TV), N. De Manzini (Trieste), C. De Nisco (Nuoro), G.D. De Palma (Napoli), P. De Paolis (Torino), M. Degiuli (Orbassano – TO), D. Delogu (Lanusei – NU), P. Delrio (Napoli), A. Deserra (Cagliari), A. Donini (Perugia), U. Elmore (Milano), G. Ercolani (Forlì), E. Erdas (Cagliari), L. Fabris (Cles – TN), G. Ferrari (Milano), C. Feo (Valle Oppio – FE), F. Fidanza (Portogruaro – VE), D. Foschi (Milano),R. Galleano (Pietra Ligure – SV), G. Garulli (Rimini), F. Gatti (Milano), A. Gattolin (Mondovì – CN), S. Gelati (Conegliano Veneto – TV), R. Gelmini (Modena), O. Ghazouani (Pietra Ligure – SV), A. Gioffrè (Roma), S. Gobbi (Olbia), V. Grammatico (Chieri – TO), A. Guariniello (Ravenna), S. Giannessi (Pistoia), M. Guerrieri (Ancona), L. Guerriero (Napoli), G. Gullotta (Palermo), H. Impellizzeri (Peschiera del Garda – VR), M. Izzo (Firenze), E. Jovine (Bologna), G. Lezoche (Ancona), C. Lirusso (Udine), R. Lombardi (Bologna), M. Longoni (Milano), A. Lucchi (Riccione – RN), A.P. Luzzi (Genova), P. Marini (Roma), A.G. Marrosu (Sassari), A. Martino (Udine), R. Mazza (Perugia), S. Mazzoccato (Jesi – AN), F. Medas (Cagliari), A. Meloni (San Gavino Monreale – VS), M. Milone (Napoli), E. Minciotti (Gubbio – PG), F. Monari (Riccione – RN), G. Moretto (Peschiera del Garda – VR), I.A. Muttillo (Roma), G. Navarra (Messina), S. Neri (Sassuolo - MO), A. Oldani (Zingonia – BG), S. Olmi (Zingonia – BG), E. Opocher (Milano), E. Osenda (Trieste), R. Ottonello (Muravera – CA), V. Panebianco (Taormina - CT), M. Pavanello (Conegliano Veneto – TV), F. Pecchini (Modena), L. Pellegrino (Cuneo), D. Pennisi (Gorizia), N. Perrotta (Potenza), D. Pertile (Genova), R. Petri (Udine), A. Picchetto (Roma), M. Piccoli (Modena), B. Pirrera (Rimini), A. Pisani Ceretti (Milano), M. Pisano (Muravera – CA), M. Podda (Nuoro), N. Portolani (Brescia), L. Presenti (Olbia), A. Puzziello (Salerno), S. Razzi (Aosta), D. Rega (Napoli), E. Restini (Bari), G. Ricci (Roma), M. Rigamonti (Cles – TN), U. Rivolta (Magenta), V. Robustelli (Pistoia), E. Romairone (Genova), R. Rosati (Milano), E. Rosso (Brescia), F. Roviello (Siena), S. Sala (Sassuolo – MO), M. Santarelli (Torino), G. Sarro (Magenta), A. Sartori (Montebelluna –TV), S. Scabini (Genova), F. Scognamillo (Sassari), R. Sechi (San Gavino Monreale – VS), L. Solaini (Forlì), G. Soliani (Ferrara), P. Soliani (Ravenna), E. Soligo (Vercelli), M. Sorrentino (Latisana – UD); G. Spinoglio (Milano), E. Stratta (Genova), A. Taddei (Firenze), G. Talamo (La Spezia), S. Targa (Valle Oppio – FE), N. Tartaglia (Foggia), S. Testa (Vercelli), P. Ubiali (Pordenone), A. Valeri (Firenze), F. Vasta (Taormina - CT), A. Verzelli (Fabriano – AN), R. Vicentini (L’Aquila), G. Viola (Tricase – LE), V. Violi (Fidenza - PR), M. Zago (Borgosesia – VC), L. Zampino (Milano)

    Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: the SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e Nuove Tecnologie) network prospective trial on 1225 cases comparing intra corporeal versus extra corporeal ileo-colic side-to-side anastomosis

    No full text
    Background: While laparoscopic approach for right hemicolectomy (LRH) is considered appropriate for the surgical treatment of both malignant and benign diseases of right colon, there is still debate about how to perform the ileo-colic anastomosis. The ColonDxItalianGroup (CoDIG) was designed as a cohort, observational, prospective, multi-center national study with the aims of evaluating the surgeons’ attitude regarding the intracorporeal (ICA) or extra-corporeal (ECA) anastomotic technique and the related surgical outcomes. Methods: One hundred and twenty-five Surgical Units experienced in colorectal and advanced laparoscopic surgery were invited and 85 of them joined the study. Each center was asked not to change its surgical habits. Data about demographic characteristics, surgical technique and postoperative outcomes were collected through the official SICE website database. One thousand two hundred and twenty-five patients were enrolled between March 2018 and September 2018. Results: ICA was performed in 70.4% of cases, ECA in 29.6%. Isoperistaltic anastomosis was completed in 85.6%, stapled in 87.9%. Hand-sewn enterotomy closure was adopted in 86%. Postoperative complications were reported in 35.4% for ICA and 50.7% for ECA; no significant difference was found according to patients’ characteristics and technologies used. Median hospital stay was significantly shorter for ICA (7.3 vs. 9 POD). Postoperative pain in patients not prescribed opioids was significantly lower in ICA group. Conclusions: In our survey, a side-to-side isoperistaltic stapled ICA with hand-sewn enterotomy closure is the most frequently adopted technique to perform ileo-colic anastomosis after any indications for elective LRH. According to literature, our study confirmed better short-term outcomes for ICA, with reduction of hospital stay and postoperative pain. Trial registration: Clinical trial (Identifier: NCT03934151)

    Is the significant risk of perioperative complications associated with radical surgery following non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early colorectal cancer still acceptable?

    No full text

    Effect of centre volume on pathological outcomes and postoperative complications after surgery for colorectal cancer: results of a multicentre national study

    No full text
    Background: The association between volume, complications and pathological outcomes is still under debate regarding colorectal cancer surgery. The aim of the study was to assess the association between centre volume and severe complications, mortality, less-than-radical oncologic surgery, and indications for neoadjuvant therapy. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 16,883 colorectal cancer cases from 80 centres (2018-2021). Outcomes: 30-day mortality; Clavien-Dindo grade >2 complications; removal of ≥ 12 lymph nodes; non-radical resection; neoadjuvant therapy. Quartiles of hospital volumes were classified as LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, and VERY HIGH. Independent predictors, both overall and for rectal cancer, were evaluated using logistic regression including age, gender, AJCC stage and cancer site. Results: LOW-volume centres reported a higher rate of severe postoperative complications (OR 1.50, 95% c.i. 1.15-1.096, P = 0.003). The rate of ≥ 12 lymph nodes removed in LOW-volume (OR 0.68, 95% c.i. 0.56-0.85, P < 0.001) and MEDIUM-volume (OR 0.72, 95% c.i. 0.62-0.83, P < 0.001) centres was lower than in VERY HIGH-volume centres. Of the 4676 rectal cancer patients, the rate of ≥ 12 lymph nodes removed was lower in LOW-volume than in VERY HIGH-volume centres (OR 0.57, 95% c.i. 0.41-0.80, P = 0.001). A lower rate of neoadjuvant chemoradiation was associated with HIGH (OR 0.66, 95% c.i. 0.56-0.77, P < 0.001), MEDIUM (OR 0.75, 95% c.i. 0.60-0.92, P = 0.006), and LOW (OR 0.70, 95% c.i. 0.52-0.94, P = 0.019) volume centres (vs. VERY HIGH). Conclusion: Colorectal cancer surgery in low-volume centres is at higher risk of suboptimal management, poor postoperative outcomes, and less-than-adequate oncologic resections. Centralisation of rectal cancer cases should be taken into consideration to optimise the outcomes
    corecore