J M Aranda-Narváez1,2, J González-Cano3,4, A J González-Sánchez3,4, A Titos-García3,4, I Cabrera-Serna3,4, L Romacho-López3,4, I González-Poveda5,4, S Mera-Velasco5,4, L Vázquez-Pedreño6,4, J Santoyo-Santoyo7,4. 1. Trauma and Emergency Surgery Division, General, Digestive and Transplantation Surgery Department, University Regional Hospital, Malaga, Spain. jose.aranda.narvaez@gmail.com. 2. Faculty of Medicine, Malaga University, Malaga, Spain. jose.aranda.narvaez@gmail.com. 3. Trauma and Emergency Surgery Division, General, Digestive and Transplantation Surgery Department, University Regional Hospital, Malaga, Spain. 4. Faculty of Medicine, Malaga University, Malaga, Spain. 5. Colorectal Division, General, Digestive and Transplantation Surgery Department, University Regional Hospital, Malaga, Spain. 6. Endoscopy Division, Gastroenterology and Hepatology Department, University Regional Hospital, Malaga, Spain. 7. Head-in-Chief. General, Digestive and Transplantation Surgery Department, University Regional Hospital, Malaga, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze if perioperative and oncologic outcomes with stenting as a bridge to surgery (SEMS-BS) and interval colectomy performed by acute care surgeons for left-sided occlusive colonic neoplasms (LSCON) are non-inferior to those obtained by colorectal surgeons for non-occlusive tumors of the same location in the full-elective context. METHODS: From January 2011 to January 2021, patients with LSCON at University Regional Hospital in Málaga (Spain) were directed to a SEMS-BS strategy with an interval colectomy performed by acute care surgeons and included in the study group (SEMS-BS). The control group was formed with patients from the Colorectal Division elective surgical activity dataset, matching by ASA, stage, location and year of surgery on a ratio 1:2. Stages IV or palliative stenting were excluded. Software SPSS 23.0 was used to analyze perioperative and oncologic (defined by overall -OS- and disease free -DFS-survival) outcomes. RESULTS: SEMS-BS and control group included 56 and 98 patients, respectively. In SEMS-BS group, rates of technical/clinical failure and perforation were 5.35% (3/56), 3.57% (2/56) and 3.57% (2/56). Surgery was performed with a median interval time of 11 days (9-16). No differences between groups were observed in perioperative outcomes (laparoscopic approach, primary anastomosis rate, morbidity or mortality). As well, no statistically significant differences were observed in OS and DFS between groups, both compared globally (OS:p < 0.94; DFS:p < 0.67, respectively) or by stages I-II (OS:p < 0.78; DFS:p < 0.17) and III (OS:p < 0.86; DFS:p < 0.70). CONCLUSION: Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of a strategy with SEMS-BS for LSCON are non-inferior to those obtained in the elective setting for non-occlusive neoplasms in the same location. Technical and oncologic safety of interval colectomy performed on a semi-scheduled situation by acute care surgeons is absolutely warranted.
PURPOSE: To analyze if perioperative and oncologic outcomes with stenting as a bridge to surgery (SEMS-BS) and interval colectomy performed by acute care surgeons for left-sided occlusive colonic neoplasms (LSCON) are non-inferior to those obtained by colorectal surgeons for non-occlusive tumors of the same location in the full-elective context. METHODS: From January 2011 to January 2021, patients with LSCON at University Regional Hospital in Málaga (Spain) were directed to a SEMS-BS strategy with an interval colectomy performed by acute care surgeons and included in the study group (SEMS-BS). The control group was formed with patients from the Colorectal Division elective surgical activity dataset, matching by ASA, stage, location and year of surgery on a ratio 1:2. Stages IV or palliative stenting were excluded. Software SPSS 23.0 was used to analyze perioperative and oncologic (defined by overall -OS- and disease free -DFS-survival) outcomes. RESULTS: SEMS-BS and control group included 56 and 98 patients, respectively. In SEMS-BS group, rates of technical/clinical failure and perforation were 5.35% (3/56), 3.57% (2/56) and 3.57% (2/56). Surgery was performed with a median interval time of 11 days (9-16). No differences between groups were observed in perioperative outcomes (laparoscopic approach, primary anastomosis rate, morbidity or mortality). As well, no statistically significant differences were observed in OS and DFS between groups, both compared globally (OS:p < 0.94; DFS:p < 0.67, respectively) or by stages I-II (OS:p < 0.78; DFS:p < 0.17) and III (OS:p < 0.86; DFS:p < 0.70). CONCLUSION: Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of a strategy with SEMS-BS for LSCON are non-inferior to those obtained in the elective setting for non-occlusive neoplasms in the same location. Technical and oncologic safety of interval colectomy performed on a semi-scheduled situation by acute care surgeons is absolutely warranted.
Authors: Femke J Amelung; Thijs A Burghgraef; Pieter J Tanis; Jeanin E van Hooft; Frank Ter Borg; Peter D Siersema; Willem A Bemelman; Esther C J Consten Journal: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: José Manuel Aranda-Narváez; Luis Tallón-Aguilar; José Antonio López-Ruiz; Felipe Pareja-Ciuró; José María Jover-Navalón; Fernando Turégano-Fuentes; Salvador Navarro-Soto; José Ceballos-Esparragón; Lola Pérez-Díaz Journal: Cir Esp (Engl Ed) Date: 2018-11-08
Authors: Salomone Di Saverio; Arianna Birindelli; Edoardo Segalini; Matteo Novello; Anna Larocca; Francesco Ferrara; Gian Andrea Binda; Marco Bassi Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Alberto Arezzo; Roberto Passera; Giacomo Lo Secco; Mauro Verra; Marco Augusto Bonino; Eduardo Targarona; Mario Morino Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 9.427