Emergency surgery for splenic flexure cancer: results of the SFC Study Group database.


Journal

World journal of emergency surgery : WJES
ISSN: 1749-7922
Titre abrégé: World J Emerg Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101266603

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
29 04 2021
Historique:
received: 18 02 2021
accepted: 19 04 2021
entrez: 30 4 2021
pubmed: 1 5 2021
medline: 30 9 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The effectiveness of surgical treatment for splenic flexure carcinomas (SFCs) in emergency settings remains unexplored. This study aims to compare the perioperative and long-term outcomes of different alternatives for emergency SFC resection. This multicenter retrospective study was based on the SFC Study Group database. For the present analysis, SFC patients were selected if they had received emergency surgical resection with curative intent between 2000 and 2018. Extended right colectomy (ERC), left colectomy (LC), and segmental left colectomy (SLC) were evaluated and compared. The study sample was composed of 90 SFC patients who underwent emergency ERC (n = 55, 61.1%), LC (n = 18, 20%), or SLC (n = 17, 18.9%). Bowel obstruction was the most frequent indication for surgery (n = 75, 83.3%), and an open approach was chosen in 81.1% of the patients. A higher incidence of postoperative complications was observed in the ERC group (70.9%) than in the LC (44.4%) and SLC groups (47.1%), with a significant procedure-related difference for severe postoperative complications (Dindo-Clavien ≥ III; adjusted odds ratio for ERC vs. LC:7.23; 95% CI 1.51-34.66; p = 0.013). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 8 (11.2%) patients, with no differences between the groups (p = 0.902). R0 resection was achieved in 98.9% of the procedures, and ≥ 12 lymph nodes were retrieved in 92.2% of patients. Overall and disease-free survival rates at 5 years were similar between the groups and were significantly associated with stage pT4 and the presence of synchronous metastases. In the emergency setting, ERC and open surgery are the most frequently performed procedures. ERC is associated with increased odds of severe postoperative complications when compared to more conservative SFC resections. Nonetheless, all the alternatives seem to provide similar pathologic and long-term outcomes, supporting the oncological safety of more conservative resections for emergency SFCs.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The effectiveness of surgical treatment for splenic flexure carcinomas (SFCs) in emergency settings remains unexplored. This study aims to compare the perioperative and long-term outcomes of different alternatives for emergency SFC resection.
METHOD
This multicenter retrospective study was based on the SFC Study Group database. For the present analysis, SFC patients were selected if they had received emergency surgical resection with curative intent between 2000 and 2018. Extended right colectomy (ERC), left colectomy (LC), and segmental left colectomy (SLC) were evaluated and compared.
RESULTS
The study sample was composed of 90 SFC patients who underwent emergency ERC (n = 55, 61.1%), LC (n = 18, 20%), or SLC (n = 17, 18.9%). Bowel obstruction was the most frequent indication for surgery (n = 75, 83.3%), and an open approach was chosen in 81.1% of the patients. A higher incidence of postoperative complications was observed in the ERC group (70.9%) than in the LC (44.4%) and SLC groups (47.1%), with a significant procedure-related difference for severe postoperative complications (Dindo-Clavien ≥ III; adjusted odds ratio for ERC vs. LC:7.23; 95% CI 1.51-34.66; p = 0.013). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 8 (11.2%) patients, with no differences between the groups (p = 0.902). R0 resection was achieved in 98.9% of the procedures, and ≥ 12 lymph nodes were retrieved in 92.2% of patients. Overall and disease-free survival rates at 5 years were similar between the groups and were significantly associated with stage pT4 and the presence of synchronous metastases.
CONCLUSION
In the emergency setting, ERC and open surgery are the most frequently performed procedures. ERC is associated with increased odds of severe postoperative complications when compared to more conservative SFC resections. Nonetheless, all the alternatives seem to provide similar pathologic and long-term outcomes, supporting the oncological safety of more conservative resections for emergency SFCs.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33926504
doi: 10.1186/s13017-021-00365-0
pii: 10.1186/s13017-021-00365-0
pmc: PMC8086132
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

20

Références

Tech Coloproctol. 2020 Feb;24(2):191-198
pubmed: 31939046
Am J Surg. 2018 Aug;216(2):251-254
pubmed: 28709626
Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Jun;25(6):1454-1455
pubmed: 29616422
Colorectal Dis. 2020 Feb;22(2):146-153
pubmed: 31454443
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016 Mar;31(3):623-30
pubmed: 26689401
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011 Feb;37(2):134-9
pubmed: 21193285
Sci Rep. 2019 Jul 29;9(1):10953
pubmed: 31358904
Am Surg. 2019 Feb 1;85(2):177-182
pubmed: 30819295
Dis Colon Rectum. 2020 Oct;63(10):1372-1382
pubmed: 32969880
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2021 Feb;36(2):311-322
pubmed: 32975595
J Surg Oncol. 2018 Nov;118(6):1027-1033
pubmed: 30212600
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2017 Oct;27(5):318-327
pubmed: 28796653
Br J Surg. 2000 Nov;87(11):1480-93
pubmed: 11091234
Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Jun;42(2):69-76
pubmed: 20622960
Tech Coloproctol. 2020 Jan;24(1):41-48
pubmed: 31834555
Surg Today. 2014 Nov;44(11):2045-51
pubmed: 24306213
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-9
pubmed: 18313558
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018 Sep;33(9):1201-1213
pubmed: 29845387
Colorectal Dis. 2020 Aug 5;:
pubmed: 32757361
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012 Jan;27(1):89-93
pubmed: 21850401
Surg Endosc. 2021 Feb;35(2):661-672
pubmed: 32072288
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2016 May;98(5):303-7
pubmed: 27023638
J Gastroenterol. 2000;35(7):528-35
pubmed: 10905361
Surg Endosc. 2009 Oct;23(10):2321-6
pubmed: 19266238
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019 May;29(5):621-626
pubmed: 30950767
Ann Surg. 2013 May;257(5):909-15
pubmed: 23579542

Auteurs

Nicola de'Angelis (N)

Unit of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Digestive Surgery, General Regional Hospital F. Miulli, Acquaviva delle Fonti, Bari, Italy.
University of Paris Est, UPEC, Créteil, France.

Eloy Espin (E)

Unit of Colorectal Surgery, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron-Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Frederic Ris (F)

Service of Abdominal Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals and Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland.

Filippo Landi (F)

Department of General Surgery, Viladecans Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.

Bertrand Le Roy (B)

Department of Digestive and Hepato-biliary Surgery, Hospital Estaing, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

Federico Coccolini (F)

General, Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Bufalini Hospital, Cesena, Italy.

Valerio Celentano (V)

Minimally Invasive Colorectal Unit, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK.
University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.

Angela Gurrado (A)

Academic Unit of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Human Oncology, University of Bari "Aldo Moro" Medical School, Bari, Italy.

Denis Pezet (D)

Department of Digestive and Hepato-biliary Surgery, Hospital Estaing, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

Giorgio Bianchi (G)

Unit of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Digestive Surgery, General Regional Hospital F. Miulli, Acquaviva delle Fonti, Bari, Italy.

Riccardo Memeo (R)

Unit of HPB and Emergency Surgery, General Regional Hospital F. Miulli, Acquaviva delle Fonti, Bari, Italy.

Giulio C Vitali (GC)

Service of Abdominal Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals and Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland.

Alejandro Solis (A)

Unit of Colorectal Surgery, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron-Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Christine Denet (C)

Department of Digestive Oncologic and Metabolic Surgery, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.

Salomone Di Saverio (S)

Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.

Gian Luigi de'Angelis (GL)

Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, University Hospital of Parma, University of Parma, Parma, Italy. gianluigi.deangelis@unipr.it.

Miquel Kraft (M)

Unit of Colorectal Surgery, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron-Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Paula Gonzálvez-Guardiola (P)

Department of General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario Doctor Peset, Valencia, Spain.

Aine Stakelum (A)

Department of Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland.

Fausto Catena (F)

Department of Emergency and Trauma Surgery, Parma University Hospital, Parma, Italy.

David Fuks (D)

Department of Digestive Oncologic and Metabolic Surgery, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.

Des C Winter (DC)

Department of Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland.

Mario Testini (M)

Academic Unit of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Human Oncology, University of Bari "Aldo Moro" Medical School, Bari, Italy.

Aleix Martínez-Pérez (A)

Unit of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Digestive Surgery, General Regional Hospital F. Miulli, Acquaviva delle Fonti, Bari, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH