Gastric cancer: Current status of lymph node dissection

D2 procedure has been accepted in Far East as the standard treatment for both early(EGC) and advanced gastric cancer(AGC) for many decades. Recently EGC has been successfully treated with endoscopy by endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection, when restricted or extended Gotoda's criteria can be applied and D1+ surgery is offered only to patients not fitted for less invasive treatment. Furthermore, two randomised controlled trials(RCTs) have been demonstrating the non inferiority of minimally invasive technique as compared to standard open surgery for the treatment of early cases and recently the feasibility of adequate D1+ dissection has been demonstrated also for the robot assisted technique. In case of AGC the debate on the extent of nodal dissection has been open for many decades. While D2 gastrectomy was performed as the standard procedure in eastern countries, mostly based on observational and retrospective studies, in the west the Medical Research Council(MRC), Dutch and Italian RCTs have been conducted to show a survival benefit of D2 over D1 with evidence based medicine. Unfortunately both the MRC and the Dutch trials failed to show a survival benefit after the D2 procedure, mostly due to the significant increase of postoperative morbidity and mortality, which was referred to splenopancreatectomy. Only 15 years after the conclusion of its accrual, the Dutch trial could report a significant decrease of recur-rence after D2 procedure. Recently the long term survival analysis of the Italian RCT could demonstrate a benefit for patients with positive nodes treated with D2 gastrectomy without splenopancreatectomy. As nowadays also in western countries D2 procedure can be done safely with pancreas preserving technique and without preventive splenectomy, it has been suggested in several national guidelines as the recommended procedure for patients with AGC.

Conversion of laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer: What is the impact on short-term outcomes and survival?

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.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease and morbid obesity: To sleeve or not to sleeve?

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy(LSG) has reached wide popularity during the last 15 years, due to the limited morbidity and mortality rates, and the very good weight loss results and effects on comorbid conditions. However, there are concerns regarding the effects of LSG on gastroesophageal reflux disease(GERD). The interpretation of the current evidence is challenged by the fact that the LSG technique is not standardized, and most studies investigate the presence of GERD by assessing symptoms and the use of acid reducing medications only. A few studies objectively investigated gastroesophageal function and the reflux profile by esophageal manometry and 24-h p H monitoring, reporting postoperative normalization of esophageal acid exposure in up to 85% of patients with preoperative GERD, and occurrence of de novo GERD in about 5% of cases. There is increasing evidence showing the key role of the surgical technique on the incidence of postoperative GERD. Main technical issues are a relative narrowing of the mid portion of the gastric sleeve, a redundant upper part of the sleeve(both depending on the angle under which the sleeve is stapled), and the presence of a hiatal hernia. Concomitant hiatal hernia repair is recommended. To date, either medical therapy with proton pump inhibitors or conversion of LSG to laparoscopic Rouxen-Y gastric bypass are the available options for the management of GERD after LSG. Recently, new minimally invasive approaches have been proposed in patients with GERD and hypotensive LES: the LINX? Reflux Management System procedure and the Stretta? procedure. Large studies are needed to assess the safety and long-term efficacy of these new approaches. In conclusion, the recent publication of p H monitoring data and the new insights in the association between sleeve morphology and GERD control have led to a wider acceptance of LSG as bariatric procedure also in obese patients with GERD, as recently stated in the 5^(th) International Consensus Conference on sleeve gastrectomy.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery:what indications in 2013?

Thanks to major advances in the field of surgical techniques and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy,along with more accurate pre-operative staging tools and the widespread introduction of population-based screening programs,treatment of rectal cancer has been evolving over the past few decades,moving towards a more tailored approach.This has brought a shift in the treatment algorithm of benign rectal lesions and selected early rectal cancers,for which today transanal endoscopic microsurgery(TEM)is accepted as an effective alternative to abdominal surgery.In 2013,topics of controversy are the role of TEM in the treatment of more advanced rectal cancers,in cases of complete pathological response after chemoradiation therapy and the role of TEM as a platform for single-port surgery and NOTES.This article reviews the current indications for TEM and the future perspectives of this approach in the treatment of rectal tumors.