Search

The impact of body mass index (BMI) on postoperative outcomes after curative resection for esophageal cancer has been assessed in many studies worldwide with conflicting conclusions. The aim of this metaanalysis is to evaluate the influence of preoperative BMI on surgical and oncologic outcomes after radical surgery for esophageal cancer, in Western studies. A comprehensive electronic search was performed to identify Western publications reporting BMI and outcomes following surgery for esophageal cancer. Articles that did not report preoperative BMI, postoperative morbidity, and early mortality were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed using the OpenMetaAnalyst software (Version 10.10). One hundred and ninety records were examined and 8 studies were included with a total of 2838 patients. The study population was stratified into two groups: a nonobese group (BMI < 30 kg/m2), containing 2199 patients, and an obese group (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), with 639 patients. In the obese group, there was an increased risk (up to 35%) of anastomotic leak (P = 0.003; RR: 0.857, 95% CI: 0.497, 0.867). The obese group showed a significantly more favorable five-year overall survival (P = 0.011). Although there was a significant association between anastomotic leak and obesity, patients with obesity also have a better overall 5-year survival. This meta-analysis demonstrates that patients with obesity should be counseled regarding the specific risks of surgery but they can be reassured that despite these risks overall outcome is satisfactory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim Data on ERAS for gastrectomy are scarce and the majority of the studies come from Eastern countries. Patients in the West are older and suffer from more advanced tumors that impair their clinical conditions and often require neoadjuvant treatment. This retrospective study assessed the feasibility and safety of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol for gastrectomy in a Western center. Methods We conducted a single-center study of 351 patients operated for gastric cancer: 103, operated from January 2015 to December 2016, followed the standard pathway, while 248, operated from January 2017 to December 2019, followed the ERAS program. The primary outcomes considered were length of hospital stay (LOS) and direct costs. Secondary outcomes were 90-day morbidity and mortality, readmission rate and compliance with ERAS items. A propensity score (PS) was built on confounding variables. Results Compliance with ERAS items after the program was ≥70%. Univariable analysis evidenced a 2-day median reduction in LOS and a median cost reduction of €826 per patient in ERAS group. PS-based multivariable analysis confirmed a significant 2-day decrease in median LOS and a €1097 saving after ERAS introduction. Ninety-day mortality decreased slightly in ERAS group, while complications and readmissions did not significantly change. When complications were included in the multivariable analysis, ERAS retained its significance, although the effects on LOS and cost were blunted: median reduction was one day and €775, respectively. Conclusion ERAS for gastrectomy improved patients' recovery and reduced hospital costs without changes in morbidity, mortality or readmission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim Evidence against the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy are increasing. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether this practice is still widespread. We conducted a survey among Italian surgeons through the Italian Gastric Cancer Study Group and the Polispecialistic Society of Young Surgeons, aiming to understand the current use of prophylactic drain. Methods A 23-item questionnaire-based survey was developed to analyze the current practice and the individual opinion about the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy. Groups based on age, experience and unit volume were separately analyzed. Results Response of 104 surgeons from 73 surgical units were collected. A standardized ERAS protocol for gastrectomy was applied by 42% of the interviewed surgeons. The large majority of the surgeons, regardless of age, experience or unit volume, declared to routinely place one or more drain after gastrectomy. Only 2 (1.9%) and 7 surgeons (6.7%) belonging to high volume units, do not routinely place drains after total and subtotal gastrectomy, respectively. More than 60% of the interviewed remove the drain on postoperative day 4–6 after performing an assessment of the anastomosis integrity. Interestingly, less than half of the surgeons believe that drain is the main tool for leak management, and this percentage further drops among younger surgeons. On the other hand, drain's role seems to be more defined for duodenal stump leak treatment, with almost 50% of the surgeons recognizing its importance. Conclusion Routine use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy is still a widespread practice even if younger surgeons are more persuaded that it could not be advantageous. New and stronger evidence are needed to define the role of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim Prophylactic use of abdominal drain in gastrectomy has been questioned in the last 15 years and a 2015 Cochrane meta-analysis on four RCTs concluded that there was no convincing evidence to the routine drain placement in gastrectomy. Nevertheless, the Authors evidenced the moderate/low quality of the included studies and highlighted how 3 out of 4 came from Eastern countries. After 2015 only retrospective studies have been published, all with inconsistent results. Methods ADiGe (Abdominal Drin in GastrEctomy) Trial is a multicenter prospective randomized non-inferiority trial with a parallel design. It aimed to verify whether avoiding routine use of abdominal drain is burdened with complications, particularly an increase in postoperative invasive procedures. Patients with gastric cancer, scheduled for subtotal or total gastrectomy with curative intent, are eligible for inclusion, irrespective of previous oncological treatment. The primary composite endpoint is reoperation or percutaneous drainage procedures within 30 postoperative days. The primary analysis will verify whether the incidence of the primary composite endpoint is higher in the experimental arm, avoiding routine drain placement, than control arm, undergoing prophylactic drain placement, in order to falsify or support the null hypothesis of inferiority. Secondary endpoints assessed for superiority are overall morbidity and mortality, Comprehensive Complications Index, incidence and time for diagnosis of anastomotic and duodenal leaks, length of hospital stay, readmission rate. Trial registration Prospectively registered (last updated on October 29, 2020) at Clinicaltrials.gov with the identifier NCT04227951, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04227951. Results Assuming one-sided alpha of 5%, and cumulative incidence of the primary composite endpoint of 6.4% in control arm and 4.2% in the experimental one, 364 patients allow to achieve 80% power to detect a non-inferiority margin difference between the arm proportions of 3.6%. Considering a 10% drop-out rate, 404 patients are needed. In order to have a balanced percentage between total and subtotal gastrectomy, recruitment will end at 202 patients for each type of gastrectomy. The surgeon and the patient are blinded until the end of the operation, while postoperative course is not blinded to patient and caregivers. Conclusion ADiGe Trial could contribute to critically re-evaluate the role of prophylactic drain in gastrectomy, a still widely used procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]