Search

Pancreatic cancer represents one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), normothermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (NIPEC), and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been proven with curative intent mainly for other tumors and there is a lack of consensus regarding possible benefits also in pancreatic cancer. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide an up-to-date overview of the effectiveness and safety of intraperitoneal treatments in the management of pancreatic cancer.A systematic review of articles was conducted according to PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 guidelines. 11 studies were included in the analysis.We included in our analysis 212 patients subdivided in three groups: 64 in the HIPEC group (57 with prophylactic intent and 7 with curative intent), 55 in the PIPAC group and 93 in the NIPEC group. Primary outcomes were represented by survival rates; we evidenced at an observation time of three years a survival of 24% in the HIPEC group (25.5% in the prophylactic arm and 6.2% in the curative arm), 5.3% in the PIPAC group and 7.9% in the NIPEC group.HIPEC could be considered as a promising technique for prophylaxis and treatment of peritoneal metastasis (PM) in case of borderline resectable and locally advanced disease. Increased survival rates emerged without additional morbidity when surgical resection and CRS are possible. In addition, our data about PIPAC and NIPEC as palliative treatment in unresectable disease seems to identify more favorable survival rates compared to literature.

Background gastric cancer patients frequently develop peritoneal metastases (PM) with a poor long-term prognosis. A solid body of evidence underlines the beneficial role of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) on survival, but to date, there is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal strategy in the treatment of locally advanced primary tumors with or without peritoneal metastasis. The present meta-analysis aims to assess the impact of CRS + HIPEC on survival analyzing the results of randomized studies only. Methods A systematic review of articles was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Twelve studies were included in qualitative and quantitative analysis. Results A survival benefit for patients treated with CRS + HIPEC at all time points was highlighted. However, difference in survival was significant at all time points for patients treated for prophylaxis of PM, but no difference was found when considering resection with a curative intent. The 1, 2, 3 and 5-year survival rates (SR) for patients undergoing CRS + HIPEC were 86.9%, 70.5%, 63.7% and 55.7% respectively. CRS + HIPEC for the treatment rather than prophylaxis of PM was the only predictor of a reduced 3y SR. Conclusions CRS + HIPEC may lead to improved prognosis for patients suffering from locally advanced gastric cancer in both prophylactic and curative settings. However, due to far from negligible postoperative morbidity and mortality rates, a strict patient selection is crucial to achieve the best results. The presence of extraperitoneal disease strongly limits the indication of this kind of surgery.

Pelvic trauma continues to have a high mortality rate despite damage control techniques for bleeding control. The aim of our study was to evaluate how Extra-peritoneal Pelvic Packing (EPP) and Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) impact the efficacy on mortality and hemodynamic impact. We retrospectively evaluated patients who sustained blunt trauma, pelvic fracture and hemodynamic instability from 2002 to 2018. We excluded a concomitant severe brain injury, resuscitative thoracotomy, penetrating trauma and age below 14 years old. The study population was divided in EPP and REBOA Zone III group. Propensity score matching was used to adjust baseline differences and then a one-to-one matched analysis was performed. We selected 83 patients, 10 for group: survival rate was higher in EPP group, but not significantly in each outcome we analyzed (24 h, 7 day, overall). EPP had a significant increase in main arterial pressure after procedure (+20.13 mmHg, p &lt, 0.001), but this was not as great as the improvement seen in the REBOA group (+45.10 mmHg, p &lt, 0.001). EPP and REBOA are effective and improve hemodynamic status: both are reasonable first steps in a multidisciplinary management. Zone I REBOA may be useful in patients &lsquo, in extremis condition&rsquo, with multiple sites of torso hemorrhage, particularly those in extremis.

Background Gastrointestinal (GI) perforations are an acute surgical dilemma, with diagnostic workup often requiring abdominal imaging. Post-operative care for these patients may vary and oftentimes includes ICU care for sepsis, but not always. We evaluated if free fluid and air on computed tomography (CT) could be associated with sepsis, septic shock and mortality in GI perforations. The aim of our study was a correlation between a new CT-scan scoring system and septic complications in GI perforations. Methods We conducted an observational retrospective study about patients who underwent emergency surgery for intestinal perforation between January 2014 and June 2017. Inclusion criteria were a CT-scan positive for free fluid and air, and an intestinal perforation confirmed intraoperatively. A CT-score was created to evaluate location and extent of free fluid and air related to clinical outcome and prognosis. Univariate analysis between the CT score and the various clinical outcomes was conducted with the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables and with the chi-square test for categorical variables. Results One-hundred and fifty-one patients were evaluated. The mortality was 23.18% and the complications were present in 45.95%. The median CT score for patients who developed complications was 3, compared with a value of 2 in the absence of complications (P=0.008). A CT score of 4 or greater had a sensitivity and specificity for predicting pre-operative sepsis of 73.33% and 64.42% respectively, and for pre-operative septic shock of 35.56% and 93.27%. Looking at post-operative sepsis, sensitivity and specificity were 57.45% and 70.19%, and for septic shock 36.17% and 85.85%. Spearman correlation analysis revealed that at higher scores at CT score corresponded higher scores at the P-POSSUM morbidity, P-POSSUM mortality and WSES Sepsis Severity Score. Conclusions Our CT score shows a significant correlation with validated predictive scoring systems with regards to predicting sepsis, septic shock and complications-and seems to be a useful outcome predictor in GI perforation.