Search

Background Surgical site infections are an important burden of pancreatic surgery, prolonging hospitalization and delaying adjuvant treatment. The aim of this study was to compare negative pressure wound therapy with standard sterile dressing in terms of the prevention of non–organ-space surgical site infection (superficial and deep surgical site infection) in the high-risk setting. Methods The trial was conducted at the University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy, from July 25, 2018, through October 10, 2019, among adults undergoing surgery for periampullary neoplasms. Only patients at high-risk for surgical site infection based on body mass index, diabetes, steroids, neoadjuvant therapy, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Charlson comorbidity index, duration of surgery, and blood loss were included and randomized. Results A total of 351 patients were screened, 100 met the inclusion criteria and were 1:1 allocated in the 2 arms. The difference in terms of non–organ-space surgical site infection comparing negative pressure wound therapy with standard sterile dressing was not significant (10.9 vs 12.2%, risk ratio [RR] 1.144, confidence interval [CI] 95% 0.324–4.040, P = 1.000). Hematomas (4.3 vs 2%, RR 1.565, CI 95% 0.312–7.848, P = .609) and organ-space infections (46.7 vs 43.8%, RR 1.059, CI 95% 0.711–1.576, P = .836) were similar. Negative pressure wound therapy prevented the development of seromas (0 vs 12.2%, RR 0.483, CI 95% 0.390–0.599, P = .027). The aesthetic result assessed on postoperative day 7 was better in the negative pressure wound therapy group (visual analogue scale, 8 vs 7, P = .029; Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale, 3.2 vs 2.5, P = .009), but it was no more evident on postoperative day 30 after a total number of 23 dropouts. Conclusion Compared with standard sterile dressing, negative pressure wound therapy is not associated with an improved rate of non–organ-space surgical site infection after surgery for periampullary neoplasms in patients at high risk for surgical site infection. Additional studies will help identify the population that could benefit most from this intervention.

The purpose of this study is to investigate perineural invasion (PNI) as a prognostic factor in gastric cancer patients. 455 patients submitted to extended (D2 or more) lymphadenectomy (median number of 39 retrieved lymph nodes, range: 15-140) between 1995 and 2012 were retrospectively studied. Patients were categorized in two groups according to the PNI status, and PNI positivity was assessed in presence of cancer cells in the perinerium or the neural fascicles using hematoxylin and eosin staining. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 80.3 months. Survival analysis was performed by univariate and multivariate analysis, using a Cox proportional hazards model. 162 patients (33.9%) had positive PNI; this was strongly associated with advanced stages of disease, residual tumor, lymphovascular invasion, Lauren diffuse-mixed histotype and tumor size. Five-year cancer-related survival was 65,7% and 20,6% in PNI negative vs. positive groups, respectively (p

The extent of lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer (GC) surgery has been for long time a matter of debate. Randomized trials performed in the West reported worse results of D2 dissection, in terms of postoperative complications and long-term survival benefit, than Eastern series and observational studies from specialized Western centers. However, long-term re-evaluation of such trials and in depth-analysis of other experiences demonstrated the potential benefit of D2 in reducing the probability of cancer-related death and the safety of this procedure when avoiding unnecessary spleno-pancreatectomy and in centers with ad adequate surgical volume. Nowadays, the D2 is considered the standard treatment in most guidelines all over the world. More limited procedures (D1, D1 plus) may be adequate in selected cases, and more extended dissections (D2 plus) could be indicated in advanced forms with high risk of metastases to distant nodes, but in specialized centers or in the setting of clinical studies. The integration with neoadjuvant therapies and multimodality approach could offer a chance of cure in groups of patients with poor results when approached with standard treatment.