Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for stage I-III mid and low rectal cancer: a retrospective 5 years analysis

Introduction. Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the cornerstone of a correct surgical therapy for extraperitoneal rectal cancer. Aim of the study is to evaluate our 5 years experience confronting retrospectively laparoscopic (lap) TME in respect to its laparotomic (open) counterpart. Patients and Methods. 30 patients were treated laparoscopically for stage I-III extraperitoneal rectal cancer and retrospectively compared to a homogeneous group, stratified for sex, age, comorbidities and stage of disease. Results. 30 days mortality was zero for both groups, while morbidity was 20% for the lap group and 36.6% for the open group. Mean lymph nodes harvested was 24 ± 12 for the lap group, 26 ± 14 for the open group (p > 0.05). Five years overall and disease free survival was respectively 82.2% and 81.4% in the lap group, 79.9% and 79.6% in the open group, without statistical significance (p>0.05). Discussion. Minimally invasive TME resulted a safe, effective and oncologically adequate procedure when retrospectively compared to its laparotomic counterpart, with 5 years overall survival and disease free survival reaching no statistical significance compared to the open approach, but with all the advantages of the laparoscopy such as less pain and blood loss, faster recovery, less morbidity and better cosmetics. Conclusions. Our study has retrospectively demonstrated that laparoscopic TME is feasible and oncologically effective, even if it remains a complex minimally invasive procedure, requiring adequate skill. More prospective, randomized studies are necessary to define such a procedure as the new gold standard in treatment of stage I-III extraperitoneal rectal cancer.

Recurrent varicose veins of the legs. Analysis of a social problem

The present study was aimed at assessing the experience of a single referral center with recurrent varicose veins of the legs (RVL) over the period 1993-2008. Among a total of 846 procedures for Leg Varices (LV), 74 procedures were for RVL (8.7%). The causes of recurrence were classified as classic: insufficient crossectomy (13); incompetent perforating veins (13); reticular phlebectasia (22); small saphenous vein insufficiency (9); accessory saphenous veins (4); and particular: post-hemodynamic treatment (5); incomplete stripping (1); Sapheno-Femoral Junction (SFJ) vascularization (5); post-thermal ablation (2). For the “classic” RVL the treatment consisted essentially of completing the previous treatment, both if the problem was linked to an insufficient earlier treatment and if it was due to a later onset. The most common cause in our series was reticular phlebectasia; when the simple sclerosing injections are not sufficient, this was treated by phlebectomy according to Mueller. The “particular” cases classified as 1, 2 and 4 were also treated by completing the traditional stripping procedure (+ crossectomy if this had not been done previously), considered to be the gold standard. In the presence of a SFJ neo-vascularization, with or without cavernoma, approximately 5 cm of femoral vein were explored, the afferent vessels ligated and, if cavernoma was present, it was removed. Although inguinal neo-angiogenesis is a possible mechanism, some doubt can be raised as to its importance as a primary factor in causing recurrent varicose veins, rather than their being due to a preexisting vein left in situ because it was ignored, regarded as insignificant, or poorly evident. In conclusion, we stress that LV is a progressive disease, so the treatment is unlikely to be confined to a single procedure. It is important to plan adequate monitoring during follow-up, and to be ready to reoperate when new problems present that, if left, could lead the patient to doubt the validity and efficacy of the original treatment.

Eosinophilic Fasciitis: an Atypical Presentation of a Rare Disease

Objectives: We report an atypical presentation of eosinophilic fasciitis and provide a concise overview of the literature. Materials and Methods: Clinical and laboratory findings in a patient presenting with fever and skin induration were recorded. A deep muscle biopsy was performed in order to confirm the diagnosis. Results: A spontaneous favourable clinical and radiological evolution was observed. Conclusion: The diagnosis of eosinophilic fasciitis is challenging due to the lack of pathognomonic signs and symptoms. As spontaneous resolution has been described, watchful waiting is defendable depending on the clinical presentation. Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be useful in establishing the diagnosis, a deep muscle biopsy remains the gold standard diagnostic tool.