There is still controversy as to whether patients undergoing a completion thyroidectomy after a hemithyroidectomy for a thyroid nodule with an indeterminate cytology have a comparable, increased or decreased risk of complications compared to those submitted to primary thyroid surgery. The main aim of this study was to investigate this topic. Patients undergoing a thyroidectomy for thyroid nodular disease with an indeterminate cytology in four high-volume thyroid surgery centres in Italy, between January 2017 and December 2020, were retrospectively analysed. Based on the surgical procedure performed, four groups were identified: the TT Group (total thyroidectomy), HT Group (hemithyroidectomy), CT Group (completion thyroidectomy) and HT + CT Group (hemithyroidectomy with subsequent completion thyroidectomy). A total of 751 patients were included. As for the initial surgery, 506 (67.38%) patients underwent a total thyroidectomy and 245 (32.62%) a hemithyroidectomy. Among all patients submitted to a hemithyroidectomy, 66 (26.94%) were subsequently submitted to a completion thyroidectomy. No statistically significant difference was found in terms of complications comparing both the TT Group with the HT + CT Group and the HT Group with the CT Group. The risk of complications in patients undergoing a completion thyroidectomy after a hemithyroidectomy for a thyroid nodule with an indeterminate cytology was comparable to that of patients submitted to primary thyroid surgery (both a total thyroidectomy and hemithyroidectomy).

Background: Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has an increasing incidence with mortality rates over 80% in some settings. Mortality typically results from disruption of the gastrointestinal tract, progressive and self-perpetuating bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. A further therapeutic option may be open abdomen (OA) management with negative peritoneal pressure therapy (NPPT) to remove inflammatory ascites and attenuate the systemic damage from SCIAS, although there are definite risks of leaving the abdomen open whenever it might possibly be closed. This potential therapeutic paradigm is the rationale being assessed in the Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL trial) (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095). Initially, the COOL trial received Industry sponsorship; however, this funding mandated the use of a specific trademarked and expensive NPPT device in half of the patients allocated to the intervention (open) arm. In August 2022, the 3 M/Acelity Corporation without consultation but within the terms of the contract canceled the financial support of the trial. Although creating financial difficulty, there is now no restriction on specific NPPT devices and removing a cost-prohibitive intervention creates an opportunity to expand the COOL trial to a truly global basis. This document describes the evolution of the COOL trial, with a focus on future opportunities for global growth of the study. Methods: The COOL trial is the largest prospective randomized controlled trial examining the random allocation of SCIAS patients intra-operatively to either formal closure of the fascia or the use of the OA with an application of an NPPT dressing. Patients are eligible if they have free uncontained intraperitoneal contamination and physiologic derangements exemplified by septic shock OR severely adverse predicted clinical outcomes. The primary outcome is intended to definitively inform global practice by conclusively evaluating 90-day survival. Initial recruitment has been lower than hoped but satisfactory, and the COOL steering committee and trial investigators intend with increased global support to continue enrollment until recruitment ensures a definitive answer. Discussion: OA is mandated in many cases of SCIAS such as the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome associated with closure, or a planned second look as for example part of “damage control”; however, improved source control (locally and systemically) is the most uncertain indication for an OA. The COOL trial seeks to expand potential sites and proceed with the evaluation of NPPT agnostic to device, to properly examine the hypothesis that this treatment attenuates systemic damage and improves survival. This approach will not affect internal validity and should improve the external validity of any observed results of the intervention. Trial registration: National Institutes of Health (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095).

Paratesticular liposarcomas are rare tumors that typically affect adult. Diagnosis is very difficult and inadequate surgical excision leads to a high rate of recurrence. We report a case of local recurrence of paratesticular liposarcoma diagnosed six months following surgery. Since there is low response to adjuvant treatments, extensive surgery remains the only curative approach, as shown by the case described here and the following review of the literature.

Background: Giant adrenal tumours are tumours with size ≥6 cm. These are rare cancer associated with malignancy in 25% of cases. Patients and Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on the medical records of patients admitted to our high-volume centre of Careggi University Hospital with a giant adrenal tumour and submitted to adrenalectomy between January 2008 and December 2018. The group of patients who underwent to laparoscopic adrenalectomy was compared with a group of patients that was submitted to open adrenalectomy. Results: In the past 10 years, we performed about 245 adrenalectomies for benign and malignant adrenal tumours. Fifty (20.4%) of these were giant tumours. The medium size was 9.9 cm (7–22 cm). The mean age was 57 years (21–81 years). Thirty-four (68%) of these cancers were laparoscopically removed and 16 (32%) with an open approach. The surgical outcomes in these patients were optimal if compared to the group of patients submitted to open approach in terms of good pain control, hospital stay, mean operative time and bloodless. No difference was observed about post-operative complications in the two groups. The follow-up after 30 months for malignant tumours did not show local recurrences. Conclusion: Our results pinpoint the advantages of performing a laparoscopic adrenalectomy for giant adrenal tumours. The tumour size is only a predictive parameter of possible malignancy, and the laparoscopic approach is a safe and feasible method in terms of surgical and oncological, only if performed by expert surgeons and in high-volume centres.

Background: Left colon cancer obstruction treatment is a debated topic in the literature. Stent placement is effective as a bridge-to-surgery strategy, but there are some concerns about the oncological safety for the reported higher risk of local and peritoneal recurrence. This study aims to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of patients treated with stent followed by elective surgery with those treated with primary resection. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study. We included patients of both sexes, ≥18 years old, with a histological diagnosis of intestinal adenocarcinoma, and admitted to our hospital for left colon cancer obstruction demonstrated by CT scan without metastasis or perforation. They were treated through primary resection (PR) or stent placement followed by elective surgery (SR). The two groups were compared for general characteristics, surgical outcomes, and oncological outcomes (metastasis and local recurrence) at 30 days, 90 days, 1 year, and 3 years. Post-operative quality of life (QoL) was also investigated. Results: The SR group showed a shorter hospital stay, a lower post-operative mortality, a lower stoma rate at 1 year, and a higher number of minimally invasive procedures. Oncological outcomes were not different compared to the PR group. The SR group demonstrated better QoL in two out of six items on the EQ-5D-5L test. Conclusions: Stent placement as a bridge-to-surgery strategy is feasible and provides better surgical outcomes in terms of post-operative complications, surgical approach, stoma rate, and QoL. Oncological outcomes were not reported differently, but further studies should be conducted to better evaluate this aspect.