Objective:: Specific comorbidities and old age create a greater vulnerability to severe Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19). While obesity seems to aggravate the course of disease, the actual impact of the BMI and the cutoff which increases illness severity are still under investigation. The aim of the study was to analyze whether the BMI represented a risk factor for respiratory failure, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and death. Research design and methods:: A retrospective cohort study of 482 consecutive COVID-19 patients hospitalised between March 1 and April 20, 2020. Logistic regression analysis and Cox proportion Hazard models including demographic characteristics and comorbidities were carried out to predict the endpoints within 30 days from the onset of symptoms. Results:: Of 482 patients, 104 (21.6%) had a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m². At logistic regression analysis, a BMI between 30 and 34.9 kg/m² significantly increased the risk of respiratory failure (OR: 2.32; 95% CI: 1.31–4.09, P = 0.004) and admission to the ICU (OR: 4.96; 95% CI: 2.53–9.74, P < 0.001). A significantly higher risk of death was observed in patients with a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² (OR: 12.1; 95% CI: 3.25–45.1, P < 0.001). Conclusions:: Obesity is a strong, independent risk factor for respiratory failure, admission to the ICU and death among COVID-19 patients. A BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² identifies a population of patients at high risk for severe illness, whereas a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² dramatically increases the risk of death.

Importance: Delays in screening programs and the reluctance of patients to seek medical attention because of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 could be associated with the risk of more advanced colorectal cancers at diagnosis.Objective: To evaluate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was associated with more advanced oncologic stage and change in clinical presentation for patients with colorectal cancer.Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all 17 938 adult patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 (pandemic period), and from January 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020 (prepandemic period), in 81 participating centers in Italy, including tertiary centers and community hospitals. Follow-up was 30 days from surgery.Exposures: Any type of surgical procedure for colorectal cancer, including explorative surgery, palliative procedures, and atypical or segmental resections.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was advanced stage of colorectal cancer at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, T4 stage, aggressive biology (defined as cancer with at least 1 of the following characteristics: signet ring cells, mucinous tumor, budding, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and lymphangitis), stenotic lesion, emergency surgery, and palliative surgery. The independent association between the pandemic period and the outcomes was assessed using multivariate random-effects logistic regression, with hospital as the cluster variable.Results: A total of 17 938 patients (10 007 men [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [12.2] years) underwent surgery for colorectal cancer: 7796 (43.5%) during the pandemic period and 10 142 (56.5%) during the prepandemic period. Logistic regression indicated that the pandemic period was significantly associated with an increased rate of advanced-stage colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .03), aggressive biology (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.15-1.53; P < .001), and stenotic lesions (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03).Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study suggests a significant association between the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the risk of a more advanced oncologic stage at diagnosis among patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer and might indicate a potential reduction of survival for these patients.

Vember 2005, 107 patients with rectal cancer were treated by laparoscopy. Exclusion criteria were: metastatic disease, advanced disease with invasion of adjacent structures, clinical or radiologic involvement of the external anal sphincter, previous colonic resection, synchronous colonic adenocarcinoma, and contraindications to laparoscopy. All patients were followed prospectively for survival and complications. Survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A laparoscopic sphincter-saving procedure was performed in 104 patients, 2 patients had a laparoscopic Miles operation, and 1 underwent a laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure. Mean operating time was 278 (range, 135-430) minutes. Conversion to open surgery was required in 20 of 107 patients (18.7 percent). Overall morbidity was 27 percent, anastomotic leakage occurred in 14 of 104 patients (13.5 percent). There was no postoperative mortality. A mean of 18 (range, 1-49) lymph nodes was removed. Mean distance of distal margin from tumor was 2.6 (range, 0.5-10) cm; in two patients there was microscopic invasion of the distal margin. Mean hospital stay was nine (range, 4-43) days. Mean follow-up was 35.8 months. There was local recurrence in 1 of 107 patients (0.95 percent); there were no port site metastases. Actuarial five-year and disease-free survival rates are 81.4 and 79.8 percent, respectively. Conclusions: Laparoscopic rectal surgery is feasible and oncologically radical but also technically demanding (conversion rate, 18.7 percent), time-consuming (mean operating time, 278 minutes), and associated with specific intraoperative complications. At present, the technique should only be performed in specialist centers by teams experienced in laparoscopic surgery. Presented at the meeting of The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, Los Angeles, California, May 20 to 24, 2006. e-mail: paolopietro.bianchi@fastwebnet.it © The ASCRS 2007...

Anal melanoma is rare and associated with a poor outcome. Previous studies that have reported outcomes after surgical treatment are limited by both small number of participants and treatment at single centers only. This study evaluates survival of patients undergoing surgery for anal melanoma from a prospective, population-based database. Characteristics and survival of patients undergoing rectal resection or local excision for anal melanoma of the anus, anal canal, and overlapping region of the rectum from 1982 to 2002 were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database and compared. A total of 160 patients were included in the study. Details of previous surgical procedures were available for 109 of the study patients: 60 (55%) underwent local excision and 49 (45%) rectal resection. Patients who underwent local excision were significantly older (73.5 vs 65.1 years, P < .001), whereas those who had undergone rectal resection had a greater proportion of regional disease (73.5% vs 16.7%, P < .001). The median survival of the 2 groups was similar (rectal resection vs local excision: 17 vs 28 months, P = .3). Rectal resection and local excision were associated with similar survival for patients in both regional (P = .6) and localized (P = .95) stages. Outcomes for patients who were appropriately pathologically staged after rectal resection depended on localized vs regional stage (5-year survival: 43.1% vs 12.5%, P = .17). Survival for patients in localized and regional stages who underwent rectal resection was similar to that for patients with corresponding clinical stage who underwent local excision. Survival of patients with anal melanoma is similar after local excision or rectal resection irrespective of whether patients have localized or regional stage of disease.

The risks and benefits of pouch excision and end ileostomy creation when compared to the alternative option of a permanent diversion with the pouch left in situ when restoration of intestinal continuity is not pursued for patients who develop pouch failure after IPAA have not been well characterized. This study aimed to compare the early and long-term outcomes after permanent diversion with the pouch left in situ vs pouch excision with end ileostomy creation for pouch failure. This study is a retrospective review of prospectively gathered data. This investigation was conducted at a tertiary center. Patients with pouch failure who underwent a permanent ileostomy with the pouch left in situ and those who underwent pouch excision were included in the study. The primary outcomes measured were the perioperative outcomes and quality of life using the pouch and Short Form 12 questionnaires. One hundred thirty-six patients with pouch failure underwent either pouch left in situ (n = 31) or pouch excision (n = 105). Age (p = 0.72), sex (p = 0.72), ASA score (p = 0.22), BMI (p = 0.83), disease duration (p = 0.74), time to surgery for pouch failure (p = 0.053), diagnosis at pouch failure (p = 0.18), and follow-up (p = 0.76) were similar. The predominant reason for pouch failure was septic complications in 15 (48.4%) patients in the pouch left in situ group and 39 (37.1%) patients in the pouch excision group (p = 0.3). Thirty-day complications, including prolonged ileus (p = 0.59), pelvic abscess (p = 1.0), wound infection (p = 1.0), and bowel obstruction (p = 1.0), were similar. At the most recent follow-up (median, 9.9 y), quality of life (p = 0.005) and health (p = 0.008), current energy level (p = 0.026), Cleveland Global Quality of Life score (p = 0.005), and Short Form 12 mental (p = 0.004) and physical (p = 0.014) component scales were significantly higher after pouch excision than after pouch left in situ. Urinary and sexual function was similar between the groups. Anal pain (n = 4) and seepage with pad use (n = 8) were the predominant concerns of the pouch left in situ group on long-term follow-up. None of the 18 patients with pouch in situ, for whom information relating to long-term pouch surveillance was available, developed dysplasia or cancer. This study was limited by its retrospective nature. Although technically more challenging, pouch excision, rather than pouch left in situ, is the preferable option for patients who develop pouch failure and are not candidates for restoration of intestinal continuity. Because pouch left in situ was not associated with neoplasia, this option is a reasonable intermediate or long-term alternative when pouch excision is not feasible or advisable.