In this article, we have addressed the recent published article by Wang et al which examines risk factors associated with surgical site infections (SSIs) and evaluates the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics in their prevention. Wang et al identified several significant risk factors of SSIs, including age ≥ 60 years, diabetes mellitus, and surgical complications such as insufficient cystic duct stump closure, gallbladder perforation, empyema, and postoperative hematoma. Their findings suggest that prophylactic antibiotics can serve as a protective factor against SSIs. However, other reported risk factors and preventive strategies warrant consideration to further reduce the incidence of SSIs, lower healthcare costs, and enhance patient outcomes. Additionally, the judicious use of prophylactic antibiotics is crucial in light of the growing global challenge of antibiotic resistance caused by the misuse and overuse of antibiotics. Effective management strategies for prophylactic antibiotic use should be prioritized to balance infection control with the need to combat antimicrobial resistance.

Omentoplasty is a commonly performed procedure after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer, but its effectiveness to reduce pelviperineal complications is not firmly established.

This study aimed to assess the impact of omentoplasty on postoperative outcomes after long-course (chemo) radiotherapy and abdominoperineal resection in patients with locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer.

Retrospective cohort study.

Single center.

All patients with locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer undergoing abdominoperineal resection after neoadjuvant (chemo)radiation in a tertiary referral center between 2008 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed.

Multivariable logistic and linear regression analyses were performed to analyze the association between omentoplasty and pelviperineal complications, duration of nasogastric tube drainage, and length of hospital stay.

A total of 305 patients were analyzed, of whom 245 underwent omentoplasty (80%). Pelviperineal complications occurred in 151 patients (50%) overall, in 125 patients (51%) with omentoplasty, and in 26 patients (43%) without omentoplasty. Independent predictors of pelviperineal complications in multivariable analyses were smoking (OR 2.68; 95% CI, 1.46-4.94) and high BMI (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1.00-2.83), but not omentoplasty (OR 1.36; 95% CI, 0.77-2.40). The mean duration of nasogastric tube drainage was longer after omentoplasty (6 vs 4 d) with a significant association in multivariable analysis (β coefficient 1.97; 95% CI, 0.35-3.59). Patients undergoing omentoplasty had a significantly longer hospital stay (14 vs 10 d), and omentoplasty remained associated with a prolonged hospital stay after adjusting for confounding (β coefficient 3.05; 95% CI, 0.05-5.74).

Retrospective design.

Omentoplasty was not associated with a reduced risk of the occurrence of short-term pelviperineal complications after abdominoperineal resection in patients undergoing long-course (chemo)radiotherapy. Furthermore, in patients undergoing omentoplasty, prolonged duration of nasogastric tube drainage and hospital stay was observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C124 .

ANTECEDENTES:La omentoplastía es un procedimiento que se realiza comúnmente después de la resección abdominoperineal por cáncer de recto, pero su efectividad para reducir las complicaciones pelvicoperineales no está firmemente establecida.OBJETIVO:Evaluar el impacto de la omentoplastía en las complicaciones pelvicoperineales a corto plazo y los resultados postoperatorios después quimioradioterapia de curso largo y resección abdominoperineal en pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado y localmente recurrente.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.ESCENARIO:Centro único.PACIENTES:Se revisaron retrospectivamente todos los pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado y localmente recurrente sometidos a resección abdominoperineal después de quimioradiación neoadyuvante en un centro de referencia de tercer nivel entre 2008 y 2020.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se realizaron análisis de regresión lineal y logística multivariable para examinar la asociación entre la omentoplastía y las complicaciones pelvicoperineales (p. ej., problemas de heridas perineales y abscesos pélvicos), la duración del drenaje por sonda nasogástrica y la duración de la estancia hospitalaria.RESULTADOS:Se analizaron un total de 305 pacientes de los cuales 245 fueron sometidos a omentoplastía (80%). Las complicaciones pelvicoperineales ocurrieron en 151 pacientes (50%) en general, y en 125 (51%) y 26 (43%) de los pacientes con o sin omentoplastía, respectivamente. Los predictores independientes de complicaciones pelvicoperineales en análisis multivariable fueron el tabaquismo (OR 2.68, IC del 95% 1.46 a 4.94) y un IMC alto (OR 1.68, IC del 95% 1.00 a 2.83), pero no la omentoplastía (OR 1.36, IC del 95% 0.77 a 2.40) . La duración media del drenaje por sonda nasogástrica fue mayor después de la omentoplastía (6 frente a 4 días) con una asociación significativa en el análisis multivariable (coeficiente β 1.97, IC del 95%: 0.35-3.59). Los pacientes que se sometieron a una omentoplastía tuvieron una estancia hospitalaria significativamente más larga (14 frente a 10 días), y la omentoplastía permaneció asociada con una estancia hospitalaria prolongada después de ajustar por factores de confusión (coeficiente β 3.05, IC del 95%: 0.05-5.74).LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIÓN:La omentoplastía no se asoció con un riesgo reducido de aparición de complicaciones pelvicoperineales a corto plazo después de la resección abdominoperineal en pacientes sometidos a quimioradioterapia de larga duración. Adicionalmente, en los pacientes sometidos a omentoplastía se observó una duración prolongada del drenaje por sonda nasogástrica y la estancia hospitalaria. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C124 . (Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco ).

It has been revealed that the administration of an antimicrobial prophylaxis (AP) reduces the rate of surgical site (SSI) following colorectal cancer surgery. Nevertheless, the optimal timing of this medication remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine more precisely the optimal time for administering antibiotics and to see if this could reduce the number of possible surgical site infections. The files of individuals who underwent colorectal cancer surgery at the University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel (Germany) between 2009 and 2017 were analyzed. Piperacillin/tazobactam, cefuroxime/metronidazole and mezlocillin/sulbactam were administered as AP regimens. Timing of AP was obtained. The primary objective was the rate of SSIs based on CDC criteria. Multivariate analysis took place to identify risk factors for SSIs. A total of 326 patients (61.4%) received an AP within 30 min, 166 (31.3%) between 30 and 60 min, 22 (4.1%) more than 1 h before surgery, and 15 (2.8%) after surgery. In 19 cases (3.6%) a SSI occurred during hospital stay. A multivariate analysis did not identify AP timing as a risk factor for the occurrence of SSIs. With significance, more surgical site occurrences (SSO) were diagnosed when cefuroxime/metronidazole was given. Our results suggest that AP with cefuroxime/metronidazole is less effective in reducing SSO compared with mezlocillin/sulbactam and tazobactam/piperacillin. We assume that the timing of this AP regimen of < 30 min or 30-60 min prior to colorectal surgery does not impact the SSI rate.

The success of elective colorectal surgery is mainly influenced by the surgical procedure and postoperative complications. The most serious complications include anastomotic leakages and surgical site infections (SSI)s, which can lead to prolonged recovery with impaired long-term health.  Compared with other abdominal procedures, colorectal resections have an increased risk of adverse events due to the physiological bacterial colonisation of the large bowel. Preoperative bowel preparation is used to remove faeces from the bowel lumen and reduce bacterial colonisation. This bowel preparation can be performed mechanically and/or with oral antibiotics. While mechanical bowel preparation alone is not beneficial, the benefits and harms of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation is still unclear.

To assess the evidence for the use of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery.

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and trial registries on 15 December 2021. In addition, we searched reference lists and contacted colorectal surgery organisations.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adult participants undergoing elective colorectal surgery comparing combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MBP+oAB) with either MBP alone, oAB alone, or no bowel preparation (nBP). We excluded studies in which no perioperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis was given.

We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. Pooled results were reported as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The certainty of the evidence was assessed with GRADE.

We included 21 RCTs analysing 5264 participants who underwent elective colorectal surgery. None of the included studies had a high risk of bias, but two-thirds of the included studies raised some concerns. This was mainly due to the lack of a predefined analysis plan or missing information about the randomisation process. Most included studies investigated both colon and rectal resections due to malignant and benign surgical indications. For MBP as well as oAB, the included studies used different regimens in terms of agent(s), dosage and timing.  Data for all predefined outcomes could be extracted from the included studies. However, only four studies reported on side effects of bowel preparation, and none recorded the occurrence of adverse effects such as dehydration, electrolyte imbalances or the need to discontinue the intervention due to side effects. Seventeen trials compared MBP+oAB with sole MBP. The incidence of SSI could be reduced through MBP+oAB by 44% (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.74; 3917 participants from 16 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and the risk of anastomotic leakage could be reduced by 40% (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.99; 2356 participants from 10 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). No difference between the two comparison groups was found with regard to mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.82; 639 participants from 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), the incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.32; 2013 participants from 6 studies, low-certainty of evidence) and length of hospital stay (MD -0.19, 95% CI -1.81 to 1.44; 621 participants from 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Three trials compared MBP+oAB with sole oAB. No difference was demonstrated between the two treatment alternatives in terms of SSI (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.21; 960 participants from 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence), anastomotic leakage (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.45; 960 participants from 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.50; 709 participants from 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.33; 709 participants from 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD 0.1 respectively 0.2, 95% CI -0.68 to 1.08; data from 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (396 participants) compared MBP+oAB versus nBP. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of MBP+oAB on the incidence of SSI as well as mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.23 respectively RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22; low-certainty evidence), while no effect on the risk of anastomotic leakages (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.42; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81; low-certainty evidence) or the length of hospital stay (MD 0.1, 95% CI -0.8 to 1; low-certainty evidence) could be demonstrated.

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, our results suggest that MBP+oAB is probably more effective than MBP alone in preventing postoperative complications. In particular, with respect to our primary outcomes, SSI and anastomotic leakage, a lower incidence was demonstrated using MBP+oAB. Whether oAB alone is actually equivalent to MBP+oAB, or leads to a reduction or increase in the risk of postoperative complications, cannot be clarified in light of the low- to very low-certainty evidence. Similarly, it remains unclear whether omitting preoperative bowel preparation leads to an increase in the risk of postoperative complications due to limited evidence. Additional RCTs, particularly on the comparisons of MBP+oAB versus oAB alone or nBP, are needed to assess the impact of oAB alone or nBP compared with MBP+oAB on postoperative complications and to improve confidence in the estimated effect. In addition, RCTs focusing on subgroups (e.g. in relation to type and location of colon resections) or reporting side effects of the intervention are needed to determine the most effective approach of preoperative bowel preparation.

There is no consensus regarding the role of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OABP) in reducing postoperative complications in colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of OABP given in addition to MBP in the setting of a prospective randomized trial.

Patients awaiting elective colorectal surgery in four Hungarian colorectal centres were included in this multicentre, prospective, randomized, assessor-blinded study. Patients were randomized to receive MBP with or without OABP (OABP+ and OABP- groups respectively). The primary endpoints were surgical-site infection (SSI) and postoperative ileus. Secondary endpoints were anastomotic leak, mortality, and hospital readmission within 30 days.

Of 839 patients assessed for eligibility between November 2016 and June 2018, 600 were randomized and 529 were analysed. Trial participation was discontinued owing to adverse events in seven patients in the OABP+ group (2.3 per cent). SSI occurred in eight patients (3.2 per cent) in the OABP+ and 27 (9.8 per cent) in the OABP- group (P = 0.001). The incidence of postoperative ileus did not differ between groups. Anastomotic leakage occurred in four patients (1.6 per cent) in the OABP+ and 13 (4.7 per cent) in the OABP- (P = 0.02) group. There were no differences in hospital readmission (12 (4.7 per cent) versus 10 (3.6 per cent); P = 0.25) or mortality (3 (1.2 per cent) versus 4 (1.4 per cent); P = 0.39).

OABP given with MBP reduced the rate of SSI and AL after colorectal surgery with anastomosis, therefore routine use of OABP is recommended.

Gynecological laparoscopies are one of the most common surgical procedures worldwide. Limited evidence exists on rates of surgical site infections in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopies and strategies to prevent these infections.

To compare rates of port-site infections, organ or space infections, and any type of surgical site infections among patients who underwent gynecological laparoscopies and received 1 of 3 types of skin preparation solutions.

A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted between February 28, 2017, and November 26, 2018, at a tertiary university-affiliated referral center. A total of 661 patients 18 years or older who underwent an elective operative laparoscopy for treatment of nonmalignant gynecological disorders were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to have their skin cleaned before surgery with alcohol-based chlorhexidine, alcohol-based povidone-iodine, or water-based povidone-iodine. Statistical analysis was performed from February 28, 2017, to November 26, 2018. Analyses were performed on a modified intention-to-treat basis.

A total of 221 patients were randomized to have their skin prepared preoperatively with water-based povidone-iodine, 220 were randomized to alcohol-based povidone-iodine, and 220 were randomized to alcohol-based chlorhexidine. The patients were blinded to the solution used to clean their skin. Patients were followed up 1 and 4 weeks after surgery by a physician who was blinded to the skin preparation solution used at surgery. Evidence of infection according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria were documented.

The primary outcome of this study was port-site infection 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were organ or space infections and any type of surgical site infections; the study also aimed to prospectively describe rates of surgical site infections in gynecological laparoscopies.

Of the 661 patients, 640 (96.8%; mean [SD] age, 36.2 [10.6] years) were examined after surgery by a physician at the study site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The overall rate of port-site infection was 10.2% (65 of 640), rate of organ or space infection was 6.6% (42 of 640), and rate of any surgical site infection was 16.3% (104 of 640). The odds ratio for port-site infection for alcohol-based chlorhexidine vs water-based povidone-iodine was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.61-2.08), for alcohol-based chlorhexidine vs alcohol-based povidone-iodine was 1.34 (95% CI, 0.71-2.52), and for water-based povidone-iodine vs alcohol-based povidone-iodine was 1.19 (95% 0.62-2.27).

Surgical site infections were more common than expected among patients who underwent gynecological laparoscopies. No skin preparation solution provided an advantage compared with the other solutions in reducing infection rates.

http://anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12617000475347.

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery is a novel technique of minimally invasive surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety of laparoscopic anterior resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE-LAR) and abdominal incision specimen extraction (AISE-LAR) for sigmoid or rectum tumors.

MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Scopus, and ClinicalTrials databases were systematically searched for related articles up to August 2019. The primary outcomes included postoperative complications (overall postoperative complication, incision-related complication, anastomotic fistula, and severe complication) and pathologic results (lymph nodes harvested, proximal resection margin, and distal resection edge). The statistical analysis was performed on STATA 12.0 software.

Ten studies comprising 1787 patients were used for meta-analysis. Compared with AISE-LAR, NOSE-LAR had more advantages in terms of overall postoperative complication (odds ratio (OR) = 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.90; P = 0.01)), incision-related complication (OR = 0.13 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.35; P < 0.01)), distal resection edge (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.17 cm (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.33 cm; P = 0.02)), recovery of gastrointestinal function (WMD = - 0.38 day (95% CI, - 0.70 to - 0.06 day; P = 0.02 )), pain scores in postoperative day 1 (WMD = - 1.64 (95% CI, - 2.31 to - 0.98; P < 0.01)), additional analgesics usage (OR = 0.21 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.40; P < 0.01)) and hospital stay (WMD = - 0.71 day (95% CI, - 1.10 to - 0.32 day; P < 0.01)), while the operation time of NOSE-LAR was prolonged (WMD = 7.4 min (95% CI, 0.17 to 14.64 min; P = 0.04)). The anastomotic fistula, severe complication, lymph nodes harvested, proximal resection margin, intraoperative blood loss, and long-term outcomes in NOSE-LAR were comparable with AISE-LAR.

The safety of NOSE-LAR was demonstrated, and it could be an alternative to conventional surgery in laparoscopic anterior resection for sigmoid and rectal tumors. However, further randomized and multi-center trials are required.

The predictive values of the C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) levels for postoperative infectious complications were investigated in patients who underwent elective laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer.

A total of 154 consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer (CRC) were prospectively studied. The CRP and PCT levels on the first postoperative day (POD1) and the fourth postoperative day (POD4) were measured. Any correlations between the CRP and PCT levels on POD1 and POD4 with the occurrence of infectious complications were examined.

Infectious complications occurred in 18 (11.7%) patients. CRP on POD1 and CRP and PCT on POD4 were significantly higher in patients who developed infectious complications than in those who did not. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of CRP on POD1 and CRP and PCT on POD4 were 0.597, 0.763 and 0.768, respectively. The cut-off values of CRP and PCT levels on POD4 were 14.33 mg/dl and 0,264 ng/ml, respectively. Whereas the positive predictive value of an elevated CRP level was high, the negative predictive value of an elevated PCT was high.

The CRP and PCT levels on POD4 are both considered to be useful for the early detection of infectious complications after laparoscopic resection of CRC.

Low anterior resections are increasingly performed laparoscopically for rectal cancer. Recently, natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has been reported as an alternative approach without additional incisions or extensions. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of NOSES by comparing the short-term outcomes with those of conventional laparoscopic resection (CLR) in a multicenter retrospective study from China and Russia.

The retrospective multicenter study was conducted at three centers between January 2015 and December 2017. Relevant collected data included patient demographics, operative parameters, and postoperative complications. All procedures were performed using either a NOSES or a CLR approach.

The data of a total of 768 consecutive patients with rectal cancer were retrospectively analyzed, including 412 CLR and 356 NOSES cases. The two groups were comparable for all demographics and characteristics except for the median tumor size (P = 0.038). No difference was found in the operative time and number of retrieved lymph nodes. Intraoperative complications and positive resection margins were nil in both groups. No difference was found in the time to first flatus (P = 0.150), time to first defecation (P = 0.084), length of postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.152), anastomotic leakage (P = 0.377), and intra-abdominal abscess (P = NA). The CLR group but not the NOSES group had incisional hernia or wound infection events, although the difference between groups was not significant (P = 0.253).

The NOSES procedure is a well-established strategy and may be considered as an alternative procedure to CLR for rectal cancer. However, the long-term benefits of this approach require further evaluation.

To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted right colectomy (RRC) with conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published studies. All published literature for comparative studies reporting preoperative outcomes of RRC and LRC were searched. We searched the databases included Cochrane Library of Clinical Comparative Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) from 1973 to 2018. The censor date was up to January 2018. Operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, conversion rates to open surgery, postoperative complications, and related outcomes were evaluated. All calculations and statistical tests were performed using Stata 12.0 software. A total of 7769 patients with colon cancer enrolled in 13 trials were divided into a study group (n = 674) and a control group (n = 7095). Meta-analysis suggested significantly greater length of hospital stay in the LRC group [MD = -0.85; 95% CI: -1.07 to -0.63; P < 0.00001]. Robotic surgery was also associated with a significantly lower complication rate [OR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.01; P = 0.05]. There were statistically significant differences between the groups in estimated blood loss [MD = -16.89; 95% CI: -24.80 to -8.98; P < 0.00001] and the rate of intraoperative conversion to open surgery [OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.75; P = 0.008)], but these differences were not clinically relevant. The recovery of bowel function in two groups is no significant differences [MD = -0.58, 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.20, P = 0.0008]. However, operation times [MD = 43.61, 95% CI: 39.11 to 48.10, P < 0.00001] were longer for RRC than for LRC. Compared to LRC, RRC was associated with reduced estimated blood loss, reduced postoperative complications, longer operation times. Recovery of bowel function and other perioperative outcomes were equivalent between the two surgeries.

Surgical site infections (SSIs), after colorectal resection, pose a significant burden. Recognition of the spectrum of potentially involved pathogens is crucial for determining correct antibiotic prophylaxis. This study aimed to determine whether the distribution of SSI-associated pathogens depends on the location of the colorectal resection.

We retrospectively categorized 2713 consecutive colon resections as left- or right-side operations, identified patients having concurrent peritonitis or development of postoperative SSIs and peritonitis, and assigned all subcutaneously and intra-abdominally isolated pathogens according to the location of the resection.

Gram-positive cocci (especially enterococci) and gram-negative bacilli (especially Pseudomonas aeruginosa) were isolated more frequently from patients in whom SSIs developed after left-side resections than after right-side resections (52.5% vs. 32.6%, p < 0.01 and 15.9% vs. 6.7%, p < 0.01, respectively); enterococci were the causative organisms in a large percentage of SSIs (46.3%). Moreover, intra-abdominal P. aeruginosa and Candida spp. were isolated more frequently during left-side resections than during right-side operations in patients with peritonitis (15.8% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.02 and 14.3% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.02, respectively).

Our results indicate that differences exist in the distribution of pathogens after left- or right-side colorectal resections. Our data further suggest that gram-positive cocci play an important role in SSIs occurring after colorectal resections; therefore, antibiotic prophylaxis should emphasize their coverage. Further, enterococcal coverage may be especially advantageous during left-side resections.

Management of low rectal cancer continues to be a challenge, and decision making regarding the need for an abdominoperineal resection (APR) in patients with low-lying tumors is complicated. Furthermore, choices need to be made regarding need for modification of the surgical approach based on tumor anatomy and patient goals.

In this article, we address patient selection, preoperative planning, and intraoperative technique required to perform the three types of abdominoperineal resections for rectal cancer: extrasphincteric, extralevator, and intersphincteric. Attention is paid not only to traditional oncologic outcomes such as recurrence and survival but also to patient-reported outcomes and quality of life.

The present study aimed to evaluate a potential effect of ERAS on surgical site infections (SSI).

Colonic surgical patients operated between May 2011 and September 2015 constituted the cohort for this retrospective analysis. Over 100 items related to demographics, surgical details, compliance, and outcome were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. SSI were traced by an independent National surveillance program. Risk factors for SSI were identified by univariate and multinomial logistic regression.

Fifty-four out of 397 patients (14%) developed SSI. Independent risk factors for SSI were emergency surgery (OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.09-1.78, p = 0.026), previous abdominal surgery (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.32-1.87, p = 0.004), smoking (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.22-1.89, p = 0.014), and oral bowel preparation (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.34-1.97, p = 0.013), while minimally invasive surgery (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.16-0.56, p < 0.001) protected against SSI. Compliance to ERAS items of >70% was not retained as a protective factor for SSI after multivariate analysis (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.46-1.92, p = 0.86).

Smoking, open and emergency surgery, and bowel preparation were risk factors for SSI. ERAS pathway had no independent impact while minimally invasive approach did. This study was registered under ResearchRegistry.com (UIN researchregistry2614).

To compare protein expression levels, gene mutation and survival among Right-Sided Colon Cancer (RSCC), Left-Sided Colon Cancer (LSCC) and rectal cancer patients, 57 cases of RSCC, 87 LSCC and 145 rectal cancer patients were included retrospectively. Our results demonstrated significant differences existed among RSCC, LSCC and rectal cancer regarding tumor diameter, differentiation, invasion depth and TNM stage. No significant difference was identified in expression levels of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, β-Tubulin III, P53, Ki67 and TOPIIα, and gene mutation of KRAS and BRAF among three groups. Progression Free Survival (PFS) of RSCC was significantly lower than that of LRCC and rectal cancer. In univariate analyses, RSCC, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, poor differentiation, advanced TNM stage, elevated serum CEA and CA19-9 level, tumor deposit, perineural and vascular invasion were found to be predictive factors of shorter PFS. In multivariate analyses, only differentiation and TNM stages were found to be independent predictors of PFS. In conclusion, compared with LSCC and rectal cancer, RSCC has larger tumor size, poor differentiation, advanced TNM stage and shorter survival. The shorter survival in RSCC might be attributed to the advanced tumor stage caused by its inherent position feature of proximal colon rather than genetic difference.