The first author's affiliation should be corrected.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of age on short-term outcomes after colorectal surgery in terms of the 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. METHODS: The subjects for the study were patients who had undergone colorectal surgery. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to age; groups A and B patients were ≥80 and <80 years old of age, respectively. Both groups were manually matched for body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Charlson Comorbidity Index and procedure performed. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients, 91 men (45.5%) and 109 women (54.5%), were included in this retrospective study. These patients were equally divided into 2 groups. The mean ages were 85 years in group A (range, 80 to 104 years) and 55.3 years in group B (range, 13 to 79 years). The overall 30-day postoperative mortality rate was 1% of total 200 patients; both of these 2 patients were in group A. However, this observation had no statistical significance. No intraoperative complications were encountered in either group. The overall 30-day postoperative morbidity rate was 27% (54 of 200) for both groups. The 30-day postoperative morbidity rates in groups A and B were 28% (28 of 100) and 26% (26 of 100), respectively. However, these differences between the groups had no statistical significance importance. CONCLUSION: Age alone should not be considered to be more of a contraindication or a worse predictor than other factors for the outcome after colorectal surgery on elderly patients.
Aged* ; Body Mass Index ; Colorectal Neoplasms ; Colorectal Surgery* ; Comorbidity ; Female ; Humans ; Intraoperative Complications ; Male ; Mortality ; Retrospective Studies

In this article, the sixth author's name was misprinted unintentionally. The sixth author's name should be corrected.

PURPOSE: We evaluate the role of transanal tube drainage (TD) as a conservative treatment for patients with anastomotic leakage (AL). METHODS: Patients treated for AL who had undergone a low or an ultralow anterior resection with colorectal or coloanal anastomosis for the treatment of rectal cancer between January 2013 and January 2017 were enrolled in this study. The data were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcomes were the diagnosis and the management of AL. RESULTS: Two hundred thirteen consecutive patients, 122 males and 91 females, were included. The mean age was 66.91 ± 11.15 years, and the median body mass index was 24 kg/m2 (range, 20–35 kg/m2). The median tumor distance from the anal verge was 8 cm (range, 4–12 cm). Ninety-three patients (44%) received neoadjuvant therapy for nodal disease and/or locally advanced rectal cancer. Only 13 patients (6%) developed AL. Six patients developed subclinical AL as they had a defunctioning ileostomy at the time of the initial procedure. They were treated conservatively with TD under endoscopic guidance in the endoscopy unit and received intravenous antibiotics. Six weeks after discharge, these 6 patients underwent follow-up flexible sigmoidoscopy which showed a completely healed anastomotic defect with no residual stenosis. Seven patients developed a clinically significant AL and required reoperation with pelvic abscess drainage and Hartmann colostomy formation. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that TD for management of patients with AL is safe, cheap, and effective. Salvaging the anastomosis will help decrease the need for Hartmann colostomy formation. Proper patient selection is important.
Abscess ; Anastomotic Leak* ; Anti-Bacterial Agents ; Body Mass Index ; Colostomy ; Constriction, Pathologic ; Diagnosis ; Drainage* ; Endoscopy ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Ileostomy ; Male ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; Patient Selection ; Prospective Studies ; Rectal Neoplasms ; Reoperation ; Retrospective Studies ; Sigmoidoscopy

The aim of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the Italian Unitary Society of Colon-Proctology (Società Italiana Unitaria di Colon-Proctologia, SIUCP) on the diagnosis and management of hemorrhoidal disease, with the goal of guiding physicians in the choice of the best treatment option. A panel of experts was charged by the Board of the SIUCP to develop key questions on the main topics related to the management of hemorrhoidal disease and to perform an accurate and comprehensive literature search on each topic, in order to provide evidence-based answers to the questions and to summarize them in statements. All the clinical questions were discussed by the expert panel in multiple rounds through the Delphi approach and, for each statement, a consensus among the experts was reached. The questions were created according to PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) criteria, and the statements were developed adopting the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology. In cases of grade 1 hemorrhoidal prolapse, outpatient procedures including hemorrhoidal laser procedure and sclerotherapy may be considered the preferred surgical options. For grade 2 prolapse, nonexcisional procedures including outpatient treatments, hemorrhoidal artery ligation and mucopexy, laser hemorrhoidoplasty, the Rafaelo procedure, and stapled hemorrhoidopexy may represent the first-line treatment options, whereas excisional surgery may be considered in selected cases. In cases of grades 3 and 4, stapled hemorrhoidopexy and hemorrhoidectomy may represent the most effective procedures, even if, in the expert panel opinion, stapled hemorrhoidopexy represents the gold-standard treatment for grade 3 hemorrhoidal prolapse.

The aim of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the Italian Unitary Society of Colon-Proctology (Società Italiana Unitaria di Colon-Proctologia, SIUCP) on the diagnosis and management of hemorrhoidal disease, with the goal of guiding physicians in the choice of the best treatment option. A panel of experts was charged by the Board of the SIUCP to develop key questions on the main topics related to the management of hemorrhoidal disease and to perform an accurate and comprehensive literature search on each topic, in order to provide evidence-based answers to the questions and to summarize them in statements. All the clinical questions were discussed by the expert panel in multiple rounds through the Delphi approach and, for each statement, a consensus among the experts was reached. The questions were created according to PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) criteria, and the statements were developed adopting the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology. In cases of grade 1 hemorrhoidal prolapse, outpatient procedures including hemorrhoidal laser procedure and sclerotherapy may be considered the preferred surgical options. For grade 2 prolapse, nonexcisional procedures including outpatient treatments, hemorrhoidal artery ligation and mucopexy, laser hemorrhoidoplasty, the Rafaelo procedure, and stapled hemorrhoidopexy may represent the first-line treatment options, whereas excisional surgery may be considered in selected cases. In cases of grades 3 and 4, stapled hemorrhoidopexy and hemorrhoidectomy may represent the most effective procedures, even if, in the expert panel opinion, stapled hemorrhoidopexy represents the gold-standard treatment for grade 3 hemorrhoidal prolapse.

The aim of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the Italian Unitary Society of Colon-Proctology (Società Italiana Unitaria di Colon-Proctologia, SIUCP) on the diagnosis and management of hemorrhoidal disease, with the goal of guiding physicians in the choice of the best treatment option. A panel of experts was charged by the Board of the SIUCP to develop key questions on the main topics related to the management of hemorrhoidal disease and to perform an accurate and comprehensive literature search on each topic, in order to provide evidence-based answers to the questions and to summarize them in statements. All the clinical questions were discussed by the expert panel in multiple rounds through the Delphi approach and, for each statement, a consensus among the experts was reached. The questions were created according to PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) criteria, and the statements were developed adopting the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology. In cases of grade 1 hemorrhoidal prolapse, outpatient procedures including hemorrhoidal laser procedure and sclerotherapy may be considered the preferred surgical options. For grade 2 prolapse, nonexcisional procedures including outpatient treatments, hemorrhoidal artery ligation and mucopexy, laser hemorrhoidoplasty, the Rafaelo procedure, and stapled hemorrhoidopexy may represent the first-line treatment options, whereas excisional surgery may be considered in selected cases. In cases of grades 3 and 4, stapled hemorrhoidopexy and hemorrhoidectomy may represent the most effective procedures, even if, in the expert panel opinion, stapled hemorrhoidopexy represents the gold-standard treatment for grade 3 hemorrhoidal prolapse.

The aim of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the Italian Unitary Society of Colon-Proctology (Società Italiana Unitaria di Colon-Proctologia, SIUCP) on the diagnosis and management of hemorrhoidal disease, with the goal of guiding physicians in the choice of the best treatment option. A panel of experts was charged by the Board of the SIUCP to develop key questions on the main topics related to the management of hemorrhoidal disease and to perform an accurate and comprehensive literature search on each topic, in order to provide evidence-based answers to the questions and to summarize them in statements. All the clinical questions were discussed by the expert panel in multiple rounds through the Delphi approach and, for each statement, a consensus among the experts was reached. The questions were created according to PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) criteria, and the statements were developed adopting the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology. In cases of grade 1 hemorrhoidal prolapse, outpatient procedures including hemorrhoidal laser procedure and sclerotherapy may be considered the preferred surgical options. For grade 2 prolapse, nonexcisional procedures including outpatient treatments, hemorrhoidal artery ligation and mucopexy, laser hemorrhoidoplasty, the Rafaelo procedure, and stapled hemorrhoidopexy may represent the first-line treatment options, whereas excisional surgery may be considered in selected cases. In cases of grades 3 and 4, stapled hemorrhoidopexy and hemorrhoidectomy may represent the most effective procedures, even if, in the expert panel opinion, stapled hemorrhoidopexy represents the gold-standard treatment for grade 3 hemorrhoidal prolapse.