Ricerc@Sapienza

Aim: To find evidence to suggest the best approach in patients admitted as an emergency for complicated colorectal cancer. Methods: The medical records of 131 patients admitted as an emergency with an obstructing, perforated, or bleeding colorectal cancer to Noble’s Hospital, Isle of Man, and the Umberto I University Hospital, Rome, were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided in 3 groups on the basis of the emergency treatment they received, namely 1) immediate resection, 2) damage control procedure and elective or semielective resection, and 3) no radical treatment. Demographic variables, clinical data, and treatment data were considered, and formed the basis for the comparison of groups. Primary endpoints were 90-day mortality and morbidity. Secondary endpoints were length of stay, number of lymph nodes analyzed, rate of radical R0 resections, and the number of patients who had chemoradiotherapy. Results: Forty-two patients did not have any radical treatment because the cancer was too advanced or they were too ill to tolerate an operation, 78 patients had immediate resection and 11 had damage control followed by elective resection. There was no statistically significant difference between immediate resections and 2-stage treatment in 90-day mortality and morbidity (mortality: 15.4% vs 0%; morbidity: 26.9% vs 27.3%), number of nodes retrieved (16.6±9.4 vs 14.9±5.7), and rate of R0 resections (84.6% vs 90.9%), but mortality was slightly higher in patients who underwent immediate resection. The patients who underwent staged treatment had a higher possibility of receiving a laparoscopic resection (11.5% vs 36.4%). Conclusion: The present study failed to demonstrate a clear superiority of one treatment with respect to the other, even if there is an interesting trend favoring staged resection.