| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Abbassi, Fariba, et al.
(författare)
-
Novel Benchmark Values for Redo Liver Transplantation Does the Outcome Justify the Effort?
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 276:5, s. 860-867
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To define benchmark cutoffs for redo liver transplantation (redo-LT). Background: In the era of organ shortage, redo-LT is frequently discussed in terms of expected poor outcome and wasteful resources. However, there is a lack of benchmark data to reliably evaluate outcomes after redo-LT. Methods: We collected data on redo-LT between January 2010 and December 2018 from 22 high-volume transplant centers. Benchmark cases were defined as recipients with model of end stage liver disease (MELD) score <= 25, absence of portal vein thrombosis, no mechanical ventilation at the time of surgery, receiving a graft from a donor after brain death. Also, high-urgent priority and early redo-LT including those for primary nonfunction (PNF) or hepatic artery thrombosis were excluded. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of the medians of all benchmark centers. Results: Of 1110 redo-LT, 373 (34%) cases qualified as benchmark cases. Among these cases, the rate of postoperative complications until discharge was 76%, and increased up to 87% at 1-year, respectively. One-year overall survival rate was excellent with 90%. Benchmark cutoffs included Comprehensive Complication Index CCI (R) at 1-year of <= 72, and in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates of <= 13% and <= 15%, respectively. In contrast, patients who received a redo-LT for PNF showed worse outcomes with some values dramatically outside the redoLT benchmarks. Conclusion: This study shows that redo-LT achieves good outcome when looking at benchmark scenarios. However, this figure changes in high-risk redo-LT, as for example in PNF. This analysis objectifies for the first-time results and efforts for redo-LT and can serve as a basis for discussion about the use of scarce resources.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ansaloni, Luca, et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines in the management of obstructing cancer of the left colon : consensus conference of the world society of emergency surgery (WSES) and peritoneum and surgery (PnS) society
- 2010
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Emergency Surgery. - London, UK : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1749-7922. ; 5, s. 29-
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Obstructive left colon carcinoma (OLCC) is a challenging matter in terms of obstruction release as well of oncological issues. Several options are available and no guidelines are established. The paper aims to generate evidenced based recommendations on management of OLCC. Methods: The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were queried for publications focusing on OLCC published prior to April 2010. A extensive retrieval, analyses, and grading of the literature was undertaken. The findings of the research were presented and largely discussed among panellist and audience at the Consensus Conference of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and Peritoneum and Surgery (PnS) Society held in Bologna July 2010. Comparisons of techniques are presented and final committee recommendation are enounced. Results: Hartmann's procedure should be preferred to loop colostomy (Grade 2B). Hartmann's procedure offers no survival benefit compared to segmental colonic resection with primary anastomosis (Grade 2C+); Hartmann's procedure should be considered in patients with high surgical risk (Grade 2C). Total colectomy and segmental colectomy with intraoperative colonic irrigation are associated with same mortality/morbidity, however total colectomy is associated with higher rates impaired bowel function (Grade 1A). Segmental resection and primary anastomosis either with manual decompression or intraoperative colonic irrigation are associated with same mortality/morbidity rate (Grade 1A). In palliation stent placement is associated with similar mortality/morbidity rates and shorter hospital stay (Grade 2B). Stents as a bridge to surgery seems associated with lower mortality rate, shorter hospital stay, and a lower colostomy formation rate (Grade 1B). Conclusions: Loop colostomy and staged procedure should be adopted in case of dramatic scenario, when neoadjuvant therapy could be expected. Hartmann's procedure should be performed in case of high risk of anastomotic dehiscence. Subtotal and total colectomy should be attempted when cecal perforation or in case of synchronous colonic neoplasm. Primary resection and anastomosis with manual decompression seems the procedure of choice. Colonic stents represent the best option when skills are available. The literature power is relatively poor and the existing RCT are often not sufficiently robust in design thus, among 6 possible treatment modalities, only 2 reached the Grade A.
|
|
| 4. |
- Schnitzbauer, Andreas A, et al.
(författare)
-
A prospective randomised, open-labeled, trial comparing sirolimus-containing versus mTOR-inhibitor-free immunosuppression in patients undergoing liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.
- 2010
-
Ingår i: BMC cancer. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2407. ; 10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The potential anti-cancer effects of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors are being intensively studied. To date, however, few randomised clinical trials (RCT) have been performed to demonstrate anti-neoplastic effects in the pure oncology setting, and at present, no oncology endpoint-directed RCT has been reported in the high-malignancy risk population of immunosuppressed transplant recipients. Interestingly, since mTOR inhibitors have both immunosuppressive and anti-cancer effects, they have the potential to simultaneously protect against immunologic graft loss and tumour development. Therefore, we designed a prospective RCT to determine if the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus can improve hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)-free patient survival in liver transplant (LT) recipients with a pre-transplant diagnosis of HCC.
|
|
| 5. |
- Schnitzbauer, Andreas A., et al.
(författare)
-
mTOR Inhibition Is Most Beneficial After Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Active Tumors
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 272:5, s. 855-862
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival benefit of sirolimus in patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (exploratory analysis of the SiLVER-trial). Summary and Background Data: Patients receiving LT) for HCC are at a high risk for tumor recurrence. Calcineurin inhibitors have shown evidence to promote cancer growth, whereas mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors like sirolimus have anticancer effects. In the SiLVER-trial (Clinicaltrials.gov:NCT00355862), the effect of sirolimus on the recurrence of HCC after LTwas investigated in a prospective randomized trial. Although the primary endpoint of improved disease-free survival (DFS) with sirolimus was not met, outcomes were improved for patients in the sirolimus-treatment arm in the first 3 to 5 years. To learn more about the key variables, a multivariate analysis was performed on the SiLVER-trial data. Patients and Methods: Data from 508 patients of the intention-to-treat analysis were included in exploratory univariate and multivariate models for overall survival (OS), DFS and a competing risk analysis for HCC recurrence. Results: Sirolimus use for >= 3 months after LT for HCC independently reduced the hazard for death in the multivariate analysis [hazard ratio (HR): 0.7 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.52-0.96, P = 0.02). Most strikingly, patients with an alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) >= 10 ng/mL and having used sirolimus for >= 3 months, benefited most with regard to OS, DFS, and HCC-recurrence (HR: 0.49- 0.59, P = 0.0079- 0.0245). Conclusions: mTOR-inhibitor treatment with sirolimus for >= 3 months improves outcomes in LT for HCC, especially in patients with AFP-evidence of higher tumor activity, advocating particularly for mTOR inhibitor use in this subgroup of patients. Clinical Trial Registration: EudraCT: 2005-005362-36 Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00355862.
|
|
| 6. |
- Vonlanthen, René, et al.
(författare)
-
Toward a Consensus on Centralization in Surgery.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Annals of surgery. - 1528-1140. ; 268:5, s. 712-724
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To critically assess centralization policies for highly specialized surgeries in Europe and North America and propose recommendations.Most countries are increasingly forced to maintain quality medicine at a reasonable cost. An all-inclusive perspective, including health care providers, payers, society as a whole and patients, has ubiquitously failed, arguably for different reasons in environments. This special article follows 3 aims: first, analyze health care policies for centralization in different countries, second, analyze how centralization strategies affect patient outcome and other aspects such as medical education and cost, and third, propose recommendations for centralization, which could apply across continents.Conflicting interests have led many countries to compromise for a health care system based on factors beyond best patient-oriented care. Centralization has been a common strategy, but modalities vary greatly among countries with no consensus on the minimal requirement for the number of procedures per center or per surgeon. Most national policies are either partially or not implemented. Data overwhelmingly indicate that concentration of complex care or procedures in specialized centers have positive impacts on quality of care and cost. Countries requiring lower threshold numbers for centralization, however, may cause inappropriate expansion of indications, as hospitals struggle to fulfill the criteria. Centralization requires adjustments in training and credentialing of general and specialized surgeons, and patient education.There is an obvious need in most areas for effective centralization. Unrestrained, purely "market driven" approaches are deleterious to patients and society. Centralization should not be based solely on minimal number of procedures, but rather on the multidisciplinary treatment of complex diseases including well-trained specialists available around the clock. Audited prospective database with monitoring of quality of care and cost are mandatory.
|
|
