-
Transplant International : Official... Nov 2021In donation after circulatory death (DCD), (thoraco)abdominal regional perfusion (RP) restores circulation to a region of the body following death declaration. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In donation after circulatory death (DCD), (thoraco)abdominal regional perfusion (RP) restores circulation to a region of the body following death declaration. We systematically reviewed outcomes of solid organ transplantation after RP by searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries. Eighty-eight articles reporting on outcomes of liver, kidney, pancreas, heart, and lung transplants or donor/organ utilization were identified. Meta-analyses were conducted when possible. Methodological quality was assessed using National Institutes of Health (NIH)-scoring tools. Case reports (13/88), case series (44/88), retrospective cohort studies (35/88), retrospective matched cohort studies (5/88), and case-control studies (2/88) were identified, with overall fair quality. As blood viscosity and rheology change below 20 °C, studies were grouped as hypothermic (HRP, ≤20 °C) or normothermic (NRP, >20 °C) regional perfusion. Data demonstrate that RP is a safe alternative to in situ cold preservation (ISP) in uncontrolled and controlled DCDs. The scarce HRP data are from before 2005. NRP appears to reduce post-transplant complications, especially biliary complications in controlled DCD livers, compared with ISP. Comparisons for kidney and pancreas with ISP are needed but there is no evidence that NRP is detrimental. Additional data on NRP in thoracic organs are needed. Whether RP increases donor or organ utilization needs further research.
Topics: Death; Graft Survival; Humans; Organ Preservation; Organ Transplantation; Perfusion; Retrospective Studies; Tissue Donors; Tissue and Organ Procurement
PubMed: 34570380
DOI: 10.1111/tri.14121 -
Transplant International : Official... 2022This guideline, from a European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) working group, concerns the management of kidney transplant patients with HLA antibodies....
This guideline, from a European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) working group, concerns the management of kidney transplant patients with HLA antibodies. Sensitization should be defined using a virtual parameter such as calculated Reaction Frequency (cRF), which assesses HLA antibodies derived from the actual organ donor population. Highly sensitized patients should be prioritized in kidney allocation schemes and linking allocation schemes may increase opportunities. The use of the ENGAGE 5 ((Bestard et al., Transpl Int, 2021, 34: 1005-1018) system and online calculators for assessing risk is recommended. The Eurotransplant Acceptable Mismatch program should be extended. If strategies for finding a compatible kidney are very unlikely to yield a transplant, desensitization may be considered and should be performed with plasma exchange or immunoadsorption, supplemented with IViG and/or anti-CD20 antibody. Newer therapies, such as imlifidase, may offer alternatives. Few studies compare HLA incompatible transplantation with remaining on the waiting list, and comparisons of morbidity or quality of life do not exist. Kidney paired exchange programs (KEP) should be more widely used and should include unspecified and deceased donors, as well as compatible living donor pairs. The use of a KEP is preferred to desensitization, but highly sensitized patients should not be left on a KEP list indefinitely if the option of a direct incompatible transplant exists.
Topics: Antibodies; HLA Antigens; Histocompatibility Testing; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Living Donors; Quality of Life; Waiting Lists
PubMed: 36033645
DOI: 10.3389/ti.2022.10511 -
Transplant International : Official... 2023Thrombosis is a leading causes of pancreas graft loss after simultaneous pancreas kidney (SPK), pancreas after kidney (PAK), and pancreas transplant alone (PTA). There... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Thrombosis is a leading causes of pancreas graft loss after simultaneous pancreas kidney (SPK), pancreas after kidney (PAK), and pancreas transplant alone (PTA). There remains no standardized thromboprophylaxis protocol. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the impact of heparin thromboprophylaxis on the incidence of pancreas thrombosis, pancreas graft loss, bleeding, and secondary outcomes in SPK, PAK, and PTA. Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched BIOSIS®, PubMed®, Cochrane Library®, EMBASE®, MEDLINE®, and Web of Science® on April 21, 2021. Primary peer-reviewed studies that met inclusion criteria were included. Two methods of quantitative synthesis were performed to account for comparative and non-comparative studies. We included 11 studies, comprising of 1,122 patients in the heparin group and 236 patients in the no-heparin group. When compared to the no-heparin control, prophylactic heparinization significantly decreased the risk of early pancreas thrombosis and pancreas loss for SPK, PAK and PTA without increasing the incidence of bleeding or acute return to the operating room. Heparin thromboprophylaxis yields an approximate two-fold reduction in both pancreas thrombosis and pancreas loss for SPK, PAK and PTA. We report the dosage, frequency, and duration of heparin administration to consolidate the available evidence.
Topics: Humans; Heparin; Anticoagulants; Kidney Transplantation; Venous Thromboembolism; Pancreas Transplantation; Pancreas; Thrombosis; Graft Survival
PubMed: 36819126
DOI: 10.3389/ti.2023.10442 -
Transplantation Oct 2022Pancreas transplantation in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains relatively uncommon compared with pancreas transplantation in patients with type 1 diabetes...
Pancreas transplantation in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains relatively uncommon compared with pancreas transplantation in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, several studies have suggested similar outcomes between T2D and T1D, and the practice has become increasingly common. Despite this growing interest in pancreas transplantation in T2D, no study has systematically summarized the data to date. We systematically reviewed the literature on pancreas transplantation in T2D patients including patient and graft survival, glycemic control outcomes, and comparisons with outcomes in T2D kidney transplant alone and T1D pancreas transplant recipients. We searched biomedical databases from January 1, 2000, to January 14, 2021, and screened 3314 records, of which 22 full texts and 17 published abstracts met inclusion criteria. Full-text studies were predominantly single center (73%), whereas the remaining most often studied the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database. Methodological quality was mixed with frequent concern for selection bias and concern for inconsistent definitions of both T2D and pancreas graft survival across studies. Overall, studies generally reported favorable patient survival, graft survival, and glycemic control outcomes for pancreas transplantation in T2D and expressed a need to better characterize the T2D patients who would benefit most from pancreas transplantation. We suggest guidance for future studies, with the aim of supporting the safe and evidence-based treatment of end-stage T2D and judicious use of scarce resources.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Graft Survival; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Pancreas Transplantation
PubMed: 35576270
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000004113 -
PloS One 2020We aimed to systematically review published data on the effectiveness of Institut Georges Lopez-1 (IGL-1) as a preservation solution for kidney and pancreas grafts. A...
We aimed to systematically review published data on the effectiveness of Institut Georges Lopez-1 (IGL-1) as a preservation solution for kidney and pancreas grafts. A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases was performed. Human studies evaluating the effects of IGL-1 preservation solution in kidney and/or pancreas transplantation were included. Outcome data on kidney and pancreas graft function were extracted. Of 1513 unique articles identified via the search strategy, four articles could be included in the systematic review. Of these, two retrospective studies reported on the outcome of IGL-1 compared to University of Wisconsin (UW) solution in kidney transplantation. These show kidneys preserved in IGL-1 had improved early function (2 weeks post-transplant) compared to UW. Follow-up was limited to 1 year and showed similar graft and patient survival rates when reported. Two case series described acceptable early outcomes (up to 1 month) of simultaneous kidney pancreas transplantation after storage in IGL-1. As only four clinical papers were identified, we widened our search to include four eligible large animal studies. Three compared IGL-1 with UW in pig kidney transplant models with inconclusive or mildly positive results. One pig pancreas transplant study suggested better early outcome with IGL-1 compared to UW. Too few published data are available to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of IGL-1 as a preservation solution of kidney and pancreas grafts. The limited available data show satisfactory early outcomes though no medium to long-term outcomes have been described. Further well-designed clinical studies are needed.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Kidney; Kidney Transplantation; Organ Preservation; Organ Preservation Solutions; Pancreas; Pancreas Transplantation
PubMed: 32240262
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231019 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jun 2022The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUSD) in treatment of pancreas fluid collection (PFC) after pancreas surgeries have not been evaluated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUSD) in treatment of pancreas fluid collection (PFC) after pancreas surgeries have not been evaluated systematically. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the outcomes of EUSD in patients with PFC after pancreas surgery and compare it with percutaneous drainage (PCD).
METHODS
PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes EUSD in treatment of PFC after pancreas surgeries, from their inception until January 2022. Two meta-analyses were performed: (A) a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of EUSD (meta-analysis A) and (B) two-arm meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of EUSD and PCD (meta-analysis B). Pooled proportion of the outcomes in meta-analysis A as well as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) in meta-analysis B was calculated to determine the technical and clinical success rates, complications rate, hospital stay, and recurrence rate. ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
The literature search retrieved 610 articles, 25 of which were eligible for inclusion. Included clinical studies comprised reports on 695 patients. Twenty-five studies (477 patients) were included in meta-analysis A and eight studies (356 patients) were included in meta-analysis B. In meta-analysis A, the technical and clinical success rates of EUSD were 94% and 87%, respectively, with post-procedural complications of 14% and recurrence rates of 9%. Meta-analysis B showed comparable technical and clinical success rates as well as complications rates between EUSD and PCD. EUSD showed significantly shorter duration of hospital stay compared to that of patients treated with PCD.
CONCLUSION
EUSD seems to be associated with high technical and clinical success rates, with low rates of procedure-related complications. Although EUSD leads to shorter hospital stay compared to PCD, the certainty of evidence was low in this regard.
Topics: Drainage; Endosonography; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Pancreatic Diseases
PubMed: 35246738
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09137-6 -
Global Surgical Education : Journal of... 2022Transplant surgery is a demanding field in which the technical skills of the surgeon correlates with patient outcomes. As such, there is potential for simulation-based... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Transplant surgery is a demanding field in which the technical skills of the surgeon correlates with patient outcomes. As such, there is potential for simulation-based training to play an important role in technical skill acquisition. This study provides a systematic assessment of the current literature regarding the use of simulation to improve surgeon technical skills in transplantation.
METHODS
Data were collected by performing an electronic search of the PubMed and Scopus database for articles describing simulation in transplant surgery. The abstracts were screened using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Three reviewers analyzed 172 abstracts and agreed upon articles that met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review.
RESULTS
Simulators can be categorized into virtual reality simulators, cadaveric models, animal models (animate or inanimate) and synthetic physical models. No virtual reality simulators in transplant surgery are described in the literature. Three cadaveric models, seven animal models and eight synthetic physical models specific to transplant surgery are described. A total of 18 publications focusing on technical skills simulation in kidney, liver, lung, pancreas, and cardiac transplantation were found with the majority focusing on kidney transplantation.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review identifies currently reported simulation models in transplant surgery. This will serve as a reference for general surgery and transplant surgery professionals interested in using simulation to enhance their technical skills.
PubMed: 38013707
DOI: 10.1007/s44186-022-00028-x -
The British Journal of Surgery Feb 2022This individual-patient data meta-analysis investigated the effects of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols compared with conventional care on postoperative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This individual-patient data meta-analysis investigated the effects of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols compared with conventional care on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.
METHODS
The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched systematically for articles reporting outcomes of ERAS after pancreatoduodenectomy published up to August 2020. Comparative studies were included. Main outcomes were postoperative functional recovery elements, postoperative morbidity, duration of hospital stay, and readmission.
RESULTS
Individual-patient data were obtained from 17 of 31 eligible studies comprising 3108 patients. Time to liquid (mean difference (MD) -3.23 (95 per cent c.i. -4.62 to -1.85) days; P < 0.001) and solid (-3.84 (-5.09 to -2.60) days; P < 0.001) intake, time to passage of first stool (MD -1.38 (-1.82 to -0.94) days; P < 0.001) and time to removal of the nasogastric tube (3.03 (-4.87 to -1.18) days; P = 0.001) were reduced with ERAS. ERAS was associated with lower overall morbidity (risk difference (RD) -0.04, 95 per cent c.i. -0.08 to -0.01; P = 0.015), less delayed gastric emptying (RD -0.11, -0.22 to -0.01; P = 0.039) and a shorter duration of hospital stay (MD -2.33 (-2.98 to -1.69) days; P < 0.001) without a higher readmission rate.
CONCLUSION
ERAS improved postoperative outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy. Implementation should be encouraged.
Topics: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Patient Readmission; Postoperative Complications; Recovery of Function
PubMed: 35037019
DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znab436 -
Surgery Nov 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy with a specific emphasis on the postoperative pancreatic fistula. For benign and low-grade malignant lesions in the pancreatic neck and body, central pancreatectomy may be an alternative to distal pancreatectomy. Exocrine and endocrine insufficiency occur less often after central pancreatectomy, but the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula is higher.
METHODS
An electronic search was performed for studies on elective minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, which reported on major morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula in PubMed, Cochrane Register, Embase, and Google Scholar until June 1, 2021. A review protocol was developed a priori and registered in PROSPERO as CRD42021259738. A meta-regression was performed by using a random effects model.
RESULTS
Overall, 41 studies were included involving 1,004 patients, consisting of 158 laparoscopic minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, 80 robot-assisted minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, and 766 open central pancreatectomies. The overall rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula was 14%, major morbidity 14%, and 30-day mortality 1%. The rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (17% vs 24%, P = .194), major morbidity (17% vs 14%, P = .672), and new-onset diabetes (3% vs 6%, P = .353) did not differ significantly between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, respectively. Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy was associated with significantly fewer blood transfusions, less exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and fewer readmissions compared with open central pancreatectomy. A meta-regression was performed with a random effects model between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy and showed no significant difference for postoperative pancreatic fistula (random effects model 0.16 [0.10; 0.24] with P = .789), major morbidity (random effects model 0.20 [0.15; 0.25] with P = .410), and new-onset diabetes mellitus (random effects model 0.04 [0.02; 0.07] with P = .651).
CONCLUSION
In selected patients and in experienced hands, minimally invasive central pancreatectomy is a safe alternative to open central pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant lesions of the neck and body. Ideally, further research should confirm this with the main focus on postoperative pancreatic fistula and endocrine and exocrine insufficiency.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35987787
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.06.024 -
American Journal of Transplantation :... Sep 2021Comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for the practice of pancreas transplantation are yet to be established. The First World Consensus Conference on Pancreas...
Comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for the practice of pancreas transplantation are yet to be established. The First World Consensus Conference on Pancreas Transplantation was convened for this purpose. A steering committee selected the participants and defined the questions to be addressed. A group of literature reviewers identified 597 studies to be included in summaries for guidelines production. Expert groups formulated the first draft of recommendations. Two rounds of discussion and voting occurred online, using the Delphi method (agreement rate ≥85%). After each round, critical responses of experts were reviewed, and recommendations were amended accordingly. Recommendations were finalized after live discussions. Each session was preceded by expert presentations and a summary of results of systematic literature review. Up to three voting rounds were allowed for each recommendation. To avoid potential conflicts of interest, deliberations on issues regarding the impact of pancreas transplantation on the management of diabetes were conducted by an independent jury. Recommendations on technical issues were determined by experts and validated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology. Each recommendation received a GRADE rating (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations).
Topics: Consensus; Humans; Pancreas Transplantation
PubMed: 34245116
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.16738