-
BioMed Research International 2023Pancreatic trauma is an uncommon injury that occurs usually in a young population and is frequently overlooked and not readily appreciated on initial examination.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic trauma is an uncommon injury that occurs usually in a young population and is frequently overlooked and not readily appreciated on initial examination. Nowadays, the diagnosis and management of pancreatic trauma are still controversial, and there is no gold standard for the treatment. The aim of this study is to describe our experience in the management of blunt pancreatic trauma with a laparoscopic approach and review the literature on laparoscopic management of pancreatic trauma.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed, and 40 cases were reported and analysed; 10 cases were excluded because the complete data were not retrievable. We also reported our experience with the case of an 18-year-old male diagnosed with a deep laceration of the pancreas between body and tail, involving the main pancreatic duct, and with a concomitant hematoma. The patient underwent exploratory laparoscopy with abdominal toilet, necrosectomy, and suture of main pancreatic duct; the total blood loss was less than 200 ml, and the total operative time was 180 minutes. The patient recovered uneventfully and was discharged on the 6th postoperative day.
RESULTS
30 patients with pancreatic trauma, 10 adults and 20 pediatrics (mean age 28.2 years and 10.5 years), underwent a total laparoscopic approach: 2 distal pancreatic-splenectomy, 22 spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, and 6 laparoscopic drainage. The mean operative time for the adult and pediatric populations was 160.6 and 214.5 minutes, the mean estimated blood loss was 400 ml and 75 ml, and the mean hospital stay was 14.9 and 9 days, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Laparoscopic management for pancreatic trauma can be considered feasible and safe when performed by an experienced laparoscopic pancreatic team, and in such a setting, it can be considered a viable alternative to open surgery, offering the well-known benefits of minimally invasive surgery.
Topics: Male; Humans; Adult; Child; Adolescent; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases; Spleen; Laparoscopy; Abdominal Injuries; Wounds, Nonpenetrating; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37810623
DOI: 10.1155/2023/9296570 -
Clinical Transplantation Jan 2024Transplantation surgery continues to evolve and improve through advancements in transplant technique and technology. With the increased availability of ultrasound... (Review)
Review
Transplantation surgery continues to evolve and improve through advancements in transplant technique and technology. With the increased availability of ultrasound machines as well as the continued development of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocols, regional anesthesia has become an essential component of providing analgesia and minimizing opioid use perioperatively. Many centers currently utilize peripheral and neuraxial blocks during transplantation surgery, but these techniques are far from standardized practices. The utilization of these procedures is often dependent on transplantation centers' historical methods and perioperative cultures. To date, no formal guidelines or recommendations exist which address the use of regional anesthesia in transplantation surgery. In response, the Society for the Advancement of Transplant Anesthesia (SATA) identified experts in both transplantation surgery and regional anesthesia to review available literature concerning these topics. The goal of this task force was to provide an overview of these publications to help guide transplantation anesthesiologists in utilizing regional anesthesia. The literature search encompassed most transplantation surgeries currently performed and the multitude of associated regional anesthetic techniques. Outcomes analyzed included analgesic effectiveness of the blocks, reduction in other analgesic modalities-particularly opioid use, improvement in patient hemodynamics, as well as associated complications. The findings summarized in this systemic review support the use of regional anesthesia for postoperative pain control after transplantation surgeries. Part 1 of the manuscript focused on regional anesthesia performed in thoracic transplantation surgeries, and part 2 in abdominal transplantations. Specifically, regional anesthesia in liver, kidney, pancreas, intestinal, and uterus transplants or applicable surgeries are discussed.
Topics: Female; Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Anesthesia, Conduction; Abdominal Muscles; Analgesics
PubMed: 38289879
DOI: 10.1111/ctr.15227 -
Transplant Immunology Aug 2022Passenger lymphocyte syndrome (PLS) is an immune-mediated hemolysis that occurs after ABO-mismatched kidney transplantation. PLS is caused by donor lymphocytes producing... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Passenger lymphocyte syndrome (PLS) is an immune-mediated hemolysis that occurs after ABO-mismatched kidney transplantation. PLS is caused by donor lymphocytes producing antibodies to recipient red blood cells, resulting in hemolysis. The incidence of PLS has been reported to be approximately 20% in patients with ABO-mismatched groups. Nevertheless, there is no comprehensive review of PLS following renal transplantation. In this review, we systematically summarized the data of patients with PLS after renal transplantation to help clinicians diagnose and treat more effectively.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. All relevant data were collected, including age, sex, and clinical and immune parameters.
RESULTS
A total of 91 published cases were identified. The age ranged from 9 to 70 years old and 58.2% were male. Eighty-six cases were only kidney transplantations, one was liver-kidney transplantation, three were pancreas-kidney transplantations, and one was intestinal-kidney transplantation. Of these cases, 27 received kidneys from deceased donors, whereas 40 received kidneys from living donors. Most patients showed immune hemolysis dominated by anaemia, which was significantly improved after symptomatic support treatment, such as blood transfusion and erythropoietin injection.
CONCLUSION
PLS is an immune-mediated disease that can occur in patients with ABO-mismatched renal transplantation, which commonly causes hemolysis, although death or deformities of the graft can also occur in patients with the disorder. Symptomatic supportive treatment is an effective treatment scheme at present, but more effective treatment and prevention schemes still need to be explored.
Topics: ABO Blood-Group System; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Blood Group Incompatibility; Child; Female; Hemolysis; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Lymphocytes; Male; Middle Aged; Syndrome; Young Adult
PubMed: 35487476
DOI: 10.1016/j.trim.2022.101605 -
Transplantation Proceedings Jun 2024This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) associated with tacrolimus (TAC) in patients undergoing kidney-pancreas and kidney...
Safety and Efficacy of Mycophenolate Mofetil Associated With Tacrolimus for Kidney-pancreas and Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Studies.
INTRODUCTION
This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) associated with tacrolimus (TAC) in patients undergoing kidney-pancreas and kidney transplants, in comparison with cyclosporine (CyA), azathioprine (AZA), everolimus (EVL), sirolimus (SRL), manitimus (MAN), mizoribine (MZR), and enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (ECMPS) in combination or monotherapy.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials was performed. The outcomes comprised acute rejection, graft loss, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Thirty studies were included. The main adverse events related to the TAC+MMF scheme were infection (36%; 95%CI: 26%-46%), including cytomegalovirus (CMV) (14%; 95%CI: 8%-20%); anemia (20%; 95%CI: 2%-37%); leukopenia (18%; 95%CI: 3%-33%); nausea (20%; 95%CI: 1%-39%); and diarrhea (26%; 95%CI:13%-40%). TAC+MMF was compared to the schemes AZA+TAC, CyA+AZA, CyA+MMF, CyA+SRL, ECMPS, EVL, MAN+TAC, MMF+SRL, MZR, TAC+AZA, TAC+EVR, TAC+MZR, TAC +SRL and TAC. TAC+MMF was associated with a lower risk of rejection than MMF monotherapy (RD: -0.24; 95%CI -0.46; -0.02). Comparing TAC+MMF with the other regimens, no significant difference was found for graft loss. TAC+MMF was associated with a higher risk of infections than MZR (RD: 0.174; 95%CI: 0.25; 0.323) and TAC monotherapy (RD: 0.07; 95%CI 0.003; 0.138).
CONCLUSION
Gastrointestinal and hematological adverse events and infections are the most common with TAC+MMF for kidney-pancreas and kidney. TAC+MMF effectively prevents acute cellular rejection, and alternatives with AZA, CyA, SRL, ECMPS, EVL, MAN, and MSR have similar efficacy and safety profiles. TAC monotherapy and MZR may be associated with a lower risk of infections.
PubMed: 38853029
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2024.05.014 -
Bone Marrow Transplantation Apr 2023Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) is a leading cause of cancer death in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). Relapsed or refractory (R/R) PTLD... (Review)
Review
Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) is a leading cause of cancer death in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). Relapsed or refractory (R/R) PTLD portends a high risk of death and effective management is not well established. CD19-targeted CAR-T cell therapy has been utilized, but the risks and benefits are unknown. We report the first case of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) PTLD treated with lisocabtagene maraleucel and present a systematic literature review of SOTRs with PTLD treated with CD19 CAR-T therapy. Our patient achieved a complete response (CR) with limited toxicity but experienced a CD19 relapse 8 months after infusion despite CAR-T persistence. Literature review revealed 14 DLBCL and 2 Burkitt lymphoma PTLD cases treated with CD19 CAR-T cells. Kidney (n = 12), liver (n = 2), heart (n = 2), and pancreas after kidney (n = 1) transplant recipients were analyzed. The objective response rate (ORR) was 82.4% (14/17), with 58.5% (10/17) CRs and a 6.5-month median duration of response. Among kidney transplant recipients, the ORR was 91.7% (11/12). Allograft rejection occurred in 23.5% (4/17). No graft failure occurred. Our analysis suggests that CD19 CAR-T therapy offers short-term effectiveness and manageable toxicity in SOTRs with R/R PTLD. Further investigation through larger datasets and prospective study is needed.
Topics: Humans; Antigens, CD19; Epstein-Barr Virus Infections; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse; Lymphoproliferative Disorders; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Organ Transplantation; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 36575360
DOI: 10.1038/s41409-022-01907-z -
Surgical Oncology Jun 2020The study aim is to analyze the evolution over the last 25 years of the results reported after abdominal oncological surgery in patients aged 80 years of age and older.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Surgical oncology in patients aged 80 years and older is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of literature over 25 years.
BACKGROUND
The study aim is to analyze the evolution over the last 25 years of the results reported after abdominal oncological surgery in patients aged 80 years of age and older. The primary endpoint was morbidity and mortality in this group of patients; the secondary endpoint was overall survival.
METHODS
A systematic search strategy was used to browse through Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using a combination of standardized index terms. Studies published between 1997 and 2017 were selected. Only those studies that showed morbidity and mortality after digestive and hepatobiliary tract oncological surgery in individuals aged 80 years and older were included. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42018087921. PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines were applied.
RESULTS
A total of 79 studies were included, categorized by origin of malignancy: esophageal (7), stomach (26), liver (4), pancreas (19), and colorectal (23). Compared with the non-elderly group, the elderly group had similar esophageal morbidity with higher mortality (RR 2.51, 1.50 to 4.21; P = 0.0005); higher gastric morbidity (RR 1.25, 1.09 to 1.43; P = 0.001), and mortality (RR 2.51, 1.81 to 3.49; P = 0.0001); similar liver morbidity and mortality; higher pancreatic morbidity (RR 1.17, 1.03 to 1.33; P = 0.02) and mortality (RR 2.37, 1.86 to 3.03; P < 0.00001); and similar colorectal morbidity with higher mortality (RR 4.44, 1.91 to 10.32; P = 0.005).
CONCLUSION
Oncological surgery of most abdominal visceral tumors is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients older than 80 years.
Topics: Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Neoplasms; Digestive System Neoplasms; Esophageal Neoplasms; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Stomach Neoplasms; Surgical Oncology
PubMed: 32561103
DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2019.12.007 -
Transplantation Reviews (Orlando, Fla.) Jan 2023The clinical outcomes of kidney donors with a prior history of nephrolithiasis are poorly defined. We conducted a systematic review assessing the post-donation clinical... (Review)
Review
The clinical outcomes of kidney donors with a prior history of nephrolithiasis are poorly defined. We conducted a systematic review assessing the post-donation clinical outcomes of kidney donors with a history of nephrolithiasis. Electronic databases (Ovid and Embase) were searched between 1960 and 2021 using key terms and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) - nephrolithiasis, renal stones, renal transplantation and renal graft. Articles included conference proceedings and journal articles and were not excluded based on patient numbers. Primary outcome was donor stone-related event. Secondary outcomes were renal function upon follow-up or post-operative nephrectomy complications. In summary, 340 articles were identified through database search. We identified 14 studies (16 cohorts) comprising 432 live donors followed up for a median of 26 months post live kidney donation. Six donors donated the stone-free kidney whilst 23 live donors had bilateral stones. Mean stone size was 4.2 ± 1.4 mm (1-16) with average follow up duration of 21.1 months (1-149). Twelve studies provided primary outcome (n = 138 patients) and eight (n = 348) for secondary outcomes. One donor had a stone-related event upon follow up. A total of 195 patients had eGFR <60 upon follow up. However, they were not significantly different when compared to renal function of live donors that didn't have pre-donation nephrolithiasis. Many of the studies couldn't provide long term follow up, coupled with limited data regarding the nature of the pre-donation stone disease. In conclusion, this systematic review shows that we have very limited information upon which to base recommendation regarding pre-donation risk of post-donation complications. Longer term follow up is required and lifelong follow up with live donor registries will aid further understanding.
Topics: Humans; Living Donors; Kidney; Nephrolithiasis; Kidney Transplantation; Nephrectomy
PubMed: 36587468
DOI: 10.1016/j.trre.2022.100746 -
International Journal of Surgery... Nov 2021Although minimally invasive technology has been widely used in hepatectomy, it remains controversial with regards to liver transplantation, especially in donors right... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although minimally invasive technology has been widely used in hepatectomy, it remains controversial with regards to liver transplantation, especially in donors right hepatectomy. Herein, we compared the short-term safety and efficacy of minimally invasive donors right hepatectomy (MIDRH) with open donors right hepatectomy (ODRH).
METHODS
A systematic literature search was carried out using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library database in order to identify comparison studies of MIDRH and ODRH. Next, we obtained the relevant data, and carried out the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included 12 studies, which included 1755 cases that underwent donors right hepatectomy. Compared to ODRH, patients that underwent MIDRH had less bleeding (SWD = -0.52, p<0.001), shorter hospital stays (SWD = -0.58, p < 0.001) and lower overall postoperative complications of donors (RR = 0.74, p = 0.008). However, MIDRH was found to be associated with prolonged operative times (SWD = 0.74, p < 0.001), as well as a higher rate of biliary complications in donors (RR = 2.26, p = 0.007) and recipients (RR = 1.69, p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between MIDRH and ODRH in postoperative liver function, rate of major complications and vascular complications of both donors and recipients and overall postoperative complications.
DISCUSSION
MIDRH is superior to ODRH with regards to intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay and overall donor complications. Although biliary-related complications are higher, it is feasible to develop MIDRH in experienced liver transplant centers. However, higher-quality research is still needed for corroboration.
Topics: Hepatectomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Liver Transplantation; Living Donors; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Tissue and Organ Harvesting
PubMed: 34688930
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106152 -
International Journal of Dermatology Jan 2020Solid organ transplant recipients have an increased risk of malignancy compared with the general population. Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors have been...
BACKGROUND
Solid organ transplant recipients have an increased risk of malignancy compared with the general population. Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors have been used as immunosuppressants in transplant recipients. There remains a lack of evidence of this treatment in nonrenal solid organ transplantation. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of mTOR inhibitors on secondary nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) malignancies in nonrenal transplant recipients.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Eligible studies for the present systematic review and meta-analysis included those in which patient cohorts underwent heart, liver, lung, and pancreas (i.e. nonrenal solid organ) transplantation, with treatment group being those treated with an mTOR inhibitor such as sirolimus or everolimus, and control group being placebo, or alternative non-mTOR inhibitor treatment such as calcineurin inhibitors or as per standard treatment protocol.
RESULTS
From the six included studies, we found no significant difference in the odds of either primary or secondary NMSC (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.41-1.29, P = 0.28). Pooled analysis of patients with secondary NMSC demonstrated a trend toward significant benefit with mTOR inhibitor treatment (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37-1.02, P = 0.06) but no protective effect for primary NMSC (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.03-9.96, P = 0.67).
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that in nonrenal transplant recipients, mTOR inhibitors may have a protective effect against secondary NMSC but not primary NMSC posttransplantation. Extrapolating the findings of reduced NMSC in renal transplant populations to nonrenal transplant cases should be cautioned.
PubMed: 31228256
DOI: 10.1111/ijd.14549 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Graft thrombosis is a well-recognised complication of solid organ transplantation and is one of the leading causes of graft failure. Currently there are no standardised... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Graft thrombosis is a well-recognised complication of solid organ transplantation and is one of the leading causes of graft failure. Currently there are no standardised protocols for thromboprophylaxis. Many transplant units use unfractionated heparin (UFH) and fractionated heparins (low molecular weight heparin; LMWH) as prophylaxis for thrombosis. Antiplatelet agents such as aspirin are routinely used as prophylaxis of other thrombotic conditions and may have a role in preventing graft thrombosis. However, any pharmacological thromboprophylaxis comes with the theoretical risk of increasing the risk of major blood loss following transplant. This review looks at benefits and harms of thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing solid organ transplantation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of instituting thromboprophylaxis to patients undergoing solid organ transplantation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 10 November 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs designed to examine interventions to prevent thrombosis in solid organ transplant recipients. All donor types were included (donor after circulatory (DCD) and brainstem death (DBD) and live transplantation). There was no upper age limit for recipients in our search.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The results of the literature search were screened and data collected by two independent authors. Dichotomous outcome results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Random effects models were used for data analysis. Risk of bias was independently assessed by two authors using the risk of bias assessment tool. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified nine studies (712 participants). Seven studies (544 participants) included kidney transplant recipients, and studies included liver transplant recipients. We did not identify any study enrolling heart, lung, pancreas, bowel, or any other solid organ transplant recipient. Selection bias was high or unclear in eight of the nine studies; five studies were at high risk of bias for performance and/or detection bias; while attrition and reporting biases were in general low or unclear. Three studies (180 participants) primarily investigated heparinisation in kidney transplantation. Only two studies reported on graft vessel thrombosis in kidney transplantation (144 participants). These small studies were at high risk of bias in several domains and reported only two graft thromboses between them; it therefore remains unclear whether heparin decreases the risk of early graft thrombosis or non-graft thrombosis (very low certainty). UFH may make little or no difference versus placebo to the rate of major bleeding events in kidney transplantation (3 studies, 155 participants: RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.89 to 9.56; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effect model suggested that UFH may increase the risk of haemorrhagic events compared to placebo (RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 10.67, P = 0.04). Compared to control, any heparin (including LMWH) may make little or no difference to the number of major bleeding events (3 studies, 180 participants: RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.89 to 8.19; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) and had an unclear effect on risk of readmission to intensive care (3 studies, 180 participants: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.90, I² = 45%; very low certainty evidence). The effect of heparin on our other outcomes (including death, patient and graft survival, transfusion requirements) remains unclear (very low certainty evidence). Three studies (144 participants) investigated antiplatelet interventions in kidney transplantation: aspirin versus dipyridamole (1), and Lipo-PGE plus low-dose heparin to "control" in patients who had a diagnosis of acute rejection (2). None of these reported on early graft thromboses. The effect of aspirin, dipyridamole and Lipo PGE plus low-dose heparin on any outcomes is unclear (very low certainty evidence). Two studies (168 participants) assessed interventions in liver transplants. One compared warfarin versus aspirin in patients with pre-existing portal vein thrombosis and the other investigated plasmapheresis plus anticoagulation. Both studies were abstract-only publications, had high risk of bias in several domains, and no outcomes could be meta-analysed. Overall, the effect of any of these interventions on any of our outcomes remains unclear with no evidence to guide anti-thrombotic therapy in standard liver transplant recipients (very low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, there is a paucity of research in the field of graft thrombosis prevention. Due to a lack of high quality evidence, it remains unclear whether any therapy is able to reduce the rate of early graft thrombosis in any type of solid organ transplant. UFH may increase the risk of major bleeding in kidney transplant recipients, however this is based on low certainty evidence. There is no evidence from RCTs to guide anti-thrombotic strategies in liver, heart, lung, or other solid organ transplants. Further studies are required in comparing anticoagulants, antiplatelets to placebo in solid organ transplantation. These should focus on outcomes such as early graft thrombosis, major haemorrhagic complications, return to theatre, and patient/graft survival.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Aspirin; Bias; Dipyridamole; Hemorrhage; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Liver Transplantation; Placebos; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thrombosis; Transplant Recipients; Warfarin
PubMed: 33720396
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011557.pub2