The CUSA Clarity Soft Tissue Removal Study: Clinical Performance Investigation of the CUSA Clarity Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator System for Soft Tissue Removal During Liver Surgery.

Background: Intraoperative blood loss has an unfavorable impact on the outcome of patients undergoing liver surgery. Today, the use of devices capable of minimizing this risk with high technical performance becomes mandatory. Into this scenario fits the CUSA® Clarity Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator System. This prospective survey involving five liver surgery centers had the objective of investigating whether this innovative ultrasonic surgical aspirator is safe and effective in the transection of the liver parenchyma. Materials and Methods: This clinical study was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm Post-Market Clinical Follow-up study investigating 100 subjects who underwent liver surgery using the CUSA Clarity Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator System at five centers during a period of 1 year and 8 months. After collecting all the patient's clinical information and instrument usage details, surgeons completed a brief survey giving their opinions on the performance of CUSA. Therefore, safety and efficacy outcomes were evaluated. Results: Surgeons had a 95% success rate in complete removal of the mass with an average overall operative time of 4 hours and 34 minutes. Overall, there were no complications or device deficiencies. Conclusion: The CUSA Clarity Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator System performs well during liver surgery with a low complication rate. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04298268.

The perioperative period of liver transplantation from unconventional extended criteria donors: data from two high-volume centres.

BACKGROUND: As literature largely focuses on long-term outcomes, this study aimed at elucidating the perioperative outcomes of liver transplant patients receiving a graft from two groups of unconventional expanded criteria donors: brain dead aged > 80 years and cardiac dead. METHODS: Data of 247 cirrhotic patients transplanted at two high volume liver transplant centers were analysed. Confounders were balanced using a stabilized inverse probability therapy weighting and a propensity score for each patient on the original population was generated. The score was created using a multivariate logistic regression model considering a Comprehensive Complication Index ≥ 42 (no versus yes) as the dependent variable and 11 possible clinically relevant confounders as covariate. RESULTS: Forty-four patients received the graft from a cardiac-dead donor and 203 from a brain-dead donor aged > 80 years. Intraoperatively, cardiac-dead donors liver transplant cases required more fresh frozen plasma units (P < 0.0001) with similar reduced need of fibrinogen to old brain-dead donors cases. The incidence of reperfusion syndrome was similar (P = 0.80). In the Intensive Care Unit, both the groups presented a comparable low need for blood transfusions, renal replacement therapy and inotropes. Cardiac-dead donors liver transplantations required more time to tracheal extubation (P < 0.0001) and scored higher Comprehensive Complication Index (P < 0.0001) however the incidence of a severe complication status (Comprehensive Complication Index ≥ 42) was similar (P = 0.52). ICU stay (P = 0.97), total hospital stay (P = 0.57), in hospital (P = 1.00) and 6 months (P = 1.00) death were similar. CONCLUSION: Selected octogenarian and cardiac-dead donors can be used safely for liver transplantation.

Split and whole liver transplantation outcomes: a comparative cohort study.

A specific split liver transplantation (SLT) program has been pursued in the North Italian Transplant program (NITp) since November 1997. After 5 yr, 1,449 liver transplants were performed in 7 transplant centers, using 1,304 cadaveric donors. Whole liver transplantation (WLT) and SLT were performed in 1,126 and 323 cases, respectively. SLTs were performed in situ as 147 left lateral segments (LLS), 154 right trisegment liver (RTL) grafts, and 22 modified split livers (MSL), used for couples of adult recipients. After a median posttransplant follow-up of 22 months, SLTs achieved a 3-yr patient and graft survival not significantly different from the entire series of transplants (79.4 and 72.2% vs. 80.6 and 74.9%, respectively). Recipients receiving a WLT or a LLS showed significantly better outcomes than patients receiving RTL and MSL (P < 0.03 for patients and P < 0.04 for graft survival). At the multivariate analysis, donor age of >60 yr, RTL transplant, <50 annual transplants volume, urgent transplantation (United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status I and IIA), ischemia time of >7 hours, and retransplantation were factors independently related to graft failure and to significantly worst patient survival. Right grafts procured from RTL and either split procured as MSL had a similar outcome of marginal whole livers. In conclusion, in 5 yr, the increased number of pediatric transplants due to split liver donation reduced to 3% the in-list children mortality, and a decrease in the adult patient dropout rate from 27.2 to 16.2% was observed. Such results justify a more widespread adoption of SLT protocols, organizational difficulties not being a limit for the application of such technique.