Development and Validation of HAS (Hajibandeh Index, ASA Status, Sarcopenia) - A Novel Model for Predicting Mortality After Emergency Laparotomy.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a predictive model to predict the risk of postoperative mortality after emergency laparotomy taking into account the following variables: age, age ≥ 80, ASA status, clinical frailty score, sarcopenia, Hajibandeh Index (HI), bowel resection, and intraperitoneal contamination. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The discriminative powers of the currently available predictive tools range between adequate and strong; none has demonstrated excellent discrimination yet. METHODS: The TRIPOD and STROCSS statement standards were followed to protocol and conduct a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent emergency laparotomy due to non-traumatic acute abdominal pathology between 2017 and 2022. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis was used to develop and validate the model via two protocols (Protocol A and B). The model performance was evaluated in terms of discrimination (ROC curve analysis), calibration (calibration diagram and Hosmer-Lemeshow test), and classification (classification table). RESULTS: One thousand forty-three patients were included (statistical power = 94%). Multivariable analysis kept HI (Protocol-A: P =0.0004; Protocol-B: P =0.0017), ASA status (Protocol-A: P =0.0068; Protocol-B: P =0.0007), and sarcopenia (Protocol-A: P <0.0001; Protocol-B: P <0.0001) as final predictors of 30-day postoperative mortality in both protocols; hence the model was called HAS (HI, ASA status, sarcopenia). The HAS demonstrated excellent discrimination (AUC: 0.96, P <0.0001), excellent calibration ( P <0.0001), and excellent classification (95%) via both protocols. CONCLUSIONS: The HAS is the first model demonstrating excellent discrimination, calibration, and classification in predicting the risk of 30-day mortality following emergency laparotomy. The HAS model seems promising and is worth attention for external validation using the calculator provided. HAS mortality risk calculator https://app.airrange.io/#/element/xr3b_E6yLor9R2c8KXViSAeOSK .

The risk of hepatic pseudoaneurysm after liver trauma in relation to the severity of liver injury: a meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis.

AIM: To determine the risk of hepatic pseudoaneurysm after liver trauma in relation to the severity of liver injury. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in compliance with PRISMA statement standards (Registration Number: CRD42022328834). A search of electronic information sources was conducted to identify all studies reporting the risk of hepatic pseudoaneurysm after liver trauma. The JBI assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Random-effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data. RESULTS: A total of 2030 patients from six studies were included. Based on the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma classification system, 21% had grade I injury; 33% grade II injury; 28% grade III injury; 12% grade IV injury and 5% grade V injury. The pooled risk of hepatic pseudoaneurysm was 1.8% (95% CI 1.1-2.5%). The risk was 0.4% (0-1.2%) in patients with grade I injury, 0.7% (0-1.7%) in patients with grade II injury; 1.5% (0.4-2.7%) in patients with grade III injury; 4.6% (1.4-7.7%) in patients with grade IV injury and 10.6% (1.8-22.9%) in patients with grade V injury. The average time between liver injury and detection of hepatic pseudoaneurysm was 6 days (95% CI 1-10) CONCLUSIONS: The risk of hepatic pseudoaneurysm after liver trauma increases as the severity of liver injury increases. Hepatic pseudoaneurysms are rare after grade I or grade II injuries, and increasingly common after grades III, IV and V injuries. We recommend routine surveillance imaging in patients with grade III to V injuries.

Cohort study of long-term survival and recurrence patterns following operative management of colorectal liver metastasis - is follow-up beyond 5 years warranted?

AIMS: To evaluate the patterns of overall survival (OS) and recurrence following surgical resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). METHODS: In compliance with STROCSS guideline, a single-centre retrospective cohort study was conducted. All consecutive patients undergoing resection of CRLM between 2003 and 2019 were considered eligible for inclusion. The outcome measures included OS, recurrence-free survival (RFS), recurrence rate, time to recurrence (TTR) and longest TTR. Statistical analyses included simple descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier survival statistics. RESULTS: We included 486 liver resections in 472 patients. The estimated median OS and RFS were 5.1 years and 3.1 years, respectively. The probability of 1-year, 3-year, 5-year and 10-year OS was 93%, 69%, 50% and 34%, respectively. The probability of 1-year, 3-year, 5-year and 10-year RFS was 81%, 50%, 34% and 33%, respectively. Recurrence occurred in 56% (271/486) of patients, and the median TTR was 1.6 years (IQR: 0.8-2.7) with longest TTR of 4.8 years. Although there were no recurrences in the 66 patients that entered the 6th year, the 95% CI for true rate of recurrence in the population given these data is 0-5.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that recurrences that occur after operative management of CRLM are almost certain to occur within the first 5 years even for patients surviving longer than 5 years. This does not disprove the requirement for follow up beyond 5 years. However, based on this data, we have altered our follow up from 10 to 6 years. The need for the 6th year of follow up will be reassessed in light of further observations.

Partial ALPPS with a longer wait between procedures is safe and yields adequate future liver remnant hypertrophy.

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS: Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy (ALPPS) has generated controversy due to high morbidity and mortality. We present our series of patients with 30-40% parenchymal transection and minimal hilar dissection. METHODS: Patients who had partial ALPPS between April 2015 and April 2016 were included. Patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) had their future liver remnants (FLR) cleared with metastasectomies. The liver was divided along the future line of transection to 30-40%, right portal vein was stapled and divided without extensive hilar dissection, with minimal handling of right liver, which was not mobilised. We preserved the middle hepatic vein. Data were collected prospectively for hypertrophy of the FLR, morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Among the 8 patients (age 25-68) investigated, one patient with cholangiocarcinoma had portal vein embolization prior to partial ALPPS. All patients completed two stages with adequate FLR hypertrophy at a median of 28 days. No mortality was found. The median length of stay after stages 1 and 2 was 9 and 9.6 days, respectively. The median increase in FLR was 38%. CONCLUSIONS: A limited transection of 30-40%, minimal hilar dissection and longer wait between stages yielded adequate FLR hypertrophy with low morbidity and no mortality.

Review of the diagnosis, classification and management of autoimmune pancreatitis.

Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a rare form of chronic pancreatitis, with as yet undetermined incidence and prevalence in the general population. Our understanding of it continues to evolve. In the last few years, 2 separate subtypes have been identified: type 1 AIP has been recognised as the pancreatic manifestation of a multiorgan disease, named immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4)-related disease while type 2 AIP is a pancreas specific disorder not associated with IgG4. International criteria for the diagnosis of AIP have been defined: the HISORt criteria from the Mayo clinic, the Japan consensus criteria and, most recently, the international association of pancreatology "International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria". Despite this, in clinical practice it can still be very difficult to confirm the diagnosis and differentiate AIP from a pancreatic cancer. There are no large studies into the long-term prognosis and management of relapses of AIP, and there is even less information at present regarding the Type 2 AIP subtype. Further studies are necessary to clarify the pathogenesis, treatment and long-term outcomes of this disease. Critically for clinicians, making the correct diagnosis and differentiating the disease from pancreatic cancer is of the utmost importance and the greatest challenge.