The results of surgery for renal cell carcinoma metastases of the pancreas.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic metastases from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are rare. This study evaluated the surgical pathology and outcomes after resection of RCC metastases to the pancreas. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective review of from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2021, of patients who underwent pancreatic surgery for metastases from RCC. Data were retrieved from a prospectively managed database and patient demographics, comorbidities, pathology, perioperative outcomes, and overall survival were analyzed. Median overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: There were 25 patients (17 males, 8 females, median age 66 range 51 - 79 year), all with metachronous metastases. Median time from resection of the primary to operation for pancreatic RCC was 95.6 (12.0 - 309.7) months. Twenty-four patients were operated with intended cure (four pancreaticoduodenectomies, three total pancreatectomies, 17 distal pancreatectomies) and one patient had abortive surgery due to dissemination. Postoperative surgical complications occurred in nine patients (36%), and one patient died during hospital stay. Eight patients (33.3%) developed exocrine and/or endocrine insufficiency after pancreatic resection. Fifteen patients (60%) had recurrence 21.7 (4.9 - 61.6) months after pancreatic operation. Five patients (25%) died from RCC during follow-up 46.3 (25.6 - 134.8) months after pancreatic resection. Five-year OS and DFS were83.6% and 32.3%, respectively. Median OS after pancreatic surgery was 134.8 months, independent of resection of previous extrapancreatic metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic resection for metastases from RCC offers favorable prognosis with a curative potential and should be considered a valuable treatment option even in the era of novel targeted treatment.

Risk factors for rebleeding and mortality following prophylactic transarterial embolization for patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To investigate factors associated with risk for rebleeding and 30-day mortality following prophylactic transarterial embolization in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records and included all patients who had undergone prophylactic embolization of the gastroduodenal artery at Rigshospitalet, Denmark, following an endoscopy-verified and treated peptic Sulcer bleeding, from 2016 to 2021. Data were collected from electronic health records and imaging from the embolization procedures. Primary outcomes were rebleeding and 30-day mortality. We performed logistical regression analyses for both outcomes with possible risk factors. Risk factors included: active bleeding; visible hemoclips; Rockall-score; anatomical variants; standardized embolization procedure; and number of endoscopies prior to embolization. RESULTS: We included 176 patients. Rebleeding occurred in 25% following embolization and 30-day mortality was 15%. Not undergoing a standardized embolization procedure increased the odds of both rebleeding (odds ratio 3.029, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.395-6.579) and 30-day overall mortality by 3.262 (1.252-8.497). More than one endoscopy was associated with increased odds of rebleeding (odds ratio 2.369, 95% CI 1.088-5.158). High Rockall-score increased the odds of 30-day mortality (odds ratio 2.587, 95% CI 1.243-5.386). Active bleeding, visible hemoclips, and anatomical variants did not affect risk of rebleeding or 30-day mortality. Reasons for deviation from standard embolization procedure were anatomical variations, targeted treatment without embolizing the gastroduodenal artery, and technical failure. CONCLUSIONS: Deviation from the standard embolization procedure increased the risk of rebleeding and 30-day mortality, more than one endoscopy prior to embolization was associated with higher odds of rebleeding, and a high Rockall-score increased the risk of 30-day mortality. We suggest that patients with these risk factors are monitored closely following embolization. Early detection of rebleeding may allow for proper and early re-intervention.

Accuracy of FAST in detecting intraabdominal bleeding in major trauma with pelvic and/or acetabular fractures: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: The Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) is a tool to rapidly detect intraabdominal and intrapericardial fluid with point-of-care ultrasound. Previous studies have questioned the role of FAST in patients with pelvic fractures. The aim of the present study was to assess the accuracy of FAST to detect clinically significant intraabdominal hemorrhage in patients with pelvic fractures. METHODS: We included all consecutive patients with pelvic and/or acetabular fractures treated our Level 1 trauma center from 2009-2020. We registered patient and fracture characteristics, FAST investigations and CT descriptions, explorative laparotomy findings, and transfusion needs. We compared FAST to CT and laparotomy findings, and calculated true positive and negative findings, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: We included 389 patients. FAST had a sensitivity of 75%, a specificity of 98%, a PPV of 84%, and a NPV of 96% for clinically significant intraabdominal bleeding. Patients with retroperitoneal hematomas were at increased risk for laparotomy both because of True-negative FAST and False-positive FAST. CONCLUSION: FAST is accurate to identify clinically significant intraabdominal blood in patients with severe pelvic fractures and should be a standard asset in these patients. Retroperitoneal hematomas challenge the FAST interpretation and thus the decision making when applying FAST in patients with pelvic fractures.

The Intersection of Telemedicine and Wilderness Care: Past, Present, and Future.

Wilderness medicine and telemedicine seemingly exist at opposite ends of the clinical continuum. However, these 2 specialties share a common history and the literature abounds with examples of successful deployment of telemedicine to resource limited settings. The recent widespread adoption of telemedicine has important ramifications for wilderness providers. Telemedicine is inherently reliant on some sort of technology. There is a wide spectrum of complexity involved, but in general these systems rely on a hardware component, a software component, and a network system to transmit information from place to place. Today, connectivity is nearly ubiquitous through access to cellular networks, Wi-Fi, or communication satellites. However, bandwidth, defined as the amount of data which can be transmitted through a given connection over time, remains a limiting factor for many austere settings. Telemedicine services are typically organized into 4 categories: 1) live/interactive; 2) store and forward; 3) remote patient monitoring; and 4) mHealth. Each of these categories has an applicable wilderness medicine use case which will be reviewed in this paper. Though the regulatory environment remains complex, there is enormous potential for telemedicine to enhance the practice of wilderness medicine. Drones are likely to transform wilderness medicine supply chains by facilitating delivery of food, shelter, and medicines and are able to enhance search and rescue efforts. Remote consultations can be paired with remote patient monitoring technology to deliver highly specialized care to austere environments. Early feasibility studies are promising, but further prospective data will be required to define future best practices for wilderness telemedicine.

The diagnostic value of C-reactive protein for predicting pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Pancreaticoduodenectomy is the preferred treatment of neoplasms in the pancreas and duodenum. Postoperative pancreatic fistula is a critical complication. A potential predictive marker is C-reactive protein. This retrospective study examined the predictive value of C-reactive protein as a marker for development of postoperative pancreatic fistulas. METHODS: All patients who had a pancreaticoduodenectomy from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2019, were included. Levels of the biomarker and linear trajectory were determined for postoperative days one to four. Univariate analysis was used to identify predictive variables for a postoperative pancreatic fistula. Receiver operating characteristics curves, specificity, and sensitivity were calculated. RESULTS: Five hundred and fifty-two patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. C-reactive protein level greater than 121.5mg/L on the third postoperative day and an increase in C-reactive protein level between the first and fourth postoperative days, greater than 21.7mg/L, seemed to be reliable predictors. For Grade C postoperative pancreatic fistulas, increases in C-reactive protein, greater than 40.6ml/L the first four postoperative days, had a sensitivity of 100%. White blood cell count did not have similar reliability in predicting postoperative pancreatic fistulas. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that small rises in C-reactive protein during the first postoperative days after pancreaticoduodenectomy are associated with an increased risk of developing postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Rapid decline in 51Cr-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid-measured renal function during the first weeks following liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Renal dysfunction is a serious late complication after liver transplantation (LTX), but there are no studies addressing the early changes associated with this complication. METHODS: We prospectively studied glomerular filtration rate (GFR) before and at 1, 3 and 12 weeks after LTX using 51Cr-labelled ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid clearance in 37 adult consecutive patients who underwent non-acute first LTX. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) age was 49.5 ± 9.5 years, and the male:female sex ratio was 21:16. Diagnoses were autoimmune liver diseases (17), alcoholic cirrhosis (10) and other diseases (10). Immunosuppressive treatment consisted predominantly of triple-drug therapy. A total of 27 of the 37 patients were eligible for GFR analysis at all times. The mean (±SD) GFR was 86 ± 26 mL/min/1.73 m2 before LTX, and 77 ± 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 1 week, 64 ± 27 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 3 weeks and 64 ± 23 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 12 weeks after LTX, comparable to a reduction in mean GFR compared with baseline values of 10% (P = 0.1907), 25% (P = 0.0010) and 26% (P = 0.0007). Age and number of blood transfusions during surgery were identified as risk factors for this decline as well as gender, but not pre-transplant diagnosis, model of end-stage liver disease score, cold ischaemia time or post-transplant area under the curve tacrolimus during Days 0-14. CONCLUSIONS: Using measured rather than estimated GFR, our results show that severe renal impairment occurs during the first week after LTX. These results emphasize the need for more studies addressing renoprotective treatment strategies.

Interventions for frostbite injuries.

BACKGROUND: Frostbite is a thermal injury caused when tissue is exposed to sub-zero temperatures (in degrees Celsius) long enough for ice crystals to form in the affected tissue. Depending on the degree of tissue damage, thrombosis, ischaemia, necrosis (tissue death), gangrene and ultimately amputation may occur. Several interventions for frostbite injuries have been proposed, such as hyperbaric oxygen therapy, sympathectomy (nerve block), thrombolytic (blood-thinning) therapy and vasodilating agents such as iloprost, reserpine, pentoxifylline and buflomedil, but the benefits and harms of these interventions are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of the different management options for frostbite injuries. SEARCH METHODS: On 25 February 2020, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S), as well as trials registers. Shortly before publication, we searched Clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, OpenGrey and GreyLit (9 November 2020) again. We investigated references from relevant articles, and corresponded with a trial author. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any medical intervention, e.g. pharmacological therapy, topical treatments or rewarming techniques, for frostbite injuries to another treatment, placebo or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. We used Review Manager 5 for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess bias in the included trial. We assessed incidence of amputations, rates of serious and non-serious adverse events, acute pain, chronic pain, ability to perform activities of daily living, quality of life, withdrawal rate from medical therapy due to adverse events, occupational effects and mortality. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included one, open-label randomised trial involving 47 participants with severe frostbite injuries. We judged this trial to be at high risk of bias for performance bias, and uncertain risk for attrition bias; all other risk of bias domains we judged as low. All participants underwent rapid rewarming, received 250 mg of aspirin and 400 mg intravascular (IV) buflomedil (since withdrawn from practice), and were then randomised to one of three treatment groups for the following eight days. Group 1 received additional IV buflomedil 400 mg for one hour per day. Group 2 received the prostacyclin, iloprost, 0.5 ng to 2 ng/kg/min IV for six hours per day. Group 3 received IV iloprost 2 ng/kg/min for six hours per day plus fibrinolysis with 100 mg recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) for the first day only. The results suggest that iloprost and iloprost plus rtPA may reduce the rate of amputations in people with severe frostbite compared to buflomedil alone, RR 0.05 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.78; P = 0.03; very low-quality evidence) and RR 0.31 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.94; P = 0.04; very low-quality evidence), respectively. Iloprost may be as effective as iloprost plus rtPA at reducing the amputation rate, RR 0.14 (95% CI 0.01 to 2.56; P = 0.19; very low-quality evidence). There were no reported deaths or withdrawals due to adverse events in any of the groups; we assessed evidence for both outcomes as being of very low quality. Adverse events (including flushing, nausea, palpitations and vomiting) were common, but not reported separately by comparator arm (very low-quality evidence). The included study did not measure the outcomes of acute pain, chronic pain, ability to perform activities of daily living, quality of life or occupational effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of evidence regarding interventions for frostbite injuries. Very low-quality evidence from a single small trial indicates that iloprost, and iloprost plus rtPA, in combination with buflomedil may reduce the need for amputation in people with severe frostbite compared to buflomedil alone. However, buflomedil has been withdrawn from use. High quality randomised trials are needed to establish firm evidence for the treatment of frostbite injuries.

A Telemedicine Case Series for Acute Medical Emergencies in Greenland: A Model for Austere Environments.

Background: Greenland is a vast country, with immense geographical distances and often extreme weather conditions. Specialized health care is limited to larger cities, and qualified medical care is not always immediately available in rural areas. Telemedicine infrastructure is available throughout the country. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify the role of telemedicine in the diagnosis and treatment of acute medical emergencies in remote settlements. Materials and Methods: All medical emergencies were screened from 2015 to 2016 in remote settlements of the Avannaa Health Region in Northwest Greenland, and cases in which telemedicine was utilized were identified. Results: Three illustrative cases were identified. Diagnoses were severe asthma, bilateral pneumonia, and heart failure. All three patients were accurately diagnosed through a telemedical consultation, and early treatment was initiated. In two out of three patients, acute medical evacuation by air ambulance was avoided, and the third patient was stabilized by the time an air ambulance arrived. Conclusions: Telemedicine allows for the accurate diagnosis of acute medical emergencies in remote settlements of Greenland and facilitates timely initiation of treatment. This may reduce morbidity and mortality of acute medical illness. In addition, telemedicine may aid in the clinical decision-making on whether or not to arrange for medical evacuation. Avoiding unnecessary medical evacuations reduces cost and risk to air ambulance crews. In addition, telemedicine allows for close monitoring of the patient until the air ambulance arrives. Telemedicine also ensures diagnostic and treatment options when medical evacuation is impossible due to extreme weather conditions. From a global perspective, telemedicine may increase the availability and quality of health care in remote areas and reduce health inequalities between remote and urban areas.

Psychological Care Augmented by Telemedicine after a Polar Bear Encounter at an Arctic Research Station: A Case Report.

Background: Psychologically stressful events can be particularly challenging in the wilderness or extreme environments due to a lack of immediate medical or psychological support. Telemedicine consultations may provide a means to supply medical providers in austere environments with expertise when confronted with these situations. Methods: In this study, we detail a case of psychological care imparted to residents at a remote, arctic research station after they encountered a polar bear. The health care provider at the camp was not a dedicated mental health professional but was able to deliver psychological care with assistance from a trained provider through use of telemedicine. We provide a brief overview of the evidence behind psychological first aid and incident support sessions for the treatment of stress injuries. We also review the evidence for telemedicine for psychological care in wilderness situations and describe its use in this scenario. Results: All station residents were able to resume regular arctic activities. Resident feedback was that the sessions were advantageous. Conclusions: We anticipate the need for psychological care in austere situations to increase in the future, and further training in this field and the advancement of telemedicine consultation will be of benefit to wilderness providers.

Glucocorticosteroid-free versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression for liver transplanted patients.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. Now that newer, more potent immunosuppressants have been developed, glucocorticosteroids may no longer be needed and their removal may prevent adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use or treatment of acute rejection) or withdrawal versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression following liver transplantation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, Literatura Americano e do Caribe em Ciencias da Saude (LILACS), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and The Transplant Library until May 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression for liver transplanted people. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants should have received the same co-interventions. We included trials that assessed complete glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use or treatment of acute rejection) versus short-term glucocorticosteroids, as well as trials that assessed short-term glucocorticosteroids versus long-term glucocorticosteroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used RevMan to conduct meta-analyses, calculating risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model and a fixed-effect model and reported both results where a discrepancy existed; otherwise we reported only the results from the fixed-effect model. We assessed the risk of systematic errors using 'Risk of bias' domains. We controlled for random errors by performing Trial Sequential Analysis. We presented our results in a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 completed randomised clinical trials, but only 16 studies with 1347 participants provided data for the meta-analyses. Ten of the 16 trials assessed complete postoperative glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use or treatment of acute rejection) versus short-term glucocorticosteroids (782 participants) and six trials assessed short-term glucocorticosteroids versus long-term glucocorticosteroids (565 participants). One additional study assessed complete post-operative glucocorticosteroid avoidance but could only be incorporated into qualitative analysis of the results due to limited data published in an abstract. All trials were at high risk of bias. Only eight trials reported on the type of donor used. Overall, we found no statistically significant difference for mortality (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.44; low-quality evidence), graft loss including death (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.46; low-quality evidence), or infection (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05; very low-quality evidence) when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression. Acute rejection and glucocorticosteroid-resistant rejection were statistically significantly more frequent when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.64; low-quality evidence; and RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.02; very low-quality evidence). Diabetes mellitus and hypertension were statistically significantly less frequent when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99; low-quality evidence; and RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.90; low-quality evidence). We performed Trial Sequential Analysis for all outcomes. None of the outcomes crossed the monitoring boundaries or reached the required information size. Hence, we cannot exclude random errors from the results of the conventional meta-analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Many of the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal remain uncertain because of the limited number of published randomised clinical trials, limited numbers of participants and outcomes, and high risk of bias in the trials. Glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal appears to reduce diabetes mellitus and hypertension whilst increasing acute rejection, glucocorticosteroid-resistant rejection, and renal impairment. We could identify no other benefits or harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal. Glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal may be of benefit in selected patients, especially those at low risk of rejection and high risk of hypertension or diabetes mellitus. The optimal duration of glucocorticosteroid administration remains unclear. More randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal are needed. These should be large, high-quality trials that minimise the risk of random and systematic error.

Frostbite-A Case Series From Arctic Greenland.

Greenland is not only the largest island in the world, it is also the least densely populated country on the globe. The majority of Greenland's landmass lies within the Arctic Circle. Weather conditions in Arctic areas can be extreme, thus exposing locals and visitors to a high risk of acquiring frostbite injuries. More than two thirds of Greenland is covered by a permanent ice sheet, and temperatures can drop to below -70°C. In addition, frequent storms, occupational exposure, and alcohol all contribute to an increased risk for frostbite injury. Frostbite may cause major morbidity, including tissue loss and limb amputation. Hence, proper diagnosis and treatment of frostbite injuries is of utmost importance. We present 6 cases of frostbite injuries in Greenland, ranging from mild to severe frostbite in both locals and foreign visitors. The cases illustrate some of the known risk factors for frostbite injuries. The etiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and recommended management of frostbite are summarized. Novel treatments for frostbite and frostbite sequelae are discussed in the context of the Greenlandic healthcare system. Furthermore, cultural aspects and reasons for a seemingly low incidence of frostbite injuries in Greenland are explored.

Outcome in patients treated with isolated liver transplantation for familial transthyretin amyloidosis to prevent cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Familial transthyretin (TTR) amyloidosis is caused by different TTR mutations resulting in different clinical phenotypes of the disease. The Leu111Met mutation causes severe restrictive cardiomyopathy. Liver transplantation (LTx) is an established treatment option for patients with TTR amyloidosis; however, information on outcome after isolated LTx in patients with Leu111Met mutation amyloidosis is limited. METHODS: Between 2005 and 2012, six patients with TTR Leu111Met amyloidosis underwent isolated orthotopic LTx. None suffered from neuropathy. Prior to LTx, patients presented with echocardiographic manifestations of early cardiac amyloid involvement and in five endomyocardial biopsy was positive for TTR amyloid. RESULTS: Median age at LTx was 45.5 yr (range 39-54), and four were male (67%). All patients were alive at a median follow-up of 56.6 months (range 18-104). No surgical complications occurred. Two patients (33%) underwent cardiac transplantation during follow-up due to progressive cardiomyopathy. The remaining four patients experienced no echocardiographic or clinical deterioration of cardiac function following LTx. CONCLUSION: Isolated LTx appears to be a valuable treatment option for patients with familial TTR amyloidosis due to Leu111Met mutation. Appropriate timing of LTx is of utmost importance to avoid development of severe amyloid cardiomyopathy and the need for combined heart and liver transplantation.

Glucocorticosteroid-free versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression for liver transplanted patients.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. Now that newer, more potent immunosuppressants have been developed, glucocorticosteroids may no longer be needed and their removal may prevent adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use) or withdrawal versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression following liver transplantation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, The Transplant Library, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) until September 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression for liver-transplanted people. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants should have received the same co-interventions. We included trials that assessed complete glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding the perioperative period and excluding the occurrence of acute rejection) versus short-term glucocorticosteroids, as well as trials that assessed short-term glucocorticosteroids versus long-term glucocorticosteroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used RevMan to conduct meta-analyses, calculating risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model and a fixed-effect model and reported both results where a discrepancy existed. We assessed the risk of systematic errors using risk of bias domains. We controlled for random errors by performing Trial Sequential Analysis. We presented our results in a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 completed randomised clinical trials with a total of 1347 participants. We found 10 trials that assessed complete postoperative glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use and treatment of rejection) versus short-term glucocorticosteroids (782 participants) and six trials that assessed short-term glucocorticosteroids versus long-term glucocorticosteroids (565 participants). We found one ongoing trial assessing complete postoperative glucocorticosteroid avoidance versus short-term glucocorticosteroids, which is expected to enrol 300 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias. Overall, we found no statistically significant difference for mortality (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.44; low-quality evidence), graft loss including death (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.48; low-quality evidence), or infection (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05; low-quality evidence) when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression. Acute rejection and glucocorticosteroid-resistant rejection were statistically significantly more frequent when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.64; moderate-quality evidence; and RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.02; very low-quality evidence). Diabetes mellitus and hypertension were statistically significantly less frequent when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99; low-quality evidence; and RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.90; low-quality evidence). We performed Trial Sequential Analysis for all outcomes. None of the outcomes crossed the monitoring boundaries or reached the required information size. Hence, we cannot exclude random errors from the results of the conventional meta-analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Many of the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal remain uncertain because of the limited number of published randomised clinical trials, limited numbers of participants and outcomes, and high risk of bias in the trials. Glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal appears to reduce diabetes mellitus and hypertension whilst increasing acute rejection, glucocorticosteroid-resistant rejection, and renal impairment. We could identify no other benefits or harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal. Glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal may be of benefit in selected patients, especially those at low risk of rejection and high risk of hypertension or diabetes mellitus. The optimal duration of glucocorticosteroid administration remains unclear. More randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal are needed. These should be large, high-quality trials that minimise the risk of random and systematic error.

Non-operative versus operative treatment for blunt pancreatic trauma in children.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic trauma in children is a serious condition with high morbidity. Blunt traumatic pancreatic lesions in children can be treated non-operatively or operatively. For less severe, grade I and II, blunt pancreatic trauma a non-operative or conservative approach is usually employed. Currently, the optimal treatment, of whether to perform operative or non-operative treatment of severe, grade III to V, blunt pancreatic injury in children is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of operative versus non-operative treatment of blunt pancreatic trauma in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 5, 2013), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED and CPCI-S) and ZETOC. In addition, we searched bibliographies of relevant articles, conference proceeding abstracts and clinical trials registries. We conducted the search on the 21 June 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to select all randomised clinical trials investigating non-operative versus operative treatment of blunt pancreatic trauma in children, irrespective of blinding, publication status or language of publication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used relevant search strategies to obtain the titles and abstracts of studies that were relevant for the review. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility. MAIN RESULTS: The search found 83 relevant references. We excluded all of the references and found no randomised clinical trials investigating treatment of blunt pancreatic trauma in children. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that strategies regarding non-operative versus operative treatment of severe blunt pancreatic trauma in children are not based on randomised clinical trials. We recommend that multi-centre trials evaluating non-operative versus operative treatment of paediatric pancreatic trauma are conducted to establish firm evidence in this field of medicine.

Antibody induction versus placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody induction for liver transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for preventing rejection after liver transplantation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, no induction, or another type of T-cell specific antibody induction for prevention of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) until September 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing immunosuppression with T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody induction in liver transplant recipients. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants within each included trial should have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy. We planned to include trials with all of the different types of T-cell specific antibodies that are or have been used for induction (ie., polyclonal antibodies (rabbit of horse antithymocyte globulin (ATG), or antilymphocyte globulin (ALG)), monoclonal antibodies (muromonab-CD3, anti-CD2, or alemtuzumab), and interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (daclizumab, basiliximab, BT563, or Lo-Tact-1)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used RevMan analysis for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the risk of systematic errors (bias) using bias risk domains with definitions. We used trial sequential analysis to control for random errors (play of chance). We presented outcome results in a summary of findings table. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 randomised clinical trials with a total of 2067 liver transplant recipients. All 19 trials were with high risk of bias. Of the 19 trials, 16 trials were two-arm trials, and three trials were three-arm trials. Hence, we found 25 trial comparisons with antibody induction agents: interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2 RA) versus no induction (10 trials with 1454 participants); monoclonal antibody versus no induction (five trials with 398 participants); polyclonal antibody versus no induction (three trials with 145 participants); IL-2 RA versus monoclonal antibody (one trial with 87 participants); and IL-2 RA versus polyclonal antibody (two trials with 112 participants). Thus, we were able to compare T-cell specific antibody induction versus no induction (17 trials with a total of 1955 participants). Overall, no difference in mortality (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.28; low-quality of evidence), graft loss including death (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; low-quality of evidence), and adverse events ((RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; low-quality evidence) outcomes was observed between any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with no induction when the T-cell specific antibody induction agents were analysed together or separately. Acute rejection seemed to be reduced when any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96; moderate-quality evidence), and when trial sequential analysis was applied, the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed before the required information size was obtained. Furthermore, serum creatinine was statistically significantly higher when T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction (MD 3.77 µmol/L, 95% CI 0.33 to 7.21; low-quality evidence), as well as when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction, but this small difference was not clinically significant. We found no statistically significant differences for any of the remaining predefined outcomes - infection, cytomegalovirus infection, hepatitis C recurrence, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, renal failure requiring dialysis, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension - when the T-cell specific antibody induction agents were analysed together or separately. Limited data were available for meta-analysis on drug-specific adverse events such as haematological adverse events for antithymocyte globulin. No data were found on quality of life.When T-cell specific antibody induction agents were compared with another type of antibody induction, no statistically significant differences were found for mortality, graft loss, and acute rejection for the separate analyses. When interleukin-2 receptor antagonists were compared with polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction, drug-related adverse events were less common among participants treated with interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.63; low-quality evidence), but this was caused by the results from one trial, and trial sequential analysis could not exclude random errors. We found no statistically significant differences for any of the remaining predefined outcomes: infection, cytomegalovirus infection, hepatitis C recurrence, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, renal failure requiring dialysis, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. No data were found on quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of T-cell antibody induction remain uncertain because of the high risk of bias of the randomised clinical trials, the small number of randomised clinical trials reported, and the limited numbers of participants and outcomes in the trials. T-cell specific antibody induction seems to reduce acute rejection when compared with no induction. No other clear benefits or harms were associated with the use of any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with no induction, or when compared with another type of T-cell specific antibody. Hence, more randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, and compared with another type of antibody, for prevention of rejection in liver transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic error (bias) and low risk of random error (play of chance).

Antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction for liver transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction of immunosuppression after liver transplantation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction for prevention of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 30 September 2013 together with reference checking, citation searching, contact with trial authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials assessing immunosuppression with T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in liver transplant recipients. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants within each included trial should have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used RevMan for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of systematic errors (bias) using bias risk domains with definitions. We used trial sequential analysis to control for random errors (play of chance). MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 randomised trials with a total of 1589 liver transplant recipients, which studied the use of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction. All trials were with high risk of bias. We compared any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in 10 trials with 1589 participants, including interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction versus corticosteroid induction in nine trials with 1470 participants, and polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in one trial with 119 participants.Our analyses showed no significant differences regarding mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.43), graft loss (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.53) and acute rejection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00), infection (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09), hepatitis C virus recurrence (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00), malignancy (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.73), and post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.38) when any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (all low-quality evidence). Cytomegalovirus infection was less frequent in patients receiving any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.75; low-quality evidence). This was also observed when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.70; low-quality evidence). However, when trial sequential analysis regarding cytomegalovirus infection was applied, the required information size was not reached. Furthermore, diabetes mellitus occurred less frequently when T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60; low-quality evidence), when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95; low-quality evidence). When trial sequential analysis was applied, the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed. We found no subgroup differences for type of interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (basiliximab versus daclizumab). Four trials reported on adverse events. However, no differences between trial groups were noted. Limited data were available for meta-analysis on drug-specific adverse events such as haematological adverse events for antithymocyte globulin. No data were available on quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because of the low quality of the evidence, the effects of T-cell antibody induction remain uncertain. T-cell specific antibody induction seems to reduce diabetes mellitus and may reduce cytomegalovirus infection when compared with corticosteroid induction. No other clear benefits or harms were associated with the use of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction. For some analyses, the number of trials investigating the use of T-cell specific antibody induction after liver transplantation is small, and the numbers of participants and outcomes in these randomised trials are limited. Furthermore, the included trials are heterogeneous in nature and have applied different types of T-cell specific antibody induction therapy. All trials were at high risk of bias. Hence, additional randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction for liver transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic error and of random error.

Risk factors for recurrent disease after resection of solitary fibrous tumor: a systematic review.

Introduction: Solitary fibrous tumor (SFT) is a rare soft tissue tumor found at any site of the body. The treatment of choice is surgical resection, though 10%-30% of patients experience recurrent disease. Multiple risk factors and risk stratification systems have been investigated to predict which patients are at risk of recurrence. The main goal of this systematic review is to create an up-to-date systematic overview of risk factors and risk stratification systems predicting recurrence for patients with surgically resected SFT within torso and extremities. Method: We prepared the review following the updated Prisma guidelines for systematic reviews (PRISMA-P). Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, WHO international trial registry platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched up to December 2022. All English studies describing risk factors for recurrence after resected SFT were included. We excluded SFT in the central nervous system and the oto-rhino-laryngology region. Results: Eighty-one retrospective studies were identified. Different risk factors including age, symptoms, sex, resection margins, anatomic location, mitotic index, pleomorphism, hypercellularity, necrosis, size, dedifferentiation, CD-34 expression, Ki67 index and TP53-expression, APAF1-inactivation, TERT promoter mutation and NAB2::STAT6 fusion variants were investigated in a narrative manner. We found that high mitotic index, Ki67 index and presence of necrosis increased the risk of recurrence after surgically resected SFT, whereas other factors had more varying prognostic value. We also summarized the currently available different risk stratification systems, and found eight different systems with a varying degree of ability to stratify patients into low, intermediate or high recurrence risk. Conclusion: Mitotic index, necrosis and Ki67 index are the most solid risk factors for recurrence. TERT promoter mutation seems a promising component in future risk stratification models. The Demicco risk stratification system is the most validated and widely used, however the G-score model may appear to be superior due to longer follow-up time. Systematic Review Registration: CRD42023421358.

Efficacy and safety of robotic liver surgery for the elderly: A propensity-score matched analysis of short-term outcomes with open liver surgery at a single center in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of liver tumors requiring surgical treatment continues to increase in elderly patients. This study compared the short-term results of robotic liver surgery (RLS) versus open liver surgery (OLS) for liver tumors in elderly patients. METHODS: A prospective database including all patients undergoing liver surgery at Copenhagen University Hospital between July 2019 and July 2022 was managed retrospectively. Short-term surgical outcomes of the two main cohorts (OLS and RLS) and subgroups were compared using propensity score matching (PSM) in elderly patients (age ≥ 70 years) with liver tumors. RESULTS: A total of 42 matched patients from each group were investigated: the RLS group had significantly larger tumor diameters, less blood loss (821.2 vs. 155.2 mL, p < .001), and shorter hospital stays (6.6 vs. 3.4 days, p < .001). Overall morbidity was comparable, while operative times were longer in the RLS group. The advantages observed with the robotic approach were replicated in the subgroup of minor liver resections. CONCLUSIONS: In patients ≥70 years, RLS for liver tumors results in significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stays than OLS. RLS, especially minor liver resection, is safe and feasible in elderly patients with liver tumors.

Long-term outcome in patients treated with combined heart and liver transplantation for familial amyloidotic cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: The amyloidogenic transthyretin (ATTR) mutation Leu111Met causes a primarily cardiac amyloidosis: Familial amyloidotic cardiomyopathy (FAC). Combined heart-liver transplantation (CHLTx) is the preferred treatment for patients with heart failure due to familial amyloidosis, but information on outcome of patients with Leu111Met mutation is limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of CHLTx in patients with FAC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1998 and 2009, CHLTx was performed in 7 FAC patients (four men). Six patients underwent simultaneous transplantation. All patients suffered from severe cardiomyopathy. RESULTS: Mean recipient age at transplantation was 48.3 ± 4.2 yr. Mean follow-up was 55 months. No peroperative mortality occured. Two patients died within the first year (infection, multi-organ failure) of transplantation. Cumulative survival at 4.5 yr was 71%. No significant liver rejections occurred. One patient experienced an episode of cardiac rejection requiring treatment (H2R). For the surviving five patients, most recent left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.61 ± 0.02, and plasma creatinine was 129 ± 47 µM. None developed significant allograft vasculopathy or neuropathy after transplantation. No recurrence of cardiac amyloid was found. CONCLUSIONS: CHLTx in selected patients with FAC due to Leu111Met mutation offers acceptable long-term survival, almost comparable with isolated cardiac transplantation. Allograft rejection was rare.