Utility and diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative frozen sections in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgical pathology.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgeries are one of the most challenging and complex procedures. Intraoperative frozen section (IFS) diagnosis plays a pivotal role in management decisions. Comprehensive large cohort studies evaluating utility of IFS in HPB malignancies are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of frozen section analysis and to analyse discrepancies and impact of IFS on the surgical decisions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of IFS received for the HPB specimens between years 2009 and 2021. The results were compared to the permanent sections to evaluate diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity. Indications, disagreements and impact on the surgical management were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 1008 specimens were evaluated: bile duct margin (279; 27.7%), gallbladder (203; 20.1%), liver lesions (125 cases; 12.4%), lymph nodes (147; 14.6%), pancreatic margin (120; 11.9%) and deposits (134; 13.3%). IFS were diagnosed as negative for malignancy (805; 79.9%), positive for dysplasia (8; 0.8%), suspicious for malignancy (6; 0.6%) and positive for malignancy (189; 18.8%). The overall diagnostic accuracy was 98.4%, and the discordant rate was 1.6%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 94.7%, 99.4%, 97.5% and 98.6% respectively. The most important reason of discordant results was technical, followed by interpretational and sampling errors. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy (98.4%) of IFS in a large dataset of HPB specimens. This comprehensive analysis apprises of the indications, errors and the impact of IFS diagnosis on subsequent HPB surgical management.

Early Allograft Dysfunction After Live Donor Liver Transplantation: It's Time to Redefine?

BACKGROUND: An ideal definition of early allograft dysfunction (EAD) after live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains elusive. The aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic accuracies of existing EAD definitions, identify the predictors of early graft loss due to EAD, and formulate a new definition, estimating EAD-related mortality in LDLT recipients. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients undergoing elective LDLT were analyzed. Patients with technical (vascular, biliary) complications and biopsy-proven rejections were excluded. RESULTS: There were 19 deaths due to EAD of a total of 304 patients. On applying the existing definitions of EAD, we revealed their limitations of being either too broad with low specificity or too restrictive with low sensitivity in patients with LDLT. A new definition of EAD-LDLT (total bilirubin >10 mg/dL, international normalized ratio [INR] > 1.6 and serum urea >100 mg/dL, for five consecutive days after day 7) was derived after doing a multivariate analysis. In receiver operator characteristics analysis, an AUC for EAD-LDLT was 0.86. The calibration and internal cross-validation of the new model confirmed its predictability. CONCLUSION: The new model of EAD-LDLT, based on total bilirubin >10 mg/dL, INR >1.6 and serum urea >100 mg/dL, for five consecutive days after day 7, has a better predictive value for mortality due to EAD in LDLT recipients.

Strategic approach to minimally invasive necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis: technique, complications and predictors of outcome.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy has been an integral component of 'step-up' approach for infected pancreatic necrosis. Even though the clinical outcome of nephroscopic necrosectomy has been studied earlier, its predictor and morbidities following surgery have not been extensively evaluated. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcome and early and late complications after percutaneous nephroscopic necrosectomy (PCNN). METHODS: The pre- and intra-operative as well as post-operative and follow-up data of severe pancreatitis patients undergoing PCNN were collected prospectively. RESULTS: Out of 115 patients requiring intervention, 40 patients (34.78%) improved with percutaneous drain alone and another 40 proceeded for PCNN. After exclusion, 37 patients successfully underwent 48 sessions of PCNN. Median number of PCNN session was 1 (1-4). Early complications were seen in 21 (56.75%) patients and mortality was experienced in eight (21.62%) patients. On median follow-up of 36 months, 12 (32.43%) patients experienced late complications. Persistent post-operative pancreatic fistula was observed in six (16.21%) patients. Of these, three developed late-onset pseudocyst, whereas one patient had disconnected duct syndrome. Seven patients experienced new-onset diabetes. Age, severity of pancreatitis, preoperative organ failure and multiorgan failure were significant predictors of mortality on univariate analysis (P ≤ 0.05 for each). The logistic regression analysis revealed presence of multiorgan failure before surgery as the sole predictor (P = 0.007; odds ratio 10.417; 95% confidence interval 1.759-61.672). CONCLUSION: Preoperative multiorgan failure was the most important predictor of mortality following PCNN. Late complications were seen in nearly one-third of patients emphasizing the need for long-term follow-up.

"No go" donor hepatectomy in living-donor liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Selection of appropriate donors after rigorous evaluation is of paramount importance in living-donor liver transplantation. Despite this, donor surgery may not proceed due to unforeseen reasons. The aim of this paper is to study reasons for "no go" donor hepatectomy in living liver donors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Donor operations stopped after surgical start, directly due to donor safety-related reasons, qualified for inclusion as "no go" donor hepatectomy. Living-donor evaluation was performed as per standard protocol. Data for consecutive living liver donors operated between April 2012 and November 2016 were analyzed to evaluate reasons for "no go" donor hepatectomy in a liver transplantation unit at a tertiary care teaching hospital. RESULTS: In 307 donors, the operation was aborted in 7 (2.3 %). One patient had unexpected biliary pathology with fibrosis found intraoperatively. Operations in five donors were abandoned in view of liver parenchymal abnormalities (fibrosis/steatohepatitis). One donor had hemodynamically significant bradycardia after handling the round ligament. All these donors recovered uneventfully and remained well on follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: "No go" donor hepatectomy remains a real possibility despite rigorous assessment. Although thresholds for on-table rejection of the donor after complete evaluation vary, "no go" hepatectomy is a calculated risk-avoidance approach.