Does the Surgical Approach Affect the Incidence of Post-Hepatectomy Liver Failure in Cirrhotic Patients? An Analysis of the NSQIP Database.

Background: The association between surgical approach and post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) in cirrhotic patients is poorly understood. We hypothesize that patients will have similar rates of liver failure regardless of whether they undergo minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) or open liver resection (OLR) in major liver resections. In contrast, there will be lower rates of PHLF in patients undergoing minor hepatectomy via the MILR approach.Methods: Propensity score matching was used to analyze regression by matching the MILR to the OLR cohort. Patient demographics from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, including race, age, gender, and ethnicity, were matched. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, renal failure, dyspnea, dialysis dependence, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (>ASA III) were among the preoperative patient characteristics subject to matching. PHLF (Grade A vs B. vs C) was our primary outcome measure.Results: A total of 2129 cirrhotic patients were included in the study. In the minor hepatectomy group, patients undergoing an OLR were more likely to get discharged to a facility (7.0% vs 4.4%; P = .03), had greater hospital length of stay (5 vs 3 days; P = .02), and had a greater need for invasive postoperative interventions (10.7% vs 4.6%; P < .01). They were also noted to have higher rates of organ space superficial surgical infections (SSIs) (7.3% vs 3.7%; P = .003), Clostridium difficile infection (.9% vs .1%; P = .05), renal insufficiency (2.1% vs .1%; P < .01), unplanned intubations (3.1% vs 1.4%; P = .03), and Grade C liver failure (2.3% vs .9%; P = .03).Conclusion: A higher incidence of PHLF grade C was found in patients undergoing OLR in the minor hepatectomy group. Therefore, in cirrhotic patients who can tolerate minimally invasive approaches, MILR should be offered to prevent postoperative complications as part of their optimization plan.

The roles of yeast formins and their regulators Bud6 and Bil2 in the pheromone response.

In response to pheromone Saccharomyces cerevisiae extend a mating projection. This process depends on the formation of polarized actin cables which direct secretion to the mating tip and translocate the nucleus for karyogamy. Here, we demonstrate that proper mating projection formation requires the formin Bni1, as well as the actin nucleation promoting activities of Bud6, but not the formin Bnr1. Further, Bni1 is required for pheromone gradient tracking. Our work also reveals unexpected new functions for Bil2 in the pheromone response. Previously we identified Bil2 as a direct inhibitor of Bnr1 during vegetative cell growth. Here, we show that Bil2 has Bnr1-independent functions in spatially focusing Bni1-GFP at mating projection tips, and in vitro Bil2 and its binding partner Bud6 organize Bni1 into clusters that nucleate actin assembly. bil2∆ cells also display entangled Bni1-generated actin cable arrays and defects in secretory vesicle transport and nuclear positioning. At low pheromone concentrations, bil2∆ cells are delayed in establishing a polarity axis, and at high concentrations they prematurely form a second and a third mating projection. Together, these results suggest that Bil2 promotes the proper formation and timing of mating projections by organizing Bni1 and maintaining a persistent axis of polarized growth.

Financial Relationships in General Surgery Education: Recent Trends in Industry Payments to General Surgery Residency Leadership.

INTRODUCTION: Residency programs and their directors frequently receive funding from industry payers. Both general surgery residency program directors (PDs) and assistant program directors (APDs) receive industry funding for various reasons, including educational advancement. This study investigates recent trends in industry payments to both PDs and APDs to better understand the financial relationships among leaders in residency education. METHODS: We compared industry payments to general surgery residency PDs and APDs from 2019 to 2021 utilizing the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) open payments database. In addition, secondary analyses were performed among PDs to assess differences based on gender, practicing surgical specialty, and geographical region. RESULTS: During the study period (2019-2021), PDs received payments amounting to 2,882,821 USD. PDs were found to receive more funding than APDs, with each receiving average funding of 10,045 vs. 323 USD (p < 0.01), respectively, over the study period. There was a significant decrease in total payments from 2019 to 2020 (1,512,190 vs. 868,811 USD; p < 0.01). Total payments made in 2021 were similar compared to 2020 (905,836 vs. 868,811 USD; p = 0.1). We found that male PDs received significantly more in-industry payments when compared to female PDs (11,702 USD per PD vs. 3971 USD per PD, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study presents initial data that residency program leadership has robust biomedical industry relationships, and further research is warranted to investigate the impacts of these payments on program resources, educational opportunities for residents, and program outcomes. Male PDs received significantly more industry payments when compared to female PDs. Leaders in the surgical training community must cautiously ensure that these industry relationships are appropriately navigated.