The Predictive Value of Graft Viability and Bioenergetics Testing Towards the Outcome in Liver Transplantation.

Donor organ biomarkers with sufficient predictive value in liver transplantation (LT) are lacking. We herein evaluate liver viability and mitochondrial bioenergetics for their predictive capacity towards the outcome in LT. We enrolled 43 consecutive patients undergoing LT. Liver biopsy samples taken upon arrival after static cold storage were assessed by histology, real-time confocal imaging analysis (RTCA), and high-resolution respirometry (HRR) for mitochondrial respiration of tissue homogenates. Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) served as primary endpoint. HRR data were analysed with a focus on the efficacy of ATP production or P-L control efficiency, calculated as 1-L/P from the capacity of oxidative phosphorylation P and non-phosphorylating respiration L. Twenty-two recipients experienced EAD. Pre-transplant histology was not predictive of EAD. The mean RTCA score was significantly lower in the EAD cohort (-0.75 ± 2.27) compared to the IF cohort (0.70 ± 2.08; p = 0.01), indicating decreased cell viability. P-L control efficiency was predictive of EAD (0.76 ± 0.06 in IF vs. 0.70 ± 0.08 in EAD-livers; p = 0.02) and correlated with the RTCA score. Both RTCA and P-L control efficiency in biopsy samples taken during cold storage have predictive capacity towards the outcome in LT. Therefore, RTCA and HRR should be considered for risk stratification, viability assessment, and bioenergetic testing in liver transplantation.

Is Robotic Assisted Colorectal Cancer Surgery Equivalent Compared to Laparoscopic Procedures during the Introduction of a Robotic Program? A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery represents a novel approach for the treatment of colorectal cancers and has been established as an important and effective method over the last years. The aim of this work was to evaluate the effect of a robotic program on oncological findings compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery within the first three years after the introduction. METHODS: All colorectal cancer patients from two centers that either received robotic-assisted or conventional laparoscopic surgery were included in a comparative study. A propensity-score-matched analysis was used to reduce confounding differences. RESULTS: A laparoscopic resection (LR Group) was performed in 82 cases, and 93 patients were treated robotic-assisted surgery (RR Group). Patients' characteristics did not differ between groups. In right-sided resections, an intracorporeal anastomosis was significantly more often performed in the RR Group (LR Group: 5 (26.31%) vs. RR Group: 10 (76.92%), p = 0.008). Operative time was shown to be significantly shorter in the LR Group (LR Group: 200 min (150-243) vs. 204 min (174-278), p = 0.045). Conversions to open surgery did occur more often in the LR Group (LR Group: 16 (19.51%) vs. RR Group: 5 (5.38%), p = 0.004). Postoperative morbidity, the number of harvested lymph nodes, quality of resection and postoperative tumor stage did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: In this study, we could clearly demonstrate robotic-assisted colorectal cancer surgery as effective, feasible and safe regarding postoperative morbidity and oncological findings compared to conventional laparoscopy during the introduction of a robotic system.