RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) after liver transplantation (LT) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. To ensure adequate graft function, a critical hepatocellular mass is required in addition to an appropriate blood supply. We hypothesized that intraoperative measurement of portal venous and hepatic arterial flow may serve as a predictor in the diagnosis of EAD. AIM: To study whether hepatic flow is an independent predictor of EAD following LT. METHODS: This is an observational cohort study in a single institution. Hepatic arterial blood flow and portal venous blood flow were measured intraoperatively by transit flow. EAD was defined using the Olthoff criteria. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine the intraoperative predictors of EAD. Survival analysis and prognostic factor analysis were performed using the Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models. RESULTS: A total of 195 liver transplant procedures were performed between January 2008 and December 2014 in 188 patients. A total of 54 (27.7%) patients developed EAD. The median follow-up was 39 mo. Portal venous flow, hepatic arterial flow (HAF) and total hepatic arterial flow were associated with EAD in both the univariate and multivariate analyses. HAF is an independent prognostic factor for 30-d patient mortality. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative measurement of blood flow after reperfusion appears to be a predictor of EAD; Moreover, HAF should be considered a predictor of 30-d patient mortality.
RESUMO
Introducción: El síndrome adherencial es la causa más frecuente de obstrucción de intestino delgado. La laparotomía es el abordaje estándar. El avance de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva hace posible la resolución de cuadros obstructivos por laparoscopia. Objetivo: Analizar el abordaje laparoscópico de la obstrucción intestinal y compararlo con la vía abierta. Método: Análisis retrospectivo de los pacientes tratados de obstrucción intestinal aguda mediante laparoscopia en nuestro hospital desde 2012 hasta 2016. Se utilizó como referencia un grupo de pacientes tratados desde 2002 hasta 2005, cuando sólo se usaba el abordaje abierto. Se analizaron datos demográficos, riesgo quirúrgico, comorbilidades, métodos diagnósticos y complicaciones (Clavien). Resultados: De los 134 pacientes intervenidos de obstrucción intestinal aguda, se inició un abordaje laparoscópico en 47 (35 pr ciento). Por esta vía sólo se completaron 32 pacientes (68 por ciento). La tasa de conversión fue del 32 por ciento, estos pacientes fueron eliminados del estudio. En el grupo de referencia se analizaron al azar 32 pacientes. Ambos grupos son comparables. El grupo tratado con abordaje laparoscópico tuvo un 9 por ciento de complicaciones y un 3 por ciento de reintervenciones, con una sola lesión inadvertida. El grupo laparoscópico tuvo un 12,5 por ciento de reintervenciones, todas por evisceración, pero tuvo una lógica mayor tasa de resecciones intestinales. No hubo mortalidad hospitalaria. Conclusión: Los resultados en los pacientes en que se ha completado la cirugía por laparoscopia se comparan favorablemente con los del abordaje abierto en un grupo histórico homogéneo de referencia, y sin el riesgo añadido de evisceración(AU)
Introduction: Adherence syndrome is the most frequent cause of small bowel obstruction. Laparotomy is the standard approach. The progress of minimally invasive surgery makes it possible to resolve obstructive frames by laparoscopy. Objective: To analyze the laparoscopic approach for intestinal obstruction and compare it with the open pathway. Method: Retrospective analysis of patients treated for acute intestinal obstruction by laparoscopy in our hospital, from 2012 to 2016. A group of patients treated from 2002 to 2005 were used as reference, when only the open approach was used. We analyzed demographic data, surgical risk, comorbidities, diagnostic methods and complications (Clavien). Results: Within the 134 patients operated for acute intestinal obstruction, a laparoscopic approach was started in 47 (35 percent). Only 32 patients (68 percent) were completed in this way. The conversion rate was 32 percent, these patients were eliminated from the study. In the reference group, 32 patients were randomly analyzed. Both groups are comparable. The group treated with laparoscopic approach had 9 por ciento complications and 3 percent reoperations, with a single unexpected lesion. The laparoscopic group had 12.5 of reintervention, all due to evisceration, but had a higher rate of intestinal resections. There was no hospital mortality. Conclusion: In patients who have completed laparoscopic surgery, the results are compared favorably with those of the open approach in a homogeneous historical reference group, and without the added risk of evisceration(AU)