ABSTRACT
Objective:To investigate the clinical evaluation effects of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) risk assessment scale on preoperative and surgical risk of liver transplantation during the COVID-19 outbreak.Methods:The retrospective and descriptive study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 6 liver transplant recipients who were admitted to Southern Theater Command General Hospital of PLA between January 20 and March 27, 2020 were collected. There were 5 males and 1 female, aged from 42.0 to 62.0 years, with a median age of 53.0 years. There were 6 donors including 5 males and 1 female, aged from 24.0 to 60.0 years, with a median age of 41.5 years. All the donor livers were obtained through the China Organ Transplant Response System. Liver transplantation was performed in the fixed negative pressure operating room, and secondary protective measures were adopted for low-risk donors. Classic orthotopic liver transplantation or Piggyback liver transplantation was performed according to the specific situations of the recipients. Medical staffs in the ward were exposed to the secondary protective measures, and the three-grade protective measures were adopted for medical staffs when the liver transplant recipients had fever or suspected infection. Observation indicators: (1) risk assessment of COVID-19 on liver transplant recipients; (2) risk assessment of COVID-19 on medical staffs of liver transplantation; (3) treatment situations of liver transplant recipients; (4) postoperative situations of liver transplant recipients; (5) follow-up of liver transplant recipients; (6) infection of medical staffs of liver transplantation. Follow-up was performed using outpatient examination or telephone interview to detect whether liver transplant recipients had suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection up to March 2020. Medical staffs who were involved in organ acquisition, transplantation surgery and ward management were followed up to detect whether they had suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection within 14 days. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean± SD, and measurement data with skewed distribution were described as M (range). Count data were expressed as absolute numbers. Results:(1) Risk assessment of COVID-19 on liver transplant recipients: all the 6 recipients and their related families were confirmed no contact with suspected COVID-19 patients or travel history in the epidemic area within 14 days. Of the 6 recipients, 1 was diagnosed with fever with body temperature of 38.1 ℃ and was tested negative for chest computer tomography (CT) examination and nucleic acid test for COVID-19; 1 was diagnosed with fever and hypoxemia with body temperature of 38.5 ℃ and was tested negative for nucleic acid test for COVID-19, and the results of chest CT examination showed large amount of pleural effusion in both lungs without invasive pneumonia; other 4 recipients had no clinical symptoms of COVID-19 with negative results of chest CT examination and nucleic acid test for COVID-19. Five of the 6 recipients had no history of contact with COVID-19 patients and 1 recipient had treatment history at hospital of risk level 1. The preoperative risk level of COVID-19 was low in all the 6 liver transplant recipients. (2) Risk assessment of COVID-19 on medical staffs of liver transplantation: of the 6 recipients, 5 had the waiting hospital of risk level 0 and 1 had the waiting hospital of risk level 1. Six recipients had the transplant hospital of risk level 0. (3) Treatment situations of liver transplant recipients: of the 6 recipients, 2 underwent classic orthotopic liver transplantation and 4 underwent piggyback liver transplantation. The cold ischemia time of liver, time of anhepatic phase, volume of intraoperative blood loss, operation time, treatment time at intensive care unit of the 6 recipients were (5.9±2.4)hours, (49±14)minutes, 1 500 mL(range, 800-1 800 mL), (8.9±2.1)hours, 2 days(range, 1-4 days), respectively. Of the 6 recipients, 2 required adjustment of the immunosuppression program, and 4 did not change the immunosuppression program. (4) Postoperative situations of liver transplant recipients: of the 6 recipients, 5 had no postoperative serious infection and 1 had postoperative serious infection. The 5 recipients without postoperative serious infection had the range of the highest temperature as 37.8-38.5 ℃, and returned to normal temperature within postoperative 3 days. All of the 5 recipients who had no postoperative serious infection received chest CT examination with no obvious manifestation of viral pneumonia and were tested negative for nucleic acid test for COVID-19 at 1 week postoperatively, and then were discharged from hospital. One recipient who had postoperative serious infection had gastrointestinal fistula and repeated fever at postoperative 7 days with the highest temperature as 39.2 ℃. This recipient had body temperature returned to normal and good function of the graft after treatment in the isolation ward with active drainage, and was transferred back to local hospital for further rehabilitation treatment. The duration of hospital stay of the 6 recipients were 30 days(range, 15-74 days). (5) Follow-up of liver transplant recipients: all the 6 recipients were followed up for 31.5 days(range, 12.0-64.0 days) with the normal body temperature, and they had negative results of viral pneumonia for chest CT examination and nucleic acid test for COVID-19. (6) Infection of medical staffs of liver transplantation: surgeons, nurses, anesthetists, medical staffs at ICU and medical staffs at liver transplantation center who participated in liver transplantation had good health within postoperative 14 days, without suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection.Conclusions:The COVID-19 risk assessment scale has good safety for liver transplant recipients during the COVID-19 outbreak. It is suggested that organ transplantation can be carried out in low-risk recipients and cautiously carried out in recipients of uncertain risk, but organ transplantation should not be carried out in high-risk recipients.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#To compare the clinical therapeutic effects of arterial first approach pancreaticoduodenectomy(AFA-PD) with standard approach pancreaticoduodenectomy(SPD) in the treatment of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC).@*Methods@#A retrospective analysis of the clinical data of 113 cases of pancreatic cancer patients from January 2014 to August 2015 at Department of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Changhai Hospital, the Second Military Medical University, including 43 cases in AFA-PD group and 70 cases in SPD group.Every patient had gone high-resolusion computed tomography before the surgery, when BRPC was definitely diagnosed by both experienced radiologist and pancreatic surgeon.There were 24 males and 19 females in the AFA-PD group, with average age of (61.6±10.2)years.And in the SPD group, there were 47 males and 23 females, with average age of (62.7±9.4)years.@*Results@#The operation time was (210.7±31.5)minutes in AFA-PD group, (187.9±27.4)minutes in SPD group, and peroperative bleeding volume was (1 007.1±566.3)ml in AFA-PD group, (700.0±390.0)ml in the other group.Those two indicators of AFA-PD group, compared with SPD group, were relatively higher, the difference was statistically significant(all P<0.01). And with regard to postoperative diarrhea(9.3% vs.5.7%), postoperative 1, 3 days of white blood cells(postoperative 1 day: (13.3±1.1)×109/L vs.(12.4±2.4)×109/L; postoperative 3 days: (12.7±1.6)×109/L vs.(11.7±2.5)×109/L), postoperative 1, 3, 5 days of peritoneal drainage fluid volume(postoperative 1 day: (184±42)ml vs.(156±54)ml; postoperative 3 days: (155±48)ml vs.(133±35)ml; postoperative 5 days: (66±20)ml vs.(47±31)ml), the differences between the two groups were statistically significant (all P<0.05). One patient in the SPD group was treated with unplanned secondary surgery for postoperative intraperitoneal hemorrhage, and the patient was cured and discharged.There was no death in the two groups within 30 days after surgical operation and no patient with positive gastric margin, duodenal margin, or anterior margin.The resection rate of superiormesenteric artery(SMA) margin R0 in AFA-PD group was higher than that in SPD group (P=0.019). The two groups were followed up for 14 to 30 months.As for AFA-PD group, the average survival time, progression free survival time and median survival time was respectively (20.4±1.2)months, (21.5±1.4)months and 20 months.There were 3 cases(7.0%) with local recurrence and 8 cases(18.6%) with liver metastasis or distant metastasis.In the SPD group, the average survival time, progression free survival time and median survival time was (17.1±1.1)months, (16.4±1.3)months and 16 months, respectively.There were 13 cases(18.6%) with local recurrence and 25 cases(35.7%) with liver metastasis or distant metastasis.As a result, the AFA-PD group had longer survival time(P=0.001)and progression free survival time(P=0.002). However, the lower local recurrence and distant metastasis rate in AFA-PD group did not reach statistical standard (P>0.05).@*Conclusion@#The arterial first approach pancreaticoduodenectomy is safe and effective in the treatment of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, which can improve the resection rate of SMA margin R0, and prolong patient survival time.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE@#To summarize our experiences on surgical saving of the cervical opening wound.@*METHOD@#Retrospectively analyze 43 cases with cervical opening wound in department of otolaryngology, suizhou central hospital from 1992-2010.@*RESULT@#Forty-one among 43 cases healed with no complications, 1 case died of obstruction of air way and hemorrhagic shock, and 1 case occurred secondary laryngostenosis and resulted in fine prognosis af ter treating with laryngotracheoplasty in higher hospital.@*CONCLUSION@#It is very important to give the appropriate treatment on the injuries of large cervical vessels, nerves, laryngeal cartilages, throat mucosa and complications. It is important to repair the wounds primarily. Correct diagnosis and treatment at first time, and well nursing are crucial for good prognosis.