RESUMEN
To date, caval sparing (CS) and total caval replacement (TCR) for recipient hepatectomy in liver transplantation (LT) have been compared only in terms of surgical morbidity. Nonetheless, the CS technique is inherently associated with an increased manipulation of the native liver and later exclusion of the venous outflow, which may increase the risk of intraoperative shedding of tumor cells when LT is performed for HCC. A multicenter, retrospective study was performed to assess the impact of recipient hepatectomy (CS vs. TCR) on the risk of posttransplant HCC recurrence among 16 European transplant centers that used either TCR or CS recipient hepatectomy as an elective protocol technique. Exclusion criteria comprised cases of non-center-protocol recipient hepatectomy technique, living-donor LT, HCC diagnosis suspected on preoperative imaging but not confirmed at the pathological examination of the explanted liver, HCC in close contact with the IVC, and previous liver resection for HCC. In 2420 patients, CS and TCR approaches were used in 1452 (60%) and 968 (40%) cases, respectively. Group adjustment with inverse probability weighting was performed for high-volume center, recipient age, alcohol abuse, viral hepatitis, Child-Pugh class C, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, cold ischemia time, clinical HCC stage within Milan criteria, pre-LT downstaging/bridging therapies, pre-LT alphafetoprotein serum levels, number and size of tumor nodules, microvascular invasion, and complete necrosis of all tumor nodules (matched cohort, TCR, n = 938; CS, n = 935). In a multivariate cause-specific hazard model, CS was associated with a higher risk of HCC recurrence (HR: 1.536, p = 0.007). In conclusion, TCR recipient hepatectomy, compared to the CS approach, may be associated with some protective effect against post-LT tumor recurrence.
RESUMEN
Small bowel obstruction (SBO) due to clip adhaesions from the line of staples is a rare complication and is scarcely reported in the literature. In this case report, a ten-year-old boy underwent laparoscopic appendectomy and five days later developed early postoperative SBO. Diagnostic laparoscopy revealed internal herniation of bowel through a defect created by clip adhesion from the staple line to the adjacent mesentery. The clip was removed, the internal hernia resolved, and the patient discharged the same day. We recommend reviewing the line of staples after surgery.
Asunto(s)
Hernia Abdominal , Obstrucción Intestinal , Laparoscopía , Apendicectomía/efectos adversos , Niño , Hernia Abdominal/diagnóstico por imagen , Hernia Abdominal/etiología , Hernia Abdominal/cirugía , Humanos , Obstrucción Intestinal/diagnóstico por imagen , Obstrucción Intestinal/etiología , Obstrucción Intestinal/cirugía , Laparoscopía/efectos adversos , Masculino , Instrumentos Quirúrgicos/efectos adversosRESUMEN
Infection of long-term central venous catheters (CVCs) remains a challenge in the clinical management of cancer patients. We aimed to determine whether a lock solution with taurolidine-citrate-heparin would be more effective than placebo for preventing nontunneled CVC infection in high-risk neutropenic hematologic patients. We performed a prospective, multicenter, randomized (1:1), double-blind, parallel, superiority, placebo-controlled trial involving 150 hematological patients with neutropenia carrying nontunneled CVCs who were assigned to receive CVC lock solution with taurolidine-citrate-heparin or heparin alone. The primary endpoint was bacterial colonization of the CVC hubs. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), CVC removal, adverse events related to the lock solution, and the 30-day case fatality rate. CVC lock solution with taurolidine-citrate-heparin was associated with less colonization of the CVC hubs than that with placebo, with no statistically significant differences: 4.1%, versus 10.1% (relative risk [RR] = 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.11 to 1.52), with a cumulative incidence of 4.17 (95% CI = 0.87 to 11.70) and 10.14 (95% CI = 4.18 to 19.79), respectively. There were no significant differences regarding the secondary endpoints. Only three episodes of CRBSI occurred during the study period. No adverse events related to the administration of the lock solution occurred. In this trial involving high-risk patients carrying nontunneled CVCs, the use of taurolidine-citrate-heparin did not show a benefit over the use of placebo. Nevertheless, the safety of this prevention strategy and the trend toward less hub colonization in the taurolidine-citrate-heparin group raise the interest in assessing its efficacy in centers with higher rates of CRBSI. (This study has been registered in ISRCTN under identifier ISRCTN47102251.).