Fusobacterium nucleatum causing a pyogenic liver abscess: a rare complication of periodontal disease that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fusobacterium nucleatum is a periodontal commensal and pathogen. In rare cases, these anaerobic gram-negative bacilli have been reported to cause pyogenic liver abscesses (PLAs). We describe a patient who developed a periodontal abscess during the COVID-19 pandemic and was unable to access the restricted General Dental Services at this time. She subsequently developed a F. nucleatum bacteraemia and liver abscess. The non-specific signs and symptoms experienced meant the patient self-isolated due to suspected COVID-19 infection and presentation to hospital was delayed. We also include the results of a literature search of other cases of PLAs attributed to F. nucleatum PLAs often develop insidiously. They require percutaneous drainage and prolonged antimicrobial therapy. Clinicians should be aware of this rare complication of a dentoalveolar infection in a patient who is systemically unwell.

PET-CT as a predictor of outcome in resectable colorectal liver metastases.

INTRODUCTION: PET-computed tomography (PET-CT) is a useful staging imaging modality in colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study aimed to determine whether PET-CT parameters, standardized uptake value (SUV) and reconstructed tumour volume (RTV), are predictors of prognosis and survival. METHODS: A study of all resectable CRLM patients in the regional HPB unit from 2007-2009 was performed. Preoperative PET-CT scans were retrospectively reviewed; SUV, diameter and RTV for each lesion was recorded. Correlation analysis was performed with other pathological and biochemical parameters, by Pearson's correlation analysis. Survival analysis was performed using Cox regression hazard model. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients were included. SUV moderately correlated with tumour diameter, both PET-CT (r=0.4927; P<0.0001) and histology (r=0.4513; P=0.0003); RTV (r=0.4489; P<0.001), preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) (r=0.4977; P=0.0001), and postoperative CEA (r=0.3727; P=0.004). Multivariate analysis found that an independent predictor of SUVmax was preoperative CEA (P=0.03). RTV strongly correlated with preoperative CEA (r=0.9389; P<0.0001). SUV and RTV had a negative effect on survival. CONCLUSION: PET-CT, in the setting of CRLM, may have a prognostic role in assessing survival. Although no definite conclusions can be drawn regarding the prognostic role of SUV and RTV, it acts to reinforce the need for further prospective studies to validate these findings.

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: Between 10% to 18% of people undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct stones. Treatment of the bile duct stones can be conducted as open cholecystectomy plus open common bile duct exploration or laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC + LCBDE) versus pre- or post-cholecystectomy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in two stages, usually combined with either sphincterotomy (commonest) or sphincteroplasty (papillary dilatation) for common bile duct clearance. The benefits and harms of the different approaches are not known. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review the benefits and harms of different approaches to the management of common bile duct stones. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 2013) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (1974 to August 2013), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to August 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials which compared the results from open surgery versus endoscopic clearance and laparoscopic surgery versus endoscopic clearance for common bile duct stones. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models meta-analyses, performed with Review Manager 5. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen randomised clinical trials with a total of 1758 randomised participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. Eight trials with 737 participants compared open surgical clearance with ERCP; five trials with 621 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with pre-operative ERCP; and two trials with 166 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with postoperative ERCP. One trial with 234 participants compared LCBDE with intra-operative ERCP. There were no trials of open or LCBDE versus ERCP in people without an intact gallbladder. All trials had a high risk of bias.There was no significant difference in the mortality between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 5/371 (1%) versus 10/358 (3%) OR 0.51;95% CI 0.18 to 1.44). Neither was there a significant difference in the morbidity between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 76/371 (20%) versus 67/358 (19%) OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.62). Participants in the open surgery group had significantly fewer retained stones compared with the ERCP group (seven trials; 609 participants; 20/313 (6%) versus 47/296 (16%) OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62), P = 0.0002.There was no significant difference in the mortality between LC + LCBDE versus pre-operative ERCP +LC (five trials; 580 participants; 2/285 (0.7%) versus 3/295 (1%) OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). Neither was there was a significant difference in the morbidity between the two groups (five trials; 580 participants; 44/285 (15%) versus 37/295 (13%) OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.80 to 2.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of participants with retained stones (five trials; 580 participants; 24/285 (8%) versus 31/295 (11%) OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.39).There was only one trial assessing LC + LCBDE versus LC+intra-operative ERCP including 234 participants. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity, retained stones, procedure failure rates between the two intervention groups.Two trials assessed LC + LCBDE versus LC+post-operative ERCP. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 13/81 (16%) versus 12/85 (14%) OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.72). There was a significant difference in the retained stones between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 7/81 (9%) versus 21/85 (25%) OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; P = 0.008.In total, seven trials including 746 participants compared single staged LC + LCBDE versus two-staged pre-operative ERCP + LC or LC + post-operative ERCP. There was no significant difference in the mortality between single and two-stage management (seven trials; 746 participants; 2/366 versus 3/380 OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). There was no a significant difference in the morbidity (seven trials; 746 participants; 57/366 (16%) versus 49/380 (13%) OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.89). There were significantly fewer retained stones in the single-stage group (31/366 participants; 8%) compared with the two-stage group (52/380 participants; 14%), but the difference was not statistically significantOR 0.59; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94).There was no significant difference in the conversion rates of LCBDE to open surgery when compared with pre-operative, intra-operative, and postoperative ERCP groups. Meta-analysis of the outcomes duration of hospital stay, quality of life, and cost of the procedures could not be performed due to lack of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Open bile duct surgery seems superior to ERCP in achieving common bile duct stone clearance based on the evidence available from the early endoscopy era. There is no significant difference in the mortality and morbidity between laparoscopic bile duct clearance and the endoscopic options. There is no significant reduction in the number of retained stones and failure rates in the laparoscopy groups compared with the pre-operative and intra-operative ERCP groups. There is no significant difference in the mortality, morbidity, retained stones, and failure rates between the single-stage laparoscopic bile duct clearance and two-stage endoscopic management. More randomised clinical trials without risks of systematic and random errors are necessary to confirm these findings.

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: Between 10% to 18% of people undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct stones. Treatment of the bile duct stones can be conducted as open cholecystectomy plus open common bile duct exploration or laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC + LCBDE) versus pre- or post-cholecystectomy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in two stages, usually combined with either sphincterotomy (commonest) or sphincteroplasty (papillary dilatation) for common bile duct clearance. The benefits and harms of the different approaches are not known. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review the benefits and harms of different approaches to the management of common bile duct stones. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 2013) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (1974 to August 2013), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to August 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials which compared the results from open surgery versus endoscopic clearance and laparoscopic surgery versus endoscopic clearance for common bile duct stones. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models meta-analyses, performed with Review Manager 5. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen randomised clinical trials with a total of 1758 randomised participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. Eight trials with 737 participants compared open surgical clearance with ERCP; five trials with 621 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with pre-operative ERCP; and two trials with 166 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with postoperative ERCP. One trial with 234 participants compared LCBDE with intra-operative ERCP. There were no trials of open or LCBDE versus ERCP in people without an intact gallbladder. All trials had a high risk of bias.There was no significant difference in the mortality between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 5/371 (1%) versus 10/358 (3%) OR 0.51;95% CI 0.18 to 1.44). Neither was there a significant difference in the morbidity between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 76/371 (20%) versus 67/358 (19%) OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.62). Participants in the open surgery group had significantly fewer retained stones compared with the ERCP group (seven trials; 609 participants; 20/313 (6%) versus 47/296 (16%) OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62), P = 0.0002.There was no significant difference in the mortality between LC + LCBDE versus pre-operative ERCP +LC (five trials; 580 participants; 2/285 (0.7%) versus 3/295 (1%) OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). Neither was there was a significant difference in the morbidity between the two groups (five trials; 580 participants; 44/285 (15%) versus 37/295 (13%) OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.80 to 2.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of participants with retained stones (five trials; 580 participants; 24/285 (8%) versus 31/295 (11%) OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.39).There was only one trial assessing LC + LCBDE versus LC+intra-operative ERCP including 234 participants. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity, retained stones, procedure failure rates between the two intervention groups.Two trials assessed LC + LCBDE versus LC+post-operative ERCP. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 13/81 (16%) versus 12/85 (14%) OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.72). There was a significant difference in the retained stones between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 7/81 (9%) versus 21/85 (25%) OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; P = 0.008.In total, seven trials including 746 participants compared single staged LC + LCBDE versus two-staged pre-operative ERCP + LC or LC + post-operative ERCP. There was no significant difference in the mortality between single and two-stage management (seven trials; 746 participants; 2/366 versus 3/380 OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). There was no a significant difference in the morbidity (seven trials; 746 participants; 57/366 (16%) versus 49/380 (13%) OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.89). There were significantly fewer retained stones in the single-stage group (31/366 participants; 8%) compared with the two-stage group (52/380 participants; 14%), but the difference was not statistically significantOR 0.59; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94).There was no significant difference in the conversion rates of LCBDE to open surgery when compared with pre-operative, intra-operative, and postoperative ERCP groups. Meta-analysis of the outcomes duration of hospital stay, quality of life, and cost of the procedures could not be performed due to lack of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Open bile duct surgery seems superior to ERCP in achieving common bile duct stone clearance based on the evidence available from the early endoscopy era. There is no significant difference in the mortality and morbidity between laparoscopic bile duct clearance and the endoscopic options. There is no significant reduction in the number of retained stones and failure rates in the laparoscopy groups compared with the pre-operative and intra-operative ERCP groups. There is no significant difference in the mortality, morbidity, retained stones, and failure rates between the single-stage laparoscopic bile duct clearance and two-stage endoscopic management. More randomised clinical trials without risks of systematic and random errors are necessary to confirm these findings.

Modulation of gut barrier function in patients with obstructive jaundice using probiotic LP299v.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the effect of LP229v on intestinal permeability and tumour necrosis factor (TNF) p55 receptor concentrations in patients with obstructive jaundice undergoing biliary drainage. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing biliary drainage were recruited and randomized into three groups to receive Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (LP299v), inactivated LP299v (placebo) or water. These were administered daily at noon until 7 days after biliary drainage. Intestinal permeability was measured using the lactulose/mannitol (L/M) dual sugar absorption test on admission, the day before biliary drainage and on days 1 and 7 after biliary drainage. Blood and urine were collected to determine the L/M ratio and the TNF p55 receptor levels at each time point. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients were recruited; 12 had choledocholithiasis and nine had a periampullary tumour. Open surgical biliary drainage was performed in nine patients, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in 12 and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography in two. Five patients received LP299v, five received placebo and seven, water. The median L/M ratio was 0.035 (0.018-0.065) at baseline. No difference existed between the groups on admission, before drainage and on day 7 after drainage (P=0.59, 0.175 and 0.61, respectively). The L/M ratio was lower in the LP299v group on day 1 after drainage [0.01 (0.01) vs. 0.18 (0.03-0.3) and 0.11 (0.07-0.14); P=0.37]. Although the TNF p55 receptor levels were lower on day 1 after drainage in the LP299v group (15.3 vs. 30.9 vs. 82.7 ng/ml; P=0.43), the concentration at the four time points was similar (P=0.24, 0.96, 0.43 and 0.68). CONCLUSION: Pretreatment with probiotic LP299v improves intestinal permeability after biliary drainage and attenuates the inflammatory response. However, a larger multicentre trial is required to determine the effect on clinical outcome.

IgG4-related systemic sclerosing disease: a diagnosis to be considered!!

IgG4-related systemic sclerosing disease is a chronic autoimmune disorder with diverse clinical presentation. We report a 56-year-old patient who has presented with obstructive jaundice, bulky pancreas and mesenteric lymph node mass. He was later diagnosed to have IgG4-sclerosing disease involving pancreas, small bowel mesentery, common bile duct, liver, gallbladder and submandibular salivary glands and has required multiple surgical interventions. IgG4-related systemic sclerosing disease appears to be more commonly encountered than it was once thought and needs considered in patients presenting with pancreatitis of no obvious underlying cause. Although the disease is primarily managed by medical therapy, there is a role for surgical intervention in order to obtain tissue for diagnosis, exclude other possible neoplastic aetiology and to manage disease-related complications.

The use of antiendotoxin peptides in obstructive jaundice endotoxemia.

BACKGROUND: Two novel antiendotoxin peptides, P6 and C1, may reduce the inflammatory response. This study aimed to determine the effect of endotoxin on hepatic cytokine response and to assess P6 and C1-related attenuation of the proinflammatory response to endotoxemia, in experimental biliary obstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 15 Male Wistar rats were randomized to one of three groups: bile duct ligation (BDL)+P6 (n=5), BDL+C1 (n=5), and BDL+no peptide (n=5). Rats were weighed and underwent BDL surgery on day 1. On day 8, the rats were reweighed and isolated hepatic perfusion was carried out. P6 or C1 peptide (10 µmol/l) was preincubated with 300 ml of endotoxin-containing Krebs perfusate. After perfusion of 10 min with endotoxin-free perfusate, the livers were perfused for another 10 min with 300 ml of perfusate-containing endotoxin on its own or endotoxin plus peptide. This was followed by a further 100 min of perfusion with endotoxin-free perfusate. Effluent perfusate was collected at 20-min intervals for subsequent biochemical and cytokine analyses. RESULTS: Perfusion with endotoxin+P6 or endotoxin+C1 resulted in no significant difference in weight loss, or interleukin-6 response compared with perfusion with endotoxin alone. However, perfusion with endotoxin+P6 or endotoxin+C1 significantly reduced the tumor necrosis factor-α response to portal endotoxemia compared with perfusion with endotoxin alone. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that novel antiendotoxin peptides may attenuate the hepatic inflammatory response in portal endotoxemia. In obstructive jaundice, preoperative peptide administration may reduce endotoxin-related postoperative complications.

Cytokine response to portal endotoxaemia and neutrophil stimulation in obstructive jaundice.

INTRODUCTION: An exaggerated proinflammatory response to endotoxaemia can occur in obstructive jaundice. The aims of this study were to determine the hepatic proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokine response to endotoxaemia in experimental biliary obstruction and to determine the source of interleukin-6 (IL-6) using immunohistochemistry. METHODOLOGY: Male Wistar rats were randomized into three groups: bile duct ligation (BDL), sham operation, and control groups. They were weighed before surgery and after 1 week. On day 8, hepatic perfusion was performed with endotoxin (Escherichia coli 0111:B4). Serial samples of blood, effluent, and influent perfusate were analyzed for proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Ultrastructural assessment of sections of the liver was performed. RESULTS: BDL animals lost weight in the first week compared with the sham and the control animals that gained weight. Liver function tests were elevated in the BDL group. Effluent biochemistry did not reveal liver injury as a result of perfusion. Ultrastructurally, there was no evidence of liver injury, with only active Kupffer cells, preservation of liver architecture, and minimal liver injury being detected. Serum tumor necrosis factor-α was not detected in any group before perfusion; however, serum IL-6 was higher in the BDL group. Portal endotoxaemia resulted in an increase in tumor necrosis factor-α, IL-6, and IL-10 in the BDL group. Fluorescence immunohistochemistry demonstrated IL-6 in the sinusoidal spaces and the cytoplasm of Kupffer cells. CONCLUSION: There is an exaggerated proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokine response to portal endotoxaemia in animals with jaundice compared with the sham group.

Biliary complications during a decade of increased cholecystectomy rate.

BACKGROUND: Bile duct injury is a rare complication of cholecystectomy. The aims of this study were to analyse the mechanism and outcome of biliary complications and determine the Northern Ireland incidence of bile duct injury over the last decade. METHODS: Annual numbers of cholecystectomies were obtained from the Northern Ireland Hospital Inpatient System database. Bile duct injury referrals to a hepatobililary unit over an 11-year period from 2000 were reviewed. Mechanism and recognition of injury, referral interval, management and outcome were analysed. RESULTS: The annual incidence of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Northern Ireland increased from 0.038% in 1995 to 0.101% in 2009. Thirty-five patients with biliary complications from cholecystectomy were referred from 2000. The incidence of bile duct injury associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy during this period was 0.2%. Only 26% of injuries were recognised intra-operatively, only 40% were referred immediately and 91% required operative intervention. CONCLUSION: The incidence of laparoscopic cholecystectomy has increased in Northern Ireland. The incidence of bile duct injuries over the last 11 years was 0.2%. Recognition and referral were delayed in most cases. The majority of injuries required operative management and long-term follow-up.

Hepatic portal venous gas--three non-fatal cases and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic portal venous gas is a rare imaging finding most commonly associated with intestinal ischaemia and high mortality. Increased use of advanced imaging techniques has resulted in increased reporting and recognition of hepatic portal venous gas. Advanced imaging can also recognise the many associated pathologies which have variable management strategies and prognoses. METHODS: We report 3 non-fatal cases and review the pathogenesis, aetiology, diagnosis, management and prognosis of hepatic portal venous gas. CONCLUSION: Once considered an indication for urgent surgery, hepatic portal venous gas is a rare imaging finding. More recently, HPVG has been recognised to be associated with various benign causes many of which may be treated non-operatively. However, intestinal ischaemia remains the most common cause and the most important to exclude. CT is the diagnostic modality of choice. The underlying cause determines the treatment strategy and outcome.

Can the National Health Service Cancer Plan timeline be applied to colorectal hepatic metastases?

INTRODUCTION: The National Health Service (NHS) Cancer Plan guidelines recommend a maximum 2-week wait from referral to first appointment, and 2 months from referral to treatment for primary cancers. However, there are currently no guidelines available for metastatic disease. In the UK, nearly half of all colorectal cancer patients develop hepatic metastases. Timely, surgical resection offers the potential for cure. The aim of this study was to audit current practice for colorectal liver metastases in a regional hepatobiliary unit, and compare this to the NHS Cancer Plan standards for primary disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of the unit's database was performed for all hepatic metastases referrals from January 2006 to December 2008. The dates of referral, first appointment, investigations and initiation of treatment, along with patient's age and sex, were recorded on Microsoft Excel and analysed. Time was expressed as mean +/- SD in days. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients with hepatic metastases were identified. Five were excluded due to incomplete data. The average time from referral to first appointment was 10.6 +/- 9.4 days and the average time from referral to treatment was 38.5 +/- 28.6 days. Seventy-five (72.7%) had surgical intervention, of whom 37 also had chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The data compare favourably to the NHS Cancer Plan guidelines for primary malignancy, demonstrating that a regional hepatobiliary unit is capable of delivering a service for colorectal liver metastases that adheres to the NHS Cancer Plan. Therefore, the NHS Cancer Plan can be applied to this cohort.