Slowly resorbable biosynthetic mesh: 2-year results in VHWG grade 3 hernia repair.

INTRODUCTION: Information on the long-term performance of biosynthetic meshes is scarce. This study analyses the performance of biosynthetic mesh (Phasix™) over 24 months. METHODS: A prospective, international European multi-center trial is described. Adult patients with a Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) grade 3 incisional hernia larger than 10 cm2, scheduled for elective repair, were included. Biosynthetic mesh was placed in sublay position. Short-term outcomes included 3-month surgical site occurrences (SSO), and long-term outcomes comprised hernia recurrence, reoperation, and quality of life assessments until 24 months. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were treated with biosynthetic mesh. Twenty-two patients (26.2%) developed 34 SSOs, of which 32 occurred within 3 months (primary endpoint). Eight patients (11.0%) developed a hernia recurrence. In 13 patients (15.5%), 14 reoperations took place, of which 6 were performed for hernia recurrence (42.9%), 3 for mesh infection (21.4%), and in 7 of which the mesh was explanted (50%). Compared to baseline, quality of life outcomes showed no significant difference after 24 months. Despite theoretical resorption, 10.7% of patients reported presence of mesh sensation in daily life 24 months after surgery. CONCLUSION: After 2 years of follow-up, hernia repair with biosynthetic mesh shows manageable SSO rates and favorable recurrence rates in VHWG grade 3 patients. No statistically significant improvement in quality of life or reduction of pain was observed. Few patients report lasting presence of mesh sensation. Results of biosynthetic mesh after longer periods of follow-up on recurrences and remodeling will provide further valuable information to make clear recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02720042), March 25, 2016.

Correction to: Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))-Part A.

This article was updated to include the middle initial of author L. N. Jorgensen's name.

Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)): Part B.

In 2014 the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international "Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias". Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature. METHODS: For the development of the original guidelines all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based-Medicine. For the present update all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne) the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included. RESULTS: Due to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques-minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite still insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields. CONCLUSION: Guidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initially guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))-Part A.

In 2014, the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international "Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias." Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature. METHODS: For the development of the original guidelines, all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. For the present update, all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne), the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included. RESULTS: Due to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques-minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques, it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields. CONCLUSION: Guidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initial guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

A post-market, prospective, multi-center, single-arm clinical investigation of Phasix™ mesh for VHWG grade 3 midline incisional hernia repair: a research protocol.

BACKGROUND: Incisional heia is a frequent complication of midline laparotomy. The use of mesh in hernia repair has been reported to lead to fewer recurrences compared to primary repair. However, in Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) Grade 3 hernia patients, whose hernia is potentially contaminated, synthetic mesh is prone to infection. There is a strong preference for resorbable biological mesh in contaminated fields, since it is more able to resist infection, and because it is fully resorbed, the chance of a foreign body reaction is reduced. However, when not crosslinked, biological resorbable mesh products tend to degrade too quickly to facilitate native cellular ingrowth. Phasix™ Mesh is a biosynthetic mesh with both the biocompatibility and resorbability of a biological mesh and the mechanical strength of a synthetic mesh. This multi-center single-arm study aims to collect data on safety and performance of Phasix™ Mesh in Grade 3 hernia patients. METHODS: A total of 85 VHWG Grade 3 hernia patients will be treated with Phasix™ Mesh in 15 sites across Europe. The primary outcome is Surgical Site Occurrence (SSO) including hematoma, seroma, infection, dehiscence and fistula formation (requiring intervention) through 3 months. Secondary outcomes include recurrence, infection and quality of life related outcomes after 24 months. Follow-up visits will be at drain removal (if drains were not placed, then on discharge or staple removal instead) and in the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 12th, 18th and 24th month after surgery. CONCLUSION: Based on evidence from this clinical study Depending on the results this clinical study will yield, Phasix™ Mesh may become a preferred treatment option in VHWG Grade 3 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on March 25, 2016 on clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02720042 .

What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction?

INTRODUCTION: Although many surgeons have adopted the use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair, others have questioned the use of these products. Criticism is addressed in several review articles on the poor standard of studies reporting on the use of biologic meshes for different abdominal wall repairs. The aim of this consensus review is to conduct an evidence-based analysis of the efficacy of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in predefined clinical situations. METHODS: A European working group, "BioMesh Study Group", composed of invited surgeons with a special interest in surgical meshes, formulated key questions, and forwarded them for processing in subgroups. In January 2016, a workshop was held in Berlin where the findings were presented, discussed, and voted on for consensus. Findings were set out in writing by the subgroups followed by consensus being reached. For the review, 114 studies and background analyses were used. RESULTS: The cumulative data regarding biologic mesh under contaminated conditions do not support the claim that it is better than synthetic mesh. Biologic mesh use should be avoided when bridging is needed. In inguinal hernia repair biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not have a clear advantage over the synthetic meshes. For prevention of incisional or parastomal hernias, there is no evidence to support the use of biologic/biosynthetic meshes. In complex abdominal wall hernia repairs (incarcerated hernia, parastomal hernia, infected mesh, open abdomen, enterocutaneous fistula, and component separation technique), biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not provide a superior alternative to synthetic meshes. CONCLUSION: The routine use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes cannot be recommended.

[Use of biological meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction. Results of a survey in Germany]. / Einsatz biologischer Netze bei der Bauchdeckenrekonstruktion. Ergebnisse einer Umfrage in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of incisional hernia includes implantation of a mesh. The use of synthetic grafts in contaminated fields results in an increased risk of infection. In these cases a potential advantage is described for biological repair material. Evidence for this problem is lacking; therefore, we initiated a survey among surgeons in Germany concerning this question. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A survey concerning indications, experience and techniques of using synthetic and biological meshes was sent to 60 surgical departments. The emphasis of the survey was on the differentiation of clean and contaminated fields. RESULTS: The survey was answered by 42 %. The use of biological repair material was preferred in clean-contaminated, contaminated and soiled fields. Synthetic meshes were preferred in clean, rarely in clean-contaminated and not in contaminated or soiled situations. Primary suture repair was chosen in clean fields and barely in contaminated fields. For closure of giant hernias a component separation technique (CST) was favored by the majority of respondents. A single stage repair was preferred by most of the surgeons even in cases with simultaneous stoma takedown. A total of 72 % of the respondents were satisfied with the use of biological repair material, but the reimbursement was considered to be inappropriate. DISCUSSION: Although the response rate was low, this survey gives an idea of the attitude towards the use of synthetic and biological meshes. Biological repair material is favored for hernia repair in contaminated or soiled fields. The advantage of this choice is a one stage repair despite the contamination. As the results of this survey are not able to provide arguments for the use of different meshes this question should be further investigated with a randomized controlled trial.

Self-expandable metal stent for malignant colonic obstruction: outcome in proximal vs. left sided tumor localization.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of through-the-scope (TTS) implanted self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) comparing left-sided vs. proximal placement with regard to complications and outcome in palliation of malignant colorectal obstruction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients were consecutively retrospectively enrolled to this study between January 2009 and February 2012 due to impending or prevalent complete malignant colorectal obstruction. TTS applicable uncovered nitinol SEMS with unique flexible properties were used (Taewoong Medical, South Korea). Left-sided obstruction (aboral from the left flexure) was compared to proximal (from the ileo-cecal valve to the left flexure) localization. All patients have been discussed in the interdisciplinary tumor conference and the recommendation to treat by endoscopic stent placement was given in consensus. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients was enrolled to this study (10 male and 5 female; mean age 68.3 ± 15.4 years, range 48 - 94), five patients with obstructions located in the proximal hemicolon whereas ten patients had a left-sided malignancy. Technical success was achieved in all cases and there was no early complication noticed. Three late complications included tumor overgrowth (n = 1), stent occlusion (1), and dislocation (1). Stent-in-stent insertion achieved, again, clinical success. The site of SEMS implantation (proximal vs. left colon) had no impact on patient outcome or complication rate. SEMS patency duration was 269.8 ± 175.2 days (range 30 - 570) and mean survival of the patients was 305.1 ± 279.3 days (range 16 - 990). CONCLUSION: TTS application of flexible, non-covered SEMS seems to be safe and effective for palliation of malignant colorectal obstruction independent of localization of the tumor in the colon.

Can the preprocurement pancreas suitability score predict ischemia-reperfusion injury and graft survival after pancreas transplantation?

BACKGROUND: Ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) is common after pancreas transplantation, leading to pancreatitis or thrombosis with the need for relaparotomy or even graft loss. Optimal donor selection may reduce the postoperative morbidity of IRI. The Eurotransplant preprocurement pancreas suitability score (P-PASS) seeks to identify ideal donors with a value <17. Owing to the organ shortage the waiting time for pancreas transplantation is increasing, a problem that may be addressed with the use of extended-criteria donors. We analyzed our pancreas transplantations regarding postoperative complications according to the P-PASS. To reflect IRI we used the peak C-reactive protein (CRP) levels during the first 3 postoperative days. METHODS: From January 2009 to July 2010, we transplanted 52 pancreas grafts, including, 50 simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantations (SPK), 1 after a kidney graft, and 1 alone. For 3 SPK donors the P-PASS was not available. All transplantations were performed using systemic venous and enteric drainage. The immunosuppression protocol included antibody induction with antithymocyte globulin and maintenance therapy with steroids, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil. The peak CRP in the first 3 postoperative days was used as a marker for IRI. RESULTS: The mean P-PASS of our donors was 16.4 ± 2.6 (range, 12-22). We compared 24 patients receiving organs from "ideal" donors (P-PASS <17; ID) with 25 receiving grafts from extended-criteria donors (P-PASS ≥17; ED). There was no significant difference in the incidence of graft loss among ID versus ED grafts (20.8% vs 20.0%; P = 1.0). Comparing the rates of postoperative complications of patients, we did not observe a significant difference in graft thrombosis (4.2% vs 16.0%; P = .349), relaparotomy (29.2% vs 40.0%; P = .551), a pancreatic fistula (37.5% vs 28.0%; P = .543), or the length of hospital stay (36.5 ± 19.2 vs 37.4 ± 20.8 days; P = .875), respectively. Regarding IRI, there was no significant difference in peak CRP values (14.1 ± 5.5 vs 16.2 ± 6.0 mg/dL; P = .211). CONCLUSION: This single center analysis failed to show that P-PASS significantly predicted pancreas graft survival, postoperative morbidity, or IRI severity. These findings suggested a chance to increase the donor pool using extended-criteria donors.

Incidence and treatment of pancreatic fistula after simultaneous pancreas kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation (SPK) is associated with great postoperative morbidity, including the need for relaparotomy in up to 40% of cases. Because the pancreatic graft is known to be the major cause of the high morbidity, we examined the incidence and treatment of pancreatic fistula (PF) in this retrospective analysis. METHODS: From January 2004 to July 2010, we transplanted 52 pancreas grafts, including 50 SPK, 1 pancreas after kidney, and 1 pancreas transplantation alone. There were 22 female and 30 male patients with an overall mean age of 42.4 ± 7.4 years. The mean duration of diabetes was 27.3 + 8.1 years, mean duration of dialysis was 24.2 ± 28.6 months, and 14 cases were pre-emptive transplantations. All procedures were performed using systemic venous and enteric drainage. RESULTS: The incidence of clinically relevant PF was 16/52 (30.8%), including 11 (68.8%) that were treated conservatively with a drain. Five patients (31.2%) needed relaparotomy: 2 due to enteric leakage, 2 due to acute abdominal pain with graft pancreatitis observed at laparotomy, and 1 due to acute hemorrhage. In 3 cases, graft pancreatectomy was necessary. Comparing the patients with (PF+) versus without (PF-) fistulas, there was no significant difference in cold ischemia time (10.9 ± 2.6 hours vs 10.4 ± 4.4 hours; P = .633), donor age. We found a significantly higher peak C-reactive protein (CRP) level in the patients with pancreatic fistula (3661.4 ± 3474.8 U/L vs 821.8 ± 1293.7 U/L, P = .022). The lipase concentration measured in the drainage fluid postoperatively showed a significant difference between the 2 groups (3661.4 ± 3474.8 U/L vs 821.8 ± 1293.7 U/L; P = 0.006). Also, the amylase concentration was higher in the PF+ group (1747.3 ± 3346.7 U/L vs 265.3 ± 254.9 U/L; P = .097). Graft loss occurred in 4/16 cases (25.0%) of PF+ and 7/36 (19.4%) of PF- (P = .719). CONCLUSION: The incidence of PF after pancreas transplantation is high and seems to be associated with ischemia-reperfusion injury reflected by peak-CRP. In most cases a conservative treatment is successful. The occurrence of a PF does not significantly impair graft survival.

[Diagnosis of and therapy for gastric cancer--work-flow]. / Diagnostik und Therapie des Magenkarzinoms--Workflow.

AIM: This review comments on the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer in the classical meaning--excluding adenocarcinoma of the -oesophagogastric junction. Algorithms of diagnosis and care with respect to tumour stage are presented. PREOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: Besides oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, endoscopic ultrasonography is necessary for the accurate diagnosis of T categories and as a selection criterion for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Computed tomography is recommended for preoperative evaluation of tumours > T1, laparoscopy has become an effective stag-ing tool in T3 and T4 tumours avoiding unnecessary laparotomies and improving the detection of small -liver and peritoneal metastases. TREATMENT: Endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection are indicated in superficial cancer confined to the mucosa with special characteristics (T1 a / no ulcer / G1, 2 / Laurén intestinal / L0 / V0 / tumour size < 2 cm). In all other cases total gastrectomy or distal subtotal gastric resection are indicated, the latter in cases of tumours located in the distal two-thirds of the stomach. Standard lymphadenectomy (LAD) is the D2 LAD without distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. The Roux-en-Y oesophagojejunostomy is still the preferred type of reconstruction. An additional pouch reconstruction should be considered in -patients with favourable prognosis, this also -applies for the preservation of the duodenal passage by jejunum interposition. Extended organ resections are only indicated in cases where a R0-resection is possible. Hepatic resection for metachronous or synchronous liver metastases is rarely advised since 50 % of patients with liver metastases show concomitant peritoneal dissemination of the disease. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Undergoing gastrectomy at a high-volume centre is associated with lower in-hospital mortality and a better prognosis, however, clear thresholds for case load cannot be given. Perioperative chemotherapy and postoperative chemoradiotherapy are based on the MAGIC and MacDonald trials. Perioperative chemotherapy should be performed in patients with T3 and T4 tumours with the aim to increase the likelihood of curative R0-resection by downsizing the tumour. Adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy cannot be recommended since its benefit has so far not been proven in randomised trials. In selected patients with incomplete lymph-node dissection and questionable R0-resection postoperative chemoradiotherapy may be debated.

[Inguinal hernia: laparoscopic or open surgery?]. / Leistenhernienversorgung: Laparoskopisch oder konventionell?

BACKGROUND: Today, mesh repair is the preferred technique in surgery of inguinal hernia. Whether the mesh should be placed laparoscopically or by open techniques is still controversial. METHODS: A comparison of open mesh and laparoscopic techniques was made with the help of meta-analyses and prospective trials. Outcome variables analysed were recurrence, chronic pain, recovery, morbidity and costs. RESULTS: With regard to recurrence rates, both techniques gave comparable results. The laparoscopic technique shows advantages in terms of morbidity, recovery and especially a lower rate of chronic pain. Open mesh repair has the advantage of a lower risk of some rare severe intra-abdominal complications and seems to be more cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Both techniques of inguinal hernia repair are effective and safe. Each technique has its advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, today no single technique can be recommended as a gold standard.

Immunosuppression in pancreas transplantation: the Euro SPK trials and beyond.

The Immunosuppression in Pancreas Transplantation was historically based on the fact that the pancreas is an extremely immunogenic organ. Quadruple drug therapy with polyclonal or monoclonal antibodies induction was the mainstay therapy since the introduction of Cyclosporine A. In the modern era of Immunosuppression, Mycophenolate Mofetil replaced Azathioprine while Tacrolimus-another potent calcineurin inhibitor-had-and still has-a difficult challenge to replaced Cyclosporine A, due to its potential diabetogenic effect. Thanks to the first two EuroSPK studies which prospectively tried to answer several questions in that field. But, the future challenge will be in understanding the impact of innate immunity and ischemic reperfusion injuries on the long-term graft function. Hopefully, new drugs will be available and tested to block unspecific deleterious reactions to attenuate the proinflammatory response. It will be the aim of the third Euro SPK Study.

Evaluation of type 1 diabetics for simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation with regard to cardiovascular risk.

The main cause of death for diabetic patients and patients on dialysis is coronary artery disease (CAD). The most common cause of graft loss following simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation (SPK) is death with a functioning graft due to CAD. Therefore, careful pretransplantation evaluation of CAD is mandatory. In our series, every patient undergoes a noninvasive cardiac function test like dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) or myocardial thallium scintigraphy using adenosine to induce medical stress. Thirty patients were evaluated for SPK: 15 patients with myocardial scintigraphy and 8 with DSE. Seven investigations showed pathological findings and we performed coronary angiograms, none of which showed coronary artery stenosis. Seven primary coronary angiograms were performed: four due to a history of CAD and three as a primary diagnostic. Following SPK one patient died at 21 days after transplantation due to myocardial infarction. He had a history of CAD with angioplasty and stent implantation. Noninvasive cardiac function tests like DSE or myocardial scintigraphy are reliable methods to evaluate CAD in patients with diabetic nephropathy awaiting SPK. In case of a suspicious finding or a history of CAD, a coronary angiogram should be performed to assess the need for revascularization. Following this algorithm we may further reduce the mortality of SPK.

[Colorectal cancer liver metastases -- neoadjuvant concepts for preoperative down-sizing]. / Lebermetastasen kolorektaler Karzinome - Neoadjuvante Konzepte zum präoperativen Downstaging.

Liver resection for colorectal metastases disease can be performed with curative intent at low morbidity and mortality. Only 15-30 % of liver metastases are amenable to potentially curative resection. Five year survival following primary and repeat liver resection has consistently been reported as 25-40 %. Future strategies focus at widening the indication and extending therapeutic options. The aim of neoadjuvant treatment of irresectable liver metastasis is the conversion to secondary resectability either via increasing residual liver mass (portal vein embolisation/2-stage resection) and/or reducing tumor load via chemotherapy ("down-sizing"). Current data suggest resectability following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in around 8 % of cases but varying between 1-33 %.

Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic spleen-preserving partial resection of the pancreatic tail for insulinoma.

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection is rarely described. Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopy may offer some advantages for resection of the pancreatic tail. A 49-year-old woman was diagnosed with insulinoma located in the pancreatic tail. Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic spleen-preserving resection of the pancreatic tail was performed. Operation time was 195 minutes. The postoperative course was uneventful. The previously described advantages of a telerobotic approach with extended range of motion and three-dimensional view make more complex operations like pancreatic resection possible and may offer extended indications for laparoscopic surgery.

Influence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carrier status in liver transplant recipients.

The prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococus aureus (MRSA) has increased worldwide and MRSA has emerged as an important cause of sepsis in cirrhotic patients and liver transplant recipients. In this retrospective study, the prevalence of MRSA colonization and its influence on infections following orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) was investigated. From August, 2002 until November, 2004, 66 primary cadaver OLT were performed for adult recipients. Antibody induction used Daclizumab (n = 49) or ATG (n = 14). Maintenance immunosuppression consisted of tacrolimus and steroids, with 30 patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil and 4, rapamune. For perioperative anti-infectious prophylaxis cefotaxime, metronidazole, and tobramycin were administered for 48 hours. The preoperatively performed routine swabs revealed MRSA colonization in 12 of 66 (18.2%) patients. The stage of cirrhosis was equivalent for MRSA(-) patients according to Child score. The mean MELD score was significantly higher for MRSA(+) patients (24.3 versus 18.7, P = .036). More MRSA(+) patients were hospitalized at the time of transplantation (14/54 versus 8/12, P = .018). The incidence of posttransplant infections was not significantly different among the two groups. Within the first year 7 of 66 (10.6%) patients died: 3 of 12 (25%) MRSA(+) and 4 of 54 (7.4%) MRSA(-). The 1-year survival was lower in the MRSA(+) group (74.1% versus 94.1%). In conclusion, this study did not show that an MRSA-positive carrier status implies an increased risk for septic complications following OLT. Mortality was increased for MRSA(+), but failed to show a significant difference. A significantly higher MELD score and pretransplant hospitalization for MRSA(+) patients may contribute to the higher mortality and reflect sicker patients.

Does the liver ever age? Results of liver transplantation with donors above 80 years of age.

INTRODUCTION: Facing an increasing shortage of donor organs, donor criteria become more extended and so-called marginal organs are accepted for transplantation. For liver donation donor age above 70 years is accepted as a risk factor concerning primary dysfunction or nonfunction. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the early outcome of grafts older versus younger than 80 years of age. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Between August 2002 and February 2004, 40 adult liver transplants were performed using triple immunosuppression with tacrolimus, MMF, and low-dose corticosteroids. Recipients with HCC received low-dose rapamycin after postoperative day 14. The outcome of grafts from donors under 80 years of age (n=35) was compared with those from donors 80 years old or more (n=5). For statistical analysis Mann-Whitney-U-Test and Fisher's Exact Test were used with P < .05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The average donor age of our population was 54.4 +/- 17.3 years with five donors older than 80 years (80-83 years). These donors all had additional risk factors. The recipients of the latter grafts suffered from HCC and liver cirrhosis Child A (n=2) or from viral hepatitis (n=3). One recipient had advanced cirrhosis with severe complications. The outcomes of both groups were comparable concerning intraoperative and postoperative courses. All recipients of old liver grafts left the hospital with stable graft function. CONCLUSION: Liver grafts over 80 years can be transplanted with good results, especially if given to recipients with malignancy and otherwise stable liver function.