Use of Temporary Abdominal Closure in Non-Trauma Surgery: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Damage control surgery in trauma is widely used but the evidence for the use of laparostomy in non-trauma abdominal emergencies is limited. This study aimed to characterise outcomes in emergency abdominal surgery by comparing laparostomy to one-stage laparotomy for patients of similar illness severity. METHODS: A retrospective study of adult patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery and post-operative intensive care stay was performed between 2016 and 2020 at a major Australian metropolitan hospital. Case selection was from a prospectively maintained database, and case notes were reviewed. Patients having delayed abdominal closure were compared with those having one-stage abdominal closure. The primary outcome was odds of in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), overall hospital LOS, definitive stoma rate and discharge destination. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for potentially confounding variables. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighteen patients met inclusion criteria (80 laparostomy and 138 non-laparostomy). The most common indications for laparostomy were bowel ischaemia (41.3%), sepsis (26.3%) and physiological instability (22.5%). There was no evidence of difference in odds of in-hospital mortality between groups (adjusted OR = 1.67, CI: 0.85-3.28; p = 0.138). Patients requiring laparostomy had a slightly longer median ICU LOS (4 vs. 3 days; p < 0.001), similar median hospital LOS (19 vs. 14 days, p = 0.245) and similar discharge destination. There was no difference in stoma rate (35.0% vs. 35.5%). CONCLUSION: Compared with standard one-stage laparotomy, laparostomy resulted in similar odds of in-hospital mortality in emergency abdominal surgery patients requiring intensive care.

Beyond Graft Survivl: A National Cohort Study Quantifying the Impact of Increasing Kidney Donor Profile Index on Recipient Outcomes 1 Year Post-transplantation.

Background: The reporting of a locally validated kidney donor profile index (KDPI) began in Australia in 2016. Across diverse populations, KDPI has demonstrated utility in predicting allograft survival and function. A metric that incorporates both elements may provide a more comprehensive picture of suboptimal recipient outcomes. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of adult kidney transplant recipients in Australia (January 2009 to December 2014) was conducted. Conventional recipient outcomes and a composite measure of suboptimal outcome (1-y allograft failure or estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <30 mL/min) were evaluated across KDPI intervals (KDPI quintiles and 5-point increments in the KDPI 81-100 cohort). The impact of increasing KDPI on allograft function (1-y eGFR) and a suboptimal outcome was explored using multivariable regression models, adjusting for potential confounding factors. Results: In 2923 donor kidneys eligible for analysis, median KDPI was 54 (interquartile range [IQR], 31-77), and Kidney Donor Risk Index was 1.39 (IQR, 1.03-1.67). The median 1-y eGFR was 52.74 mL/min (IQR, 40.79-66.41 mL/min). Compared with the first quintile reference group, progressive reductions in eGFR were observed with increasing KDPI and were maximal in the fifth quintile (adjusted ß-coefficient: -27.43 mL/min; 95% confidence interval, -29.44 to -25.42; P < 0.001). A suboptimal outcome was observed in 359 recipients (12.3%). The adjusted odds for this outcome increased across quintiles from a baseline of odds ratio of 1.00 (first quintile) to odds ratio of 11.68 (95% confidence interval, 6.33-21.54, P < 0.001) in the fifth quintile cohort. Conclusions: Increases in donor KDPI were associated with higher probabilities of a suboptimal outcome and poorer baseline allograft function, particularly in the KDPI > 80 cohort. These findings may inform pretransplant discussions with potential recipients of high-KDPI allografts.