Teaching surgery novices and trainees advanced laparoscopic suturing: a trial and tribulations.

INTRODUCTION: The benefits of minimally invasive surgery are numerous; however, considerable variability exists in its application and there is a lack of standardized training for important advanced skills. Our goal was to determine whether participation in an advanced laparoscopic curriculum (ALC) results in improved laparoscopic suturing skills. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Study design was a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Surgery novices and trainees underwent baseline FLS training and were pre-tested on bench models. Participants were stratified by pre-test score and randomized to undergo either further FLS training (control group) or ALC training (intervention group). All were post-tested on the same bench model. Tests for differences between post-test scores of cohorts were performed using least squared means. Multivariable regression identified predictors of post-test score, and Wilcoxon rank sum test assessed for differences in confidence improvement in laparoscopic suturing ability between groups. RESULTS: Between November 2018 and May 2019, 25 participants completed the study (16 females; 9 males). After adjustment for relevant variables, participants randomized to the ALC group had significantly higher post-test scores than those undergoing FLS training alone (mean score 90.50 versus 82.99, p = 0.001). The only demographic or other variables found to predict post-test score include level of training (p = 0.049) and reported years of video gaming (p = 0.034). There was no difference in confidence improvement between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Training using the ALC as opposed to basic laparoscopic skills training only is associated with superior advanced laparoscopic suturing performance without affecting improvement in reported confidence levels. Performance on advanced laparoscopic suturing tasks may be predicted by lifetime cumulative video gaming history and year of training but does not appear to be associated with other factors previously studied in relation to basic laparoscopic skills, such as surgical career aspiration or musical ability.

Transplant Outcomes of Donation After Circulatory Death Livers Recovered With Versus Without Premortem Heparin Administration.

Premortem heparin administration during donation after circulatory death (DCD) organ recovery is thought to optimize liver perfusion. However, premortem heparinization is not universally practiced in the United States and limited data exist regarding its utility. US registry data were accessed between January 1, 2003, and March 10, 2017, and 2 cohorts were ascertained: (1) DCD donor livers recovered for transplantation (n = 5495) and (2) liver-only adult transplant recipients of DCD livers (n = 3754). Exclusions were donor unknown heparin status (n = 40), positive donor hepatitis B surface antigen (n = 4) and hepatitis C virus (n = 120) serologies, and for the outcomes analysis, livers placed outside the United States (n = 10). Discard rates and graft outcomes were examined from cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. Of 5495 DCD livers recovered for transplant, 589 (10.7%) donors did not receive premortem heparin (no heparin) and the remaining 4906 (89.3%) received heparin (heparin). Liver discard was similar between the no heparin (30.6%) and heparin groups (30.8%; P = 0.90). Heparin status was not associated with liver discard on multivariate analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.18 P = 0.76). The cumulative probability of overall graft survival was lower in the no heparin group relative to the heparin group (P < 0.05), and this finding persisted on multivariate analysis. No heparin group transplants had an 18% higher hazard of overall graft failure compared with those that received heparin (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01-1.38; P < 0.05). In conclusion, organ recovery heparin administration status was not associated with liver discard. Failure to pretreat organ donors with premortem heparin correlates with worse liver transplant graft survival compared with heparin-treated livers.

Outcomes of DCD kidneys recovered for transplantation with versus without pre-mortem heparin administration.

BACKGROUND: Pre-mortem heparin administration during donation after circulatory death (DCD) organ recovery may be particularly important to improve perfusion and prevent graft thrombosis. However, pre-mortem heparin administration is not universally practiced in the US and scarce data exist regarding its efficacy. METHODS: Using a national transplant registry data, we identified DCD kidneys recovered for transplantation from January 1, 2003, to March 10, 2017, and examined discard and outcomes after transplantation using bivariate and multivariable analyses. Organs with unknown or missing donor heparin status (n = 193), seropositive HIV (n = 10), HTLV (n = 33), hepatitis B (n = 26), or hepatitis C (n = 648) were excluded. RESULTS: Of 24 861 DCD kidneys recovered with (n = 22 557) or without pre-mortem heparin administration (n = 2304), discard occurred in 19.1% and 20.8%, respectively (P = 0.05). On multivariate analysis, heparin use was not associated with discard (aOR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89-1.17, P = 0.820). Overall graft survival of no-heparin (n = 1791) vs heparin groups (n = 17 968) was similar on univariate and multivariate analysis (aHR 0.98, 95% CI 0.87-1.09, P = 0.640). CONCLUSION: DCD kidneys from donors that have not received pre-mortem heparin administration have acceptable transplant outcomes and are not associated with discard.

Hard-to-place kidney offers: Donor- and system-level predictors of discard.

Understanding risk factors for deceased-donor kidney nontransplantation is important since discard rates remain high. We analyzed DonorNet® data of consecutive deceased-donor nonmandatory share primary kidney-only offers to adult candidates at our center and beyond between July 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016 for donor- and system-level risk factors of discard, defined as nontransplantation at our or subsequent transplant centers. Exclusions were hepatitis C virus/hepatitis B virus core antibody status, blood type AB, and donor <1 year based on low candidate waitlist size. Of 456 individual kidney offers, from 296 donors, 73% were discarded. Most were national (93%) offers from Kidney Donor Profile Index 35-85% (n = 233) or >85% (n = 208) donors late in the allocation sequence with prior refusals logged for numerous candidates. On multivariate regression, factors significantly associated with discard were donor cerebrovascular accident (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 3.32), cancer transmission concern (aOR: 6.5), renal artery luminal compromise (aOR: 3.97), biopsy score ≥3 (aOR: 5.09), 2-hour pump resistive index >0.4 (aOR: 3.27), absence of pump (aOR: 2.58), nonspecific kidney abnormality (aOR: 2.76), increasing offer cold ischemia time category 11-15, 16-20, and >21 hours (aOR: 2.07, 2.33, 2.82), nighttime notification (aOR: 2.19), and neither kidney placed at time of offer (aOR: 2.74). Many traditional determinants of discard lack discriminatory value when granular factors are assessed. System-level factors also influence discard and warrant further study.

Benefits of multimodal enhanced recovery pathway in patients undergoing kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Use of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways to accelerate functional recovery and reduce length of stay (LOS) has rarely been investigated in kidney transplantation (KTX). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive adult isolated KTXs between July 2015 and July 2016 (ERAS, n = 139) were compared with a historical cohort between January 2014 and July 2015 (HISTORIC, n = 95). RESULTS: Enhanced recovery after surgery recipients were significantly more likely to receive kidneys that were non-local (56.1% vs 4.2%), higher Kidney Donor Profile Index (36-85, 58.4% vs 45.2%; >85, 15.2% vs 10.7%), cold ischemia time ≥30 h (62.4% vs 4.7%), induced with antithymocyte globulin (97.1% vs 87.4%), and to develop delayed graft function (46.4% vs 25.0%). LOS was shorter by 1 day among ERAS (mean 4.59) compared to HISTORIC patients (mean 5.65) predominantly due to a shift in discharges within 3 days (32.4% vs 4.2%); 30-day readmission to the hospital (27.3% vs 27.4%) or emergency room visit (9.4% vs 7.4%) was similar. There was one 30-day death in the ERAS group and none in the HISTORIC group. Return to bowel function and early meal consumption were significantly associated with ERAS, however, with somewhat higher diarrhea and emesis rates. CONCLUSION: ERAS following KTX correlated with lower LOS without change in readmissions or ER visits despite higher delayed graft function rates.