Transpancreatic biliary sphincterotomy for biliary access is safe also on a long-term scale.

BACKGROUND: Transpancreatic biliary sphincterotomy (TPBS) is an advanced cannulation method for accessing common bile duct (CBD) in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). If CBD cannulation is difficult, an endoscopist can open the septum between the pancreatic and biliary duct with a sphincterotome to gain access. Long-term results of this procedure are unclear. We wanted to evaluate the short- and long-term complications of TPBS on patients with native papilla and benign indication for ERCP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ERCPs performed in Helsinki University Hospital between 2007 and 2013 were reviewed. The study group comprised 143 consecutive patients with TPBS and 140 controls (CG). Data were collected from patient records and a phone survey was performed as a follow-up ≥ 4 years after the index ERCP. RESULTS: Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) developed in seven patients (4.9%) in TPBS and one patient (0.7%) in CG (p = 0.067). The rates of other acute complications were similar between the groups. ERCP ended with no access to CBD in four cases (2.8%) in TPBS. The median length of follow-up was 6 years in TPBS and 7 years in CG. During this period, three patients (2.1%) in TPBS and six patients (4.3%) in CG suffered from acute pancreatitis (AP) (p = 0.238). One (0.7%) patient in CG and none in TPBS developed chronic pancreatitis (CP). Abdominal pain was suffered by ten patients (6.9%) in TPBS and twelve patients (8.6%) in CG daily, whereas by six patients (4.2%) in TPBS and twelve patients (8.6%) in CG weekly. CONCLUSION: TPBS is a useful procedure, with acceptable complication rates. No significant difference occurred between the groups when evaluating the short-term or long-term complications with a follow-up period of four to 10 years. Additionally, no significant differences occurred in upper abdominal pain, episodes of AP, or development of CP.

Comprehensive outcome analysis in two composite face transplants in Helsinki: Have we succeeded?

INTRODUCTION: There is a need to define what is success after face transplantation (FT). We have previously created a four-component criteria tool to define indications for FT. In this study, we used the same criteria to evaluate the overall outcome of our first two patients after FT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Preoperative analysis of our two bimaxillary FT patients was compared to the results at four and six years post-transplantation. The facial deficiency impact was divided into four categories: (1) anatomical regions, (2) facial functions (mimic muscles, sensation, oral functions, speech, breathing, periorbital functions), (3) esthetics, and (4) impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Immunological status and complications were also evaluated. RESULTS: For both patients, near-normal anatomical restoration of almost all the facial regions (except the periorbital and intraoral regions) was achieved. The majority of the facial function parameters improved in both patients (patient 2 to a near-normal level). The esthetic score improved from severely disfigured to impaired (patient 1) and to near to normal (patient 2). Quality of life was severely lowered prior to FT and improved after FT but was still affected. Neither patient has experienced acute rejection episodes during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that our patients have benefitted from FT, and we have succeeded. Time will reveal whether we have achieved long-term success.

The four category systematic approach for selecting patients for face transplantation.

There is a need for a systematic approach to evaluate patients for potential face transplantation (FT). Ten patients with severe facial defects treated between 1995 and 2017 formed the study group. Data was collected from patient charts and clinical, radiological and laboratory examinations. Facial deficiencies were subdivided into four different categories: anatomical region (10 facial subunits), facial function, aesthetic defect (range 0-9-worst), and impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (15D questionnaire, range 0-1). Immunological status and possible contraindications were also evaluated. Defect aetiology consisted of burns (4), ballistic injury (3), blunt injury (1), blast injury (1), and neurofibromatosis type I (1). All patients had central facial deficiencies and 6 patients had 8 to 10 injured facial subunits. All patients had at least partial loss of facial function. The mean aesthetic disfigurement score was 6.4. The median lowering of 15D score was -0.107. None were significantly sensitized although four patients had relative contraindications and one patient had an absolute contraindication for FT. Three patients with a severe overall facial deficiency were considered as potential FT candidates. We herein propose a comprehensive and systematic tool to evaluate potential candidates for FT. This approach includes assessment of 4 key categories: anatomical regions affected, facial function, aesthetics, and HRQoL.