Patient profiles and outcomes following repair of irreducible and reducible Ventral Wall Hernias.

PURPOSE: The belief that irreducible hernias are repaired less successfully and with higher morbidity drives patients to seek elective repair. The aims of this study were threefold. First, this study sought to compare characteristics of patients undergoing irreducible and reducible ventral hernia repair. Second, to compare morbidity rates. Third, to determine which factors, including irreducibility, might be associated with recurrence. METHODS: This observational study was a retrospective review of 252 consecutive ventral hernia patients divided into two cohorts: 101 patients who underwent repair of an irreducible ventral hernia, and 152 patients underwent repair of a reducible ventral hernia. The mean follow-up time was approximately 4 years in both groups. RESULTS: Patients undergoing repair of irreducible hernias had higher median BMI (31 vs. 27 kg/m2, p = 0.005), had their hernias longer (median 34 months compared to 12 months, p = 0.043), had more defects on average (mean 1.8 vs. 1.4, p < 0.001), and were more likely to be symptomatic (83 vs. 55%, p = 0.002). Interestingly, neither hernia size (p = 0.821), nor the location of hernia (p = 0.261) differed significantly between the two groups. Morbidity rates, including rates of surgical site infection, obstruction, and recurrence, did not differ significantly; nor did recurrence-free survival (RFS) distributions. Risk factors for hernia recurrence on multivariate analysis included the repaired hernia being itself recurrent (HR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.07-3.99, p = 0.031), the occurrence of post-operative surgical site infection (HR = 5.10, 95% CI = 2.18-11.91, p < 0.001), and the occurrence of post-operative intestinal obstruction (HR = 5.18, 95% CI = 1.82-14.75, p = 0.002). Irreducibility was not a significant predictor of recurrence (p = 0.152). CONCLUSION: Despite differing profiles, patients with these two types of hernias did not have statistically significant differences in morbidity. Recurrence was not observed to be associated with irreducibility but was found to be associated with other post-operative complications.

Donor and recipient factors predicting time to graft failure following orthotopic liver transplantation: a transplant risk index.

INTRODUCTION: Much of the success of a transplant depends on appropriate matching of donor to recipient. METHODS: We validated the Donor Risk Index formula (DRI) using Mount Sinai Medical Center's 10-year cohort of over 1000 transplants. RESULTS: The DRI was significantly associated to graft failure with a relative risk (RR) of 1.32. Our cohort had an average DRI of 2.6 with survival of 83% at 3 months, 79% at 1 year, and 70% at 3 years. The low rate of graft failure at a high DRI implies that there are other factors important in transplant pairing that are not considered in the DRI model. To determine these variables and quantify their importance, we constructed a Transplant Risk Index by identifying recipient and donor variables not captured in United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) that significantly correlated to graft failure. The most significant independent predictors of time to graft failure were donor age, weight, and peak serum sodium; ischemia time; and recipient creatinine, international normalized ratio, and hepatitis C infection. The coefficients for each of these factors were compiled into a Transplant Risk Index formula. A cutoff of 5 resulted in a graft survival rate of 86% at 3 months, 76% at 1 year, and 62% at 3 years using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The predictive ability of the Transplant Risk Index was greater than the DRI or DMELD (the product of donor age and preoperative MELD) as assessed by the area under the receiver operating curve and the positive and negative predictive values. CONCLUSION: The Transplant Risk Index captures recipient factors and donor factors not captured in UNOS. Including these factors may improve the ability to predict good donor-recipient pairing.