Burns, Justin M.

In situ abdominal normothermic regional perfusion (A-NRP) has been used for liver transplantation (LT) with donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver grafts in Europe with excellent results; however, adoption of A-NRP in the United States has been lacking. The current report describes the implementation and results of a portable, self-reliant A-NRP program in the United States. Isolated abdominal in situ perfusion with an extracorporeal circuit was achieved through cannulation in the abdomen or femoral vessels and inflation of a supraceliac aortic balloon and cross-clamp. The Quantum Transport System by Spectrum was used. The decision to use livers for LT was made through an assessment of perfusate lactate (q15min). From May to November 2022, 14 A-NRP donation after circulatory death procurements were performed by our abdominal transplant team (N = 11 LT, N = 20 kidney transplants, and 1 kidney-pancreas transplant). The median A-NRP run time was 68 minutes. None of the LT recipients had post-reperfusion syndrome, nor were there any cases of primary nonfunction. All livers were functioning well at the time of maximal follow-up with zero cases of ischemic cholangiopathy. The current report describes the feasibility of a portable A-NRP program that can be used in the United States. Excellent short-term post-transplant results were achieved with both livers and kidneys procured from A-NRP.

Controversy remains regarding which approach is better, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) or open appendectomy (OA). A 5-year retrospective review of patients undergoing appendectomy was performed to compare the outcomes of LA and OA using standard statistical methods ( P < 0.05). LA was performed in 207 and OA in 100 patients (conversion 6.7%). Females underwent LA more frequently than males (81.7% vs 51.9%; P = 0.0001). LA patients were older (30.2 years vs 25.7 years; P = 0.03), with no differences in body mass index (BMI) (27.9 kg/m 2 vs 25.5 kg/m 2 ; P = 0.06) or operative times (51.1 minutes vs 51.5 minutes; P = 0.84).’ LA patients required less analgesics (19.2 mg vs 31.5 mg; P = 0.01), and shorter hospital stays (27.2 hours vs 53.1 hours; P = 0.0001). Operating room charges were higher for LA ($3839 vs $2528; P = 0.0001), with no difference in total hospital charges ($8801. vs $9147; P = 0.14). Complications between LA and OA were similar (3.6% vs 8%; P = 0.12). Converted patients were older, required more analgesia, and had higher morbidity, length of stay, and hospital charges. LA is the procedure of choice for appendicitis regardless of age, sex, BMI, or degree of appendiceal inflammation. LA is as safe and quick to perform as OA with lower analgesic requirements, length of stay, and no difference in total charges.

Introduction: Minimally invasive major hepatic resection (MIMHR) is increasingly being performed in tertiary centers using either hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) or totally laparoscopic surgery (TLS). The outcomes data of MIMHR are scarce, especially in comparison to open major hepatic resection (OMHR). Our aim was to compare 90-day outcomes in major hepatic resections when minimally invasive approaches are attempted. Methods and Procedures: At our institution, minimally invasive liver resection was formally introduced in January 2007, initially using the HALS approach. Since then, the use of TLS approach has increased. We collected data on all patients who underwent major liver resection between January 2007 and December 2017 at our institution. In an intention to treat fashion, we then compared MIMHR to OMHR. Results: From January 2007 to December 2017, 669 patients underwent liver resection. Of these, 203 patients (30%) underwent major hepatic resection and MIMHR and OMHR were performed in 68 (33%) and 135 (67%) patients, respectively. The rate of conversion from minimally invasive to open was 30.9%. Overall, there were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (2.9% versus 1.5%; P = .499) or major complications (14.7% versus 14.8%; P = .985). MIMHR was associated with a shorter average postoperative hospital stay (6.2 days versus 7.9 days; P = .0110) and shorter average ICU stay (0.66 days versus 0.90 days; P = .0299) compared with OMHR. Conclusions: The minimally invasive approach to major liver resection is a safe and reasonable alternative to an open approach when performed by a surgeon experienced with the relevant surgical techniques. MIMHR may be associated with similar outcomes and a shorter postoperative hospital stay with no increase in 90-day postoperative complications to OMHR.

Liver grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) are a source of organs to decrease wait‐list mortality. While there have been lower rates of graft loss, there are concerns of an increased incidence of intraoperative events in recipients of DCD grafts. We aim to look at the incidence of intraoperative events between recipients of livers from DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) donors. We collected data for 235 DCD liver recipients between 2006 and 2017. We performed a 1:1 propensity match between these patients and patients with DBD donors. Variables included recipient age, liver disease etiology, biological Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, allocation MELD score, diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma, and year of transplantation. DCD and DBD groups had no significant differences in incidence of postreperfusion syndrome (P = 0.75), arrhythmia requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (P = 0.66), and treatments for hyperkalemia (P = 0.84). In the DCD group, there was a significant increase in amount of total intraoperative and postreperfusion blood products (with exception of postreperfusion packed red blood cells) utilized (P < 0.05 for all products), significant differences in postreperfusion thromboelastography parameters, as well as inotropes and vasopressors used (P < 0.05 for all infusions). There was no difference in patient (P = 0.49) and graft survival (P = 0.10) at 1, 3, and 5 years. In conclusion, DCD grafts compared with a cohort of DBD grafts have a similar low incidence of major intraoperative events, but increased incidence of transient vasopressor/inotropic usage and increased blood transfusion requirements. This does not result in differences in longterm outcomes. While centers should continue to look at DCD liver donors, they should be cognizant regarding intraoperative care to prevent adverse outcomes.

Variation in average Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score at liver transplantation (LT) by United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) regions is well documented. The present study aimed to investigate MELD variation at the interregional, intraregional, and intra–donation service area (DSA) levels. Patients undergoing LT between 2015 and 2016 were obtained from the UNOS standard analysis and research file. The distribution of allocation MELD score including median, skew, and kurtosis was examined for all transplant programs. Intraregional median allocation MELD varied significantly within all 11 UNOS regions. The largest variation between programs was seen in region 5 (MELD 24.0 versus 38.5) and region 3 (MELD 20.5 versus 32.0). Regions 1, 5, and 9 had the largest proportion of programs with a highly negative skewed MELD score (50%, 57%, and 57%, respectively), whereas regions 3, 6, 10, and 11 did not have any programs with a highly negative skew. MELD score distribution was also examined in programs located in the same DSA, where no barriers exist and theoretically no significant difference in allocation should be observed. The largest DSA variation in median allocation MELD score was seen in NYRT‐OP1 LiveOnNY (MELD score variation 11), AZOB‐OP1 Donor Network of Arizona (MELD score variation 11), MAOB‐OP1 New England Organ Bank (MELD score variation 9), and TXGC‐OP1 LifeGift Organ Donation Ctr (MELD score variation 9). In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that this MELD disparity is not only present at the interregional level but can be seen within regions and even within DSAs between programs located as close as several city blocks away. Although organ availability likely accounts for a component of this disparity, the present study suggests that transplant center behavior may also play a significant role.Liver Transplantation 24 488–496 2018AASLD.

The use of liver grafts from donation after cardiac death (DCD) has been limited due to the increased rate of graft failure, mostly related to ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). It is our hypothesis that longterm outcomes and quality of life (QOL) similar to patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) with donation after brain death (DBD) can be achieved. Clinical outcomes of all patients undergoing DCD LT (n = 300) between 1998 and 2015 were compared with a propensity score–matched cohort of patients undergoing DBD LT (n = 300). Patients were contacted for a follow‐up questionnaire and short‐form (SF)–12 QOL Survey administration. Median follow‐up was >5 years. Graft survival at 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐years was 83.8%, 75.5%, and 70.1% in the DCD LT group and 88.4%, 80.3%, and 73.9% in the DBD LT group ( P = 0.27). Patient survival at 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐years was 92.3%, 86.1%, and 80.3% in the DCD LT group and 92.3%, 85.1%, and 79.5% in the DBD LT group ( P = 0.81). IC developed in 11.7% and 2% of patients in the DCD LT group and DBD LT group, respectively ( P < 0.001). DCD LT recipients who developed IC had inferior graft survival compared with both the DCD non‐IC group ( P < 0.001) and the DBD LT group ( P < 0.001); no difference in graft survival was observed between the DCD non‐IC group and the DBD LT group ( P = 0.50). Physical and Mental Composite Scores on the SF‐12 QOL questionnaire were similar between the DCD LT and DBD LT groups (44.0 versus 45.4; P = 0.34 and 51.9 versus 52.2; P = 0.83), respectively. Similar longterm survival and QOL scores can be achieved between DCD LT and DBD LT. Prevention of IC in DCD LT yields excellent graft and patient survival with virtually no difference compared with DBD LT. Liver Transplantation 23 342–351 2017 AASLD .