Abstract Background Machine perfusion represents the most significant breakthrough in liver transplantation (LT) since the discovery of cyclosporin. Yet, the optimal perfusion strategy remains unsettled. Randomized trials demonstrate that hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) improves graft survival and function and reduces ischemic cholangiopathy, whereas normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) decreases post-transplant injury. Real-world comparisons are lacking and challenging due to heterogeneity in donor-recipient risk profiles and regional differences. Aims To compare real-world outcomes of HOPE and NMP in LT. Methods We analyzed consecutive NMP-preserved LTs from seven North American centers between 2021 and 2024. We compared NMP to the European HOPE-REAL cohort, comprising HOPE-treated LTs from 22 centers between 2012 and 2021. Analyses were stratifyied by graft type and risk category and adjusted for donor age, donor risk index, and balance of risk score using entropy balancing. Results A total of 470 NMP and 1202 HOPE-treated grafts were analyzed, revealing major differences in risk profiles (Figure 1). In NMP, death-censored graft survivals at 1, 2, and 3 years were >95% in donation after brain death (DBD) and >94% in donation after circulatory death (DCD) grafts. Comparable outcomes were observed in the HOPE cohort with >93%, in DBD, and >87% in DCD after up to 3 years, despite significantly higher donor age and longer functional warm ischemia in the HOPE DCD cohort (Figure 2). After risk adjustment, death-censored graft survival remained similar between both modalities (Table 1). Non-anastomotic biliary stricture rates after DCD-LT were comparable (8.5% vs. 12.4%), independent of whether continuous or end-ischemic NMP was performed. Conclusion This first transatlantic real-world report demonstrates excellent outcomes with both NMP and HOPE despite higher graft risk in Europe. Machine perfusion is the new standard of care in LT, while further understanding is needed regarding the distinct benefits of each modality across risk profiles.Figure 1.Graft risk in NMP and HOPE stratified by graft type. Benchmark case was defined as primary transplant with MELD <20 and BAR score <9, extended criteria as either BMI >30kg/m2, donor age >65 years, CIT >12h. DCD grafts were categorized as definedFor image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text. Figure 2.Death-censored graft survival in liver transplantation following NMP and HOPE stratified by graft type. Abbreviations: NMP (Normothermic Machine Perfusion), HOPE (Hypothermic Oxygenated Perfusion), DBD (Donation after Brain Death), DCD (Donation after circulatory death)For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text. Table 1.Risk-adjusted comparison of death-censored graft survival between NMP and HOPE.For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.
Comparative Analysis of the Nonoperative Treatment of Elbow Ulnar Collateral Ligament Injuries in Professional Baseball Players with and without Platelet-Rich Plasma
Objectives: In the setting of ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) injury, surgical reconstruction of the UCL is not always selected, as it leads to a prolonged recovery time and return to play rates between 67-95%. To date, there is limited data on outcomes following nonoperative treatment in this population. Orthobiologics, such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP), have recently been used as an adjunct therapy for standard nonoperative treatment including rest and physical therapy for UCL injuries. The objective of this study was to determine if the addition of PRP injections in professional baseball players with UCL injuries reduces recovery time, lowers the likelihood of surgery, and increases the return to play rate compared to traditional nonoperative treatment. Methods: The Health and Injury Tracking System (HITS) database was searched from 2011-2015 for Major and Minor league baseball players with Grade I, II or III UCL injuries. Standard demographic, injury, and return to play data was obtained for all players. MRI’s for 353 athletes were reviewed by a musculoskeletal radiologist and graded accordingly. Outcomes were compared between players who received PRP injections in addition to traditional nonoperative treatment (PRP group) and players who received traditional nonoperative treatment alone (No PRP group). Statistical analysis was performed using Student’s T-test and Chi-square for parametric data. Kaplan Meier’s analysis was used for estimating longevity of the treatment. Results: A total of 544 Major and Minor League Baseball players with UCL tears underwent an initial course of nonoperative treatment (active rest & rehabilitation) for their injury between 2011-2015. Of these, 133 underwent PRP injections plus rehab and 411 underwent rehab alone. There was a significantly higher proportion of Major League Baseball players in the PRP group compared to the No PRP group (25.6% vs 9.0%, P<0.001). There was no difference between the two cohorts in regard to the grade of UCL tear (Figure 1). The players in the PRP group had a significantly longer time before returning to a throwing program compared to the No PRP group (64 days vs 51 days, P<0.001). The mean time from injury date to PRP injection was 14.5 days, which may explain the difference in time to return to throwing. The return to play rate in a live game without surgery was significantly lower in the PRP group compared to the No PRP group (46% vs 57%, P=0.03). There was no difference in the proportion of athletes requiring UCL reconstruction (58% vs 51%) or the time to surgery (154 days vs 178 days) between the two groups. Kaplan Meier survivor analysis showed no difference between the PRP and No PRP groups with regard to longevity of the native UCL (Figure 2). Conclusion: Among Major and Minor League Baseball players who were treated nonoperatively for a UCL injury between 2011-2015, 24% underwent PRP injections prior to rehab. Compared to traditional nonoperative rehab alone program, players who received PRP injections experienced a significantly longer time before returning to throwing, which may be in part due to the delay between the injury date and PRP injection. PRP injections did not appear to have a significant effect on the likelihood of surgical intervention.