Abdominal Organ Transplantation: Noteworthy Literature in 2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-174
Author(s):  
Diana N. Romano ◽  
Natalie K. Smith ◽  
Corey R. Vasisko ◽  
Jeron Zerillo ◽  
Tetsuro Sakai
Keyword(s):  
Liver Transplantation ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Organ Transplantation ◽  
Perioperative Management ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Intestinal Transplantation ◽  
Abdominal Organ ◽  
Pancreatic Transplantation

In the year 2019, we identified and screened over 400 peer-reviewed publications on pancreatic transplantation, over 200 on intestinal transplantation, and over 1900 on kidney transplantation. The liver transplantation section focuses on and features selected articles among 70 clinical trials published in 2019. This review highlights noteworthy literature pertinent to anesthesiologists and critical care physicians caring for patients undergoing abdominal organ transplantation. We explore a broad range of topics, including risks for and prediction of perioperative complications, updated indications for transplantation, recommendations on perioperative management, including Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs, and topics relevant to optimization of patient and graft outcomes and survival.

scholarly journals Abdominal Organ Transplantation: Noteworthy Literature in 2020

2021 ◽  
pp. 108925322110072
Author(s):  
Ryan F. Wang ◽  
Erica J. Fagelman ◽  
Natalie K. Smith ◽  
Tetsuro Sakai
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Liver Transplantation ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Organ Transplantation ◽  
Intestinal Transplantation ◽  
Machine Perfusion ◽  
Abdominal Organ ◽  
Pancreatic Transplantation ◽  
Wide Range

In 2020, we identified and screened over 490 peer-reviewed publications on pancreatic transplantation, over 500 on intestinal transplantation, and over 5000 on kidney transplantation. The liver transplantation section specially focused on clinical trials and systematic reviews published in 2020 and featured selected articles. This review highlights noteworthy literature pertinent to anesthesiologists and critical care physicians caring for patients undergoing abdominal organ transplantation. We explore a wide range of topics, including COVID-19 and organ transplantation, risk factors and outcomes, pain management, artificial intelligence, robotic donor surgery, and machine perfusion.

Abdominal Organ Transplantation: Noteworthy Literature in 2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 188-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie K. Smith ◽  
Jeron Zerillo ◽  
Nicolette Schlichting ◽  
Tetsuro Sakai
Keyword(s):  
Liver Transplantation ◽  
Kidney Transplantation ◽  
Organ Transplantation ◽  
Intestinal Transplantation ◽  
Human Studies ◽  
Abdominal Organ ◽  
Pancreatic Transplantation ◽  
Pubmed Search

A PubMed search revealed 1382 articles on pancreatic transplantation, 781 on intestinal transplantation, more than 7200 on kidney transplantation, and more than 5500 on liver transplantation published between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018. After narrowing the list down to human studies, 436 pancreatic, 302 intestinal, 1920 liver, and more than 2000 kidney transplantation studies were screened for inclusion in this review.

Noteworthy Literature published in 2017 for Abdominal Organ Transplantation

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeron Zerillo ◽  
Natalie K. Smith ◽  
Tetsuro Sakai
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Organ Transplantation ◽  
Perioperative Management ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Intestinal Transplantation ◽  
Annual Review ◽  
Abdominal Organ ◽  
Pertinent Literature ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Economic Analyses

In 2017, we identified more than 400 peer reviewed publications on the topic of pancreas transplantation, more than 500 on intestinal transplantation, more than 4000 on renal transplantation, and more than 4700 on liver transplantation. This annual review highlights the most pertinent literature for anesthesiologists and critical care physicians caring for patients undergoing abdominal organ transplantation. We explore a wide range of topics, including risk for and prediction of perioperative complications, recommendations on perioperative management, economic analyses, and education of the trainees in abdominal transplantation anesthesia and critical care.

Buprenorphine management: a conundrum for the anesthesiologist and beyond - a one-act play

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 656-659
Author(s):  
Shilen Thakrar ◽  
Josh Lee ◽  
Caitlin E Martin ◽  
John Butterworth IV
Keyword(s):  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Perioperative Management ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ◽  
Local Level ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
National Guidelines ◽  
Evidence Based Guidelines ◽  
One Act ◽  
Patient Centric

We have witnessed a worldwide upsurge of streamlined enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways advocating for consistency and compliance within their guidelines. At a recent national conference, two experts defended their institutional policies on perioperative management of buprenorphine, one defending its continuation, while the other suggesting its discontinuation. The moderator diplomatically proclaimed the need to have guidance at the institutional level and following it for favorable patient outcomes. Unfortunately, perioperative management of buprenorphine remains an understudied topic with a lack of national guidelines leading to variations at a local level despite its increased use nationally in the current opioid crisis. Although the moderator made a valid statement, we demonstrate via our one-act play the importance of recognizing a subset of the population within an ERAS pathway that necessitates multidisciplinary discussion, communication, and patient-centric care to formulate a perioperative plan coordinating a patient’s care. More robust research is needed to minimize variability in current practices and to further develop comprehensive evidence-based guidelines that encompass risk factors and anticipated postsurgical and peripartum pain for patients on buprenorphine.

scholarly journals Comparative Effectiveness of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program Combined With Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Changgang Wang ◽  
Haoran Feng ◽  
Xiaoning Zhu ◽  
Zijia Song ◽  
You Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Perioperative Management ◽  
Single Incision ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ◽  
Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

BackgroundRecently, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been widely used in the perioperative management of colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of ERAS combined with single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in CRC surgery.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of patients with CRC who underwent surgery between April 2018 and April 2020 in Ruijin Hospital(North), Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. The patients were divided into three groups: group A (n=138), patients who underwent traditional multiport laparoscopic colectomy with conventional perioperative management; group B (n=63), patients who underwent SILS; and group C (n=51), patients who underwent SILS with ERAS.ResultsOverall, 252 participants were included in the retrospective study. The median operation time (min) in group B and group C was shorter than that in group A (group A 134.0 ± 42.5; group B 117 ± 38.9; group C 111.7 ± 35.4, p=0.004). The estimated surgical blood loss (ml) was lower in groups B and C than in group A (group A 165.1 ± 142.2; group B 122.0 ± 79.4; group C 105.2 ± 55.8, p=0.011). The length of surgical incision (cm) was shorter in groups B and C than in group A (group A 7.34 ± 1.05; group B 5.60 ± 0.80; group C 5.28 ± 0.52, p<0.001). The time before first flatus (hours) in group C was shorter than in groups A and B (group A 61.85 ± 21.14; group B 58.30 ± 20.08; group C 42.06 ± 23.72; p<0.001). The days prior to the administration of free oral fluids in group C was shorter than in groups A and B (group A 4.79 ± 1.28; group B 4.67 ± 1.11; group C 2.62 ± 0.64; p<0.001). The days of prior solid diet was less in group C than in groups A and B (group A 7.22 ± 3.87; group B 7.08 ± 3.18; group C 5.75 ± 1.70; p=0.027). The postoperative length of stay (LOS) was less in group C compared with that in groups A and B (group A 9.46 ± 4.84 days; group B 9.52 ± 7.45 days; group C 7.20 ± 2.37 days; p=0.023). The visual analog scale (VAS) scores on day 0, 1, and 2 in groups B and C were lower than those in group A (day 0, p<0.001; day 1, p<0.001; day 2, p=0.002), while the VAS score on day 3 showed no differences in the three groups (group A 1.29 ± 1.38; group B 0.98 ± 1.24; group C 0.75 ± 0.64, p=0.018).ConclusionThe findings suggest that SILS combined with ERAS may be a feasible and safe procedure for CRC surgery because it provides favorable cosmetic results, early dietary resumption, shorter hospital stays, and appropriate control of postoperative pain without increases in complications or readmission rates compared to conventional perioperative care with SILS or conventional laparoscopic surgery(CLS) of CRC. Further prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to enhance evidence-based medical evidence.

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of a novel neurosurgical enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for elective craniotomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 130 (5) ◽  
pp. 1680-1691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuan Wang ◽  
Bolin Liu ◽  
Tianzhi Zhao ◽  
Binfang Zhao ◽  
Daihua Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Perioperative Management ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Eras Protocol

OBJECTIVEAlthough enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have gained acceptance in various surgical specialties, no established neurosurgical ERAS protocol for patients undergoing elective craniotomy has been reported in the literature. Here, the authors describe the design, implementation, safety, and efficacy of a novel neurosurgical ERAS protocol for elective craniotomy in a tertiary care medical center located in China.METHODSA multidisciplinary neurosurgical ERAS protocol for elective craniotomy was developed based on the best available evidence. A total of 140 patients undergoing elective craniotomy between October 2016 and May 2017 were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial comparing this novel protocol to conventional neurosurgical perioperative management. The primary endpoint of this study was the postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS). Postoperative morbidity, perioperative complications, postoperative pain scores, postoperative nausea and vomiting, duration of urinary catheterization, time to first solid meal, and patient satisfaction were secondary endpoints.RESULTSThe median postoperative hospital LOS (4 days) was significantly shorter with the incorporation of the ERAS protocol than that with conventional perioperative management (7 days, p < 0.0001). No 30-day readmission or reoperation occurred in either group. More patients in the ERAS group reported mild pain (visual analog scale score 1–3) on postoperative day 1 than those in the control group (79% vs. 33%, OR 7.49, 95% CI 3.51–15.99, p < 0.0001). Similarly, more patients in the ERAS group had a shortened duration of pain (1–2 days; 53% vs. 17%, OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.29–1.37, p = 0.0001). The urinary catheter was removed within 6 hours after surgery in 74% patients in the ERAS group (OR 400.1, 95% CI 23.56–6796, p < 0.0001). The time to first oral liquid intake was a median of 8 hours in the ERAS group compared to 11 hours in the control group (p < 0.0001), and solid food intake occurred at a median of 24 hours in the ERAS group compared to 72 hours in the control group (p < 0.0001).CONCLUSIONSThis multidisciplinary, evidence-based, neurosurgical ERAS protocol for elective craniotomy appears to have significant benefits over conventional perioperative management. Implementation of ERAS is associated with a significant reduction in the postoperative hospital stay and an acceleration in recovery, without increasing complication rates related to elective craniotomy. Further evaluation of this protocol in large multicenter studies is warranted.Clinical trial registration no.: ChiCTR-INR-16009662 (chictr.org.cn)

scholarly journals Racial and sex representation in clinical trials: Where are we in abdominal organ transplantation?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Zaldana ◽  
Sarah Barhouma ◽  
Brittany Rocque ◽  
Arianna Barbetta ◽  
Cameron Goldbeck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Organ Transplantation ◽  
Abdominal Organ

scholarly journals Fast-Track Liver Transplantation: Six-year Prospective Cohort Study with an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gonzalo P. Rodríguez-Laiz ◽  
Paola Melgar-Requena ◽  
Cándido F. Alcázar-López ◽  
Mariano Franco-Campello ◽  
Celia Villodre-Tudela ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Transplantation ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Liver Transplant ◽  
Prospective Cohort Study ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Fast Track ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ◽  
Fluid Restriction

Abstract Introduction Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been shown to facilitate discharge, decrease length of stay, improve outcomes and reduce costs. We used this concept to design a comprehensive fast-track pathway (OR-to-discharge) before starting our liver transplant activity and then applied this protocol prospectively to every patient undergoing liver transplantation at our institution, monitoring the results periodically. We now report our first six years results. Patients and methods Prospective cohort study of all the liver transplants performed at our institution for the first six years. Balanced general anesthesia, fluid restriction, thromboelastometry, inferior vena cava preservation and temporary portocaval shunt were strategies common to all cases. Standard immunosuppression administered included steroids, tacrolimus (delayed in the setting of renal impairment, with basiliximab induction added) and mycophenolate mofetil. Tacrolimus dosing was adjusted using a Bayesian estimation methodology. Oral intake and ambulation were started early. Results A total of 240 transplants were performed in 236 patients (191♂/45♀) over 74 months, mean age 56.3±9.6 years, raw MELD score 15.5±7.7. Predominant etiologies were alcohol (n = 136) and HCV (n = 82), with hepatocellular carcinoma present in 129 (54.7%). Nine patients received combined liver and kidney transplants. The mean operating time was 315±64 min with cold ischemia times of 279±88 min. Thirty-one patients (13.1%) were transfused in the OR (2.4±1.2 units of PRBC). Extubation was immediate (< 30 min) in all but four patients. Median ICU length of stay was 12.7 hours, and median post-transplant hospital stay was 4 days (2-76) with 30 patients (13.8%) going home by day 2, 87 (39.9%) by day 3, and 133 (61%) by day 4, defining our fast-track group. Thirty-day-readmission rate (34.9%) was significantly lower (28.6% vs. 44.7% p=0.015) in the fast-track group. Patient survival was 86.8% at 1 year and 78.6% at five years. Conclusion Fast-Tracking of Liver Transplant patients is feasible and can be applied as the standard of care

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document