Global disparities in surgeons’ workloads, academic engagement and rest periods: the on-calL shIft fOr geNEral SurgeonS (LIONESS) study

: The workload of general surgeons is multifaceted, encompassing not only surgical procedures but also a myriad of other responsibilities. From April to May 2023, we conducted a CHERRIES-compliant internet-based survey analyzing clinical practice, academic engagement, and post-on-call rest. The questionnaire featured six sections with 35 questions. Statistical analysis used Chi-square tests, ANOVA, and logistic regression (SPSS® v. 28). The survey received a total of 1.046 responses (65.4%). Over 78.0% of responders came from Europe, 65.1% came from a general surgery unit; 92.8% of European and 87.5% of North American respondents were involved in research, compared to 71.7% in Africa. Europe led in publishing research studies (6.6 ± 8.6 yearly). Teaching involvement was high in North America (100%) and Africa (91.7%). Surgeons reported an average of 6.7 ± 4.9 on-call shifts per month, with European and North American surgeons experiencing 6.5 ± 4.9 and 7.8 ± 4.1 on-calls monthly, respectively. African surgeons had the highest on-call frequency (8.7 ± 6.1). Post-on-call, only 35.1% of respondents received a day off. Europeans were most likely (40%) to have a day off, while African surgeons were least likely (6.7%). On the adjusted multivariable analysis HDI (Human Development Index) (aOR 1.993) hospital capacity > 400 beds (aOR 2.423), working in a specialty surgery unit (aOR 2.087), and making the on-call in-house (aOR 5.446), significantly predicted the likelihood of having a day off after an on-call shift. Our study revealed critical insights into the disparities in workload, access to research, and professional opportunities for surgeons across different continents, underscored by the HDI

Secondary non-resectable liver tumors: A single-center living-donor and deceased-donor liver transplantation case series.

BACKGROUND: During the last decades, deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) has gained a place in the therapeutic algorithm of well-selected patients harbouring non-resectable secondary liver tumors. Living-donor LT (LDLT) might represent a valuable means to further expand this indication for LT. METHODS: Between 1985 and 2016, twenty-two adults were transplanted because of neuroendocrine (n = 18, 82%) and colorectal metastases (n = 4, 18%); 50% received DDLT and 50% LDLT. In LDLT, 4 (36%) right and 7 (64%) left grafts were used; the median graft-to-recipient-weight ratios (GRWR) were 1.03% (IQR 0.86%-1.30%) and 0.59% (IQR 0.51%-0.91%), respectively. Median post-LT follow-up was 64 months (IQR 17-107) in the DDLT group and 40 months (IQR 35-116) in the LDLT group. DDLT and LDLT recipients were compared in terms of overall survival, graft survival, postoperative complications and recurrence. RESULTS: The 1- and 5-year actuarial patient survivals were 82% and 55% after DDLT, 100% and 100% after LDLT, respectively (P < 0.01). One- and 5-year actuarial graft survivals were 73% and 36% after DDLT, 91% and 91% after LDLT (P < 0.01). The outcomes of right or left LDLT were comparable. Donor hepatectomy proved safe, and one donor experienced a Clavien IIIb complication. Bilirubin peak was significantly lower after left hepatectomy compared with that after right hepatectomy [1.3 (IQR 1.2-2.2) vs. 3.3 (IQR 2.3-5.2) mg/dL; P = 0.02]. CONCLUSIONS: The more recent LDLT series compared favorably to our DDLT series in the treatment of secondary liver malignancies. The absence of portal hypertension and the use of smaller left grafts make recipient and donor surgeries safe. The safety of the procedures and lack of interference with the scarce allograft pool are expected to lead to a more frequent use of LDLT in the field of transplant oncology