Hepatocellular carcinoma progression during bridging before liver transplantation

Background Recipient selection for liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is based primarily on criteria affecting the chance of long-term success. Here, the relationship between pretransplant bridging therapy and long-term survival was investigated in a subgroup analysis of the SiLVER Study. Methods Response to bridging, as defined by comparison of imaging at the time of listing and post-transplant pathology report, was categorized into controlled versus progressive disease (more than 20 per cent tumour growth or development of new lesions). Results Of 525 patients with HCC who had liver transplantation, 350 recipients underwent pretransplant bridging therapy. Tumour progression despite bridging was an independent risk factor affecting overall survival (hazard ratio 1.80; P = 0.005). For patients within the Milan criteria (MC) at listing, mean overall survival was longer for those with controlled versus progressive disease (6.8 versus 5.8 years; P < 0.001). Importantly, patients with HCCs outside the MC that were downsized to within the MC before liver transplantation had poor outcomes compared with patients who never exceeded the MC (mean overall survival 6.2 versus 6.6 years respectively; P = 0.030). Conclusion Patients with HCCs within the MC that did not show tumour progression under locoregional therapy had the best outcomes after liver transplantation. Downstaging into the limits of the MC did not improve the probability of survival. Prognostic factors determining the long-term success of liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma are still under discussion. A subgroup analysis of the SiLVER trial showed that disease control under bridging therapy is strongly associated with improved prognosis in terms of overall survival. However, in tumours exceeding the limits of the Milan criteria, downstaging did not restore the probability of survival compared with that of patients within the Milan criteria

Diaphragmatic Injuries among Severely Injured Patients (ISS ≥ 16)—An Indicator of Injury Pattern and Severity of Abdominal Trauma

Background and Objectives: Abdominal trauma among severely injured patients with an injury severity score (ISS) of 16 and above can lead to potentially life-threatening injuries that might need immediate surgical intervention. Traumatic injuries to the diaphragm (TID) are a challenging condition often accompanied by other injuries in the thoracoabdominal region. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the occurrence and clinical course of TID among severely injured patients treated at our center between 2008 and 2019 and compared them to other groups of severely injured patients without TID. Results: Thirty-five patients with TID and a median ISS of 41 were treated in the period mentioned above. They were predominantly middle-aged men and mostly victims of blunt trauma as a consequence of motor vehicle accidents. A total of 70.6% had left-sided TID, and in 69.6%, the size of defect was larger than 10 cm. The diagnosis was made with computed tomography (CT) in 68.6% of the cases, while in 25.8%, it was made intraoperatively or delayed by a false-negative initial CT scan, and in 5.7%, an intraoperative diagnosis was made without preoperative CT imaging. Surgical repair was mostly conducted via laparotomy, performing a direct closure with continuous suture. A comparison to 191 patients that required laparotomy for abdominal injuries other than TID revealed significantly higher rates of concomitant injuries to several abdominal organs among patients suffering from TID. Compared to all other severely injured patients treated in the same period (n = 1377), patients suffering from TID had a significantly higher median ISS and a longer mean duration of hospital stay. Conclusions: Our findings show that TID can be seen as an indicator of particularly severe thoracoabdominal trauma that requires increased attention from the treatment team so as not to miss relevant concomitant injuries that require immediate intervention

Collateral effects of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on oncologic surgery in Bavaria

Background The ongoing SARS-COV-2 pandemic has severe implications for people and healthcare systems everywhere. In Germany, worry about the consequences of the pandemic led to the deferral of non-emergency surgeries. Tumor surgery accounts for a large volume in the field of visceral surgery and cannot be considered purely elective. It is not known how the SARS-COV-2 pandemic has changed the surgical volume in tumor patients. Methods Retrospective analysis of the amount of oncological surgeries in three academic visceral surgery departments in Bavaria, Germany, in 2020. Procedures were split into subgroups: Upper Gastrointestinal (Upper GI), Colorectal, Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (HPB), Peritoneal and Endocrine. Procedures in 2020 were compared to a reference period from January 1st, 2017 to December 31st 2019. Surgical volume was graphically merged with SARS-COV-2 incidence and the number of occupied ICU beds. Results Surgical volume decreased by 7.6% from an average of 924 oncologic surgeries from 2017 to 2019 to 854 in 2020. The decline was temporally associated with the incidence of infections and ICU capacity. Surgical volume did not uniformly increase to pre-pandemic levels in the months following the first pandemic wave with lower SARS-COV-2 incidence and varied according to local incidence levels. The decline was most pronounced in colorectal surgery where procedures declined on average by 26% following the beginning of the pandemic situation. Conclusion The comparison with pre-pandemic years showed a decline in oncologic surgeries in 2020, which could have an impact on lost life years in non-COVID-19 patients. This decline was very different in subgroups which could not be solely explained by the pandemic