10 research outputs found

    Machine Learning-Based Analysis in the Management of Iatrogenic Bile Duct Injury During Cholecystectomy: a Nationwide Multicenter Study

    Get PDF
    Background Iatrogenic bile duct injury (IBDI) is a challenging surgical complication. IBDI management can be guided by artificial intelligence models. Our study identified the factors associated with successful initial repair of IBDI and predicted the success of definitive repair based on patient risk levels. Methods This is a retrospective multi-institution cohort of patients with IBDI after cholecystectomy conducted between 1990 and 2020. We implemented a decision tree analysis to determine the factors that contribute to successful initial repair and developed a risk-scoring model based on the Comprehensive Complication Index. Results We analyzed 748 patients across 22 hospitals. Our decision tree model was 82.8% accurate in predicting the success of the initial repair. Non-type E (p < 0.01), treatment in specialized centers (p < 0.01), and surgical repair (p < 0.001) were associated with better prognosis. The risk-scoring model was 82.3% (79.0-85.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI]) and 71.7% (63.8-78.7%, 95% CI) accurate in predicting success in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Surgical repair, successful initial repair, and repair between 2 and 6 weeks were associated with better outcomes. Discussion Machine learning algorithms for IBDI are a novel tool may help to improve the decision-making process and guide management of these patients

    Vascular injury during cholecystectomy: A multicenter critical analysis behind the drama

    No full text
    Background: The management of a vascular injury during cholecystectomy is still very complicated, especially in centers not specialized in complex hepatobiliary surgery. Methods: This was a multi-institutional retrospective study in patients with vascular injuries during cholecystectomy from 18 centers in 4 countries. The aim of the study was to analyze the management of vascular injuries focusing on referral, time to perform the repair, and different treatments options outcomes. Results: A total of 104 patients were included. Twenty-nine patients underwent vascular repair (27.9%), 13 (12.5%) liver resection, and 1 liver transplant as a first treatment. Eighty-four (80.4%) vascular and biliary injuries occurred in nonspecialized centers and 45 (53.6%) were immediately transferred. Intraoperative diagnosed injuries were rare in referred patients (18% vs 84%, P = .001). The patients managed at the hospital where the injury occurred had a higher number of reoperations (64% vs 20%, P ˂ .001). The need for vascular reconstruction was associated with higher mortality (P = .04). Two of the 4 patients transplanted died. Conclusion: Vascular lesions during cholecystectomy are a potentially life-threatening complication. Management of referral to specialized centers to perform multiple complex multidisciplinary procedures should be mandatory. Late vascular repair has not shown to be associated with worse results

    2018 Annual Report of the European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR)-50-year evolution of liver transplantation

    No full text
    The purpose of this registry study was to provide an overview of trends and results of liver transplantation (LT) in Europe from 1968 to 2016. These data on LT were collected prospectively from 169 centers from 32 countries, in the European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR) beginning in 1968. This overview provides epidemiological data, as well as information on evolution of techniques, and outcomes in LT in Europe over more than five decades; something that cannot be obtained from only a single center experience.status: publishe

    Evaluation of a quality improvement intervention to reduce anastomotic leak following right colectomy (EAGLE): pragmatic, batched stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial in 64 countries

    Get PDF
    Background Anastomotic leak affects 8 per cent of patients after right colectomy with a 10-fold increased risk of postoperative death. The EAGLE study aimed to develop and test whether an international, standardized quality improvement intervention could reduce anastomotic leaks. Methods The internationally intended protocol, iteratively co-developed by a multistage Delphi process, comprised an online educational module introducing risk stratification, an intraoperative checklist, and harmonized surgical techniques. Clusters (hospital teams) were randomized to one of three arms with varied sequences of intervention/data collection by a derived stepped-wedge batch design (at least 18 hospital teams per batch). Patients were blinded to the study allocation. Low- and middle-income country enrolment was encouraged. The primary outcome (assessed by intention to treat) was anastomotic leak rate, and subgroup analyses by module completion (at least 80 per cent of surgeons, high engagement; less than 50 per cent, low engagement) were preplanned. Results A total 355 hospital teams registered, with 332 from 64 countries (39.2 per cent low and middle income) included in the final analysis. The online modules were completed by half of the surgeons (2143 of 4411). The primary analysis included 3039 of the 3268 patients recruited (206 patients had no anastomosis and 23 were lost to follow-up), with anastomotic leaks arising before and after the intervention in 10.1 and 9.6 per cent respectively (adjusted OR 0.87, 95 per cent c.i. 0.59 to 1.30; P = 0.498). The proportion of surgeons completing the educational modules was an influence: the leak rate decreased from 12.2 per cent (61 of 500) before intervention to 5.1 per cent (24 of 473) after intervention in high-engagement centres (adjusted OR 0.36, 0.20 to 0.64; P &lt; 0.001), but this was not observed in low-engagement hospitals (8.3 per cent (59 of 714) and 13.8 per cent (61 of 443) respectively; adjusted OR 2.09, 1.31 to 3.31). Conclusion Completion of globally available digital training by engaged teams can alter anastomotic leak rates. Registration number: NCT04270721 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)
    corecore