Non-invasive monitoring of renal transplant recipients: Urinary excretion of soluble adhesion molecules and of the complement-split product C4d

Background: The number of inducible adhesion molecules known to be involved in cell-mediated allograft rejection is still increasing. In addition, recent data describe complement activation during acute humoral allograft rejection. The aim of this study was to assess whether specific molecules from either pathway are excreted into urine and whether they can provide useful diagnostic tools for the monitoring of renal transplant recipients. Methods: Urinary concentrations of soluble adhesion molecules (sICAM-1, sVCAM-1) and of the complement degradation product C4d were determined by standardized ELISA technique in 75 recipients of renal allografts and 29 healthy controls. Patient samples were assigned to four categories according to clinical criteria: group 1: acute steroid-sensitive rejection (ASSR, n=14), group 2: acute steroid-resistant rejection (ASRR, n=12), group 3: chronic allograft dysfunction (CAD, n=20) and group 4: stable graft function (SGF, n=29). Results: All patients with rejection episodes (groups 1-3) had significantly higher values of urinary sC4d compared with healthy controls and patients with stable graft function (p<0.05). The urinary levels of sVCAM-1 were significantly higher in group 2 (ASRR) compared with all other groups (p<0.001). Uniformly low amounts of s-VCAM-1 and complement-split product C4d were excreted by healthy controls (group 0). In contrast, urinary sICAM-1 concentration in healthy controls was almost as high as in group 2 (ASRR) whereas patients with a stable functioning graft (group 4) excreted significantly less sICAM-1 (p<0.05). Conclusion: The evaluation of sVCAM-1 and sC4d excretion in urine can provide a valuable tool with regard to the severity and type of allograft rejection. With respect to long-term allograft survival, serial measurements of these markers should have the potential to detect rejection episodes and prompt immediate treatment. Copyright (C) 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel

Robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer: analysis of 71 patients from a single institution

BackgroundDespite increasing use of robotic surgery for rectal cancer, few series have been published from the practice of generalizable US surgeons.MethodsA retrospective chart review was performed for 71 consecutive patients who underwent robotic low anterior resection (LAR) or abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2014.Results46 LARs (65%) and 25 APRs (35%) were identified. Median procedure time was 219 minutes (IQR 184–275) and mean blood loss 164.9 cc (SD 155.9 cc). Radial margin was negative in 70/71 (99%) patients. Total mesorectal excision integrity was complete/near complete in 38/39 (97%) of graded specimens. A mean of 16.8 (SD+/− 8.9) lymph nodes were retrieved. At median follow‐up of 21.9 months, there were no local recurrences.ConclusionsRobotic proctectomy for rectal cancer was introduced into typical colorectal surgery practice by a single surgeon, with a low conversion rate, low complication rate, and satisfactory oncologic outcomes.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139933/1/rcs1841_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139933/2/rcs1841.pd

Non-invasive monitoring of renal transplant recipients: Urinary excretion of soluble adhesion molecules and of the complement-split product C4d

Background: The number of inducible adhesion molecules known to be involved in cell-mediated allograft rejection is still increasing. In addition, recent data describe complement activation during acute humoral allograft rejection. The aim of this study was to assess whether specific molecules from either pathway are excreted into urine and whether they can provide useful diagnostic tools for the monitoring of renal transplant recipients. Methods: Urinary concentrations of soluble adhesion molecules (sICAM-1, sVCAM-1) and of the complement degradation product C4d were determined by standardized ELISA technique in 75 recipients of renal allografts and 29 healthy controls. Patient samples were assigned to four categories according to clinical criteria: group 1: acute steroid-sensitive rejection (ASSR, n=14), group 2: acute steroid-resistant rejection (ASRR, n=12), group 3: chronic allograft dysfunction (CAD, n=20) and group 4: stable graft function (SGF, n=29). Results: All patients with rejection episodes (groups 1-3) had significantly higher values of urinary sC4d compared with healthy controls and patients with stable graft function (p<0.05). The urinary levels of sVCAM-1 were significantly higher in group 2 (ASRR) compared with all other groups (p<0.001). Uniformly low amounts of s-VCAM-1 and complement-split product C4d were excreted by healthy controls (group 0). In contrast, urinary sICAM-1 concentration in healthy controls was almost as high as in group 2 (ASRR) whereas patients with a stable functioning graft (group 4) excreted significantly less sICAM-1 (p<0.05). Conclusion: The evaluation of sVCAM-1 and sC4d excretion in urine can provide a valuable tool with regard to the severity and type of allograft rejection. With respect to long-term allograft survival, serial measurements of these markers should have the potential to detect rejection episodes and prompt immediate treatment. Copyright (C) 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel

How Low Can We Go?: Comparing Long-term Oncologic Outcomes for APR and LAR in Very Low Rectal Cancer

Management of very low rectal cancer is one of the most challenging issues faced by colorectal surgeons. For tumors in the mid and upper rectum, procedures can be done to resect the cancer while maintaining continence, a major determinant of post-operative quality of life. In the low rectum, however, to optimize oncologic outcomes, many surgeons feel compelled to pursue abdominoperineal (APR) over low anterior resection (LAR), a sphincter-preserving procedure. It was hypothesized that after robust adjustment, procedure choice will not be associated with a difference in disease-free survival in the resection of tumors in the low rectum. To analyze this, the US Rectal Cancer Collaborative Database, a comprehensive, multi-center dataset obtained from six institutions between 2010 and 2016, was queried. Patients undergoing TME resection for Stage I-III very low rectal cancers (involvement) were selected for this study. Patients were categorized by procedure- LAR vs APR. Primary outcome was five-year disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, recurrence, length of stay, and complications. An adjusted analysis was performed to account for all known potential confounders. 431 patients with very low rectal cancer treated by either APR or LAR were identified. 154 (35.7%) underwent APR. The overall recurrence rate was 19.6%. Median follow-up time was 42.5 months. An analysis adjusted for age, gender, BMI, ASA class, and pathologic stage observed no difference in disease free survival between operative types (HR=0.90, 95% CI [0.53-1.52], p=0.70). Similarly, secondary outcomes demonstrated no significant difference between operation types, including length of stay (Beta: 0.04, Std. error = 0.25, p = 0.54), overall survival (HR=1.29, 95% CI [0.71-2.32], p=0.39), or complications (OR = 1.53, 95% CI [0.94 - 2.50], p=0.09). In this analysis, no significant difference in disease-free survival or overall survival was observed between patients undergoing APR or LAR for very low rectal cancer. This comprehensive study supports the treatment of very low rectal cancer, less than 5cm from the anorectal ring with no sphincter involvement, by either abdominal perineal or low anterior resection. Further studies may focus on patient-reported and quality of life outcomes which may influence decision-making

Cervical spondylosis with spinal cord encroachment: should preventive surgery be recommended?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been stated that individuals who have spondylotic encroachment on the cervical spinal cord without myelopathy are at increased risk of spinal cord injury if they experience minor trauma. Preventive decompression surgery has been recommended for these individuals. The purpose of this paper is to provide the non-surgical spine specialist with information upon which to base advice to patients. The evidence behind claims of increased risk is investigated as well as the evidence regarding the risk of decompression surgery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A literature search was conducted on the risk of spinal cord injury in individuals with asymptomatic cord encroachment and the risk and benefit of preventive decompression surgery.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Three studies on the risk of spinal cord injury in this population met the inclusion criteria. All reported increased risk. However, none were prospective cohort studies or case-control studies, so the designs did not allow firm conclusions to be drawn. A number of studies and reviews of the risks and benefits of decompression surgery in patients with cervical myelopathy were found, but no studies were found that addressed surgery in asymptomatic individuals thought to be at risk. The complications of decompression surgery range from transient hoarseness to spinal cord injury, with rates ranging from 0.3% to 60%.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There is insufficient evidence that individuals with spondylotic spinal cord encroachment are at increased risk of spinal cord injury from minor trauma. Prospective cohort or case-control studies are needed to assess this risk. There is no evidence that prophylactic decompression surgery is helpful in this patient population. Decompression surgery appears to be helpful in patients with cervical myelopathy, but the significant risks may outweigh the unknown benefit in asymptomatic individuals. Thus, broad recommendations for decompression surgery in suspected at-risk individuals cannot be made. Recommendations to individual patients must consider possible unique circumstances.</p

Contemporary review of risk-stratified management in acute uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis

BACKGROUND: Acute colonic diverticulitis is a common clinical condition. Severity of the disease is based on clinical, laboratory, and radiological investigations and dictates the need for medical or surgical intervention. Recent clinical trials have improved the understanding of the natural history of the disease resulting in new approaches to and better evidence for the management of acute diverticulitis. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (years 2004-2015), MEDLINE (years 2004-2015), and EMBASE (years 2004-2015) databases. We used the search terms "diverticulitis, colonic" or "acute diverticulitis" or "divertic*" in combination with the terms "management," "antibiotics," "non-operative," or "surgery." Registers for clinical trials (such as the WHO registry and the https://clinicaltrials.gov/) were searched for ongoing, recruiting, or closed trials not yet published. RESULTS: Antibiotic treatment can be avoided in simple, non-complicated diverticulitis and outpatient management is safe. The management of complicated disease, ranging from a localized abscess to perforation with diffuse peritonitis, has changed towards either percutaneous or minimally invasive approaches in selected cases. The role of laparoscopic lavage without resection in perforated non-fecal diverticulitis is still debated; however, recent evidence from two randomised controlled trials has found a higher re-intervention in this group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: A shift in management has occurred towards conservative management in acute uncomplicated disease. Those with uncomplicated acute diverticulitis may be treated without antibiotics. For complicated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis, the use of peritoneal lavage appears to be non-superior to resection

Perioperative management and anaesthetic considerations in pelvic exenterations using Delphi methodology: Results from the PelvEx Collaborative

Background: The multidisciplinary perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is essential for good surgical outcomes. No clear guidelines have been established, and there is wide variation in clinical practice internationally. This consensus statement consolidates clinical experience and best practice collectively, and systematically addresses key domains in the perioperative and anaesthetic management. Methods: The modified Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus from the PelvEx Collaborative. The process included one round of online questionnaire involving controlled feedback and structured participant response, two rounds of editing, and one round of web-based voting. It was held from December 2019 to February 2020. Consensus was defined as more than 80 per cent agreement, whereas less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. Results: The final consensus document contained 47 voted statements, across six key domains of perioperative and anaesthetic management in pelvic exenteration, comprising preoperative assessment and preparation, anaesthetic considerations, perioperative management, anticipating possible massive haemorrhage, stress response and postoperative critical care, and pain management. Consensus recommendations were developed, based on consensus agreement achieved on 34 statements. Conclusion: The perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is best accomplished by a dedicated multidisciplinary team with relevant domain expertise in the setting of a specialized tertiary unit. This consensus statement has addressed key domains within the framework of current perioperative and anaesthetic management among patients undergoing pelvic exenteration, with an international perspective, to guide clinical practice, and has outlined areas for future clinical research

Contemporary Management of Locally Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Views from the PelvEx Collaborative

Pelvic exenteration is a complex operation performed for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. The goal of surgery is to achieve clear margins, therefore identifying adjacent or involved organs, bone, muscle, nerves and/or vascular structures that may need resection. While these extensive resections are potentially curative, they can be associated with substantial morbidity. Recently, there has been a move to centralize care to specialized units, as this facilitates better multi-disciplinary care input. Advancements in pelvic oncology and surgical innovation have redefined the boundaries of pelvic exenterative surgery. Combined with improved neoadjuvant therapies, advances in diagnostics, and better reconstructive techniques have provided quicker recovery and better quality of life outcomes, with improved survival This article provides highlights of the current management of advanced pelvic cancers in terms of surgical strategy and potential future developments