A rare cause for peritonitis: pancreatic heterotopia

published_or_final_versionSpringer Open Choice, 21 Feb 201

High-intensity focused ultrasound as a treatment for colorectal liver metastasis in difficult position

published_or_final_versionSpringer Open Choice, 21 Feb 201

Survival Analysis of Re-resection Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Intrahepatic Recurrence After Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Ó The Author(s) 2011. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Background Tumor recurrence after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma is a common phenomenon. Re-resection and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are good options for treating recurrent HCC. This study compared the efficacy of these two modalities in the treatment of intrahepatic HCC recurrence after hepatectomy. Methods From January 2001 to December 2008, a total of 179 patients developed intrahepatic HCC recurrence after hepatectomy. To treat the recurrence, 29 patients underwent re-resection and 45 patients had RFA. Patient characteristics, clinicopathologic data, and survival outcomes were reviewed. Results Child-Pugh status, time to develop first recurrence (12.2 vs. 8.7 months), and recurrent tumor size (2.1 vs. 2.1 cm) were comparable for the two groups. Time to develop a second intrahepatic recurrence after re-resection and RFA was 5.9 and 4.0 months respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 41.4%, 24.2%, and 24.2 % after re-resection and 32.2%, 12.4%, and 9.3% after RFA (p = 0.14). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 89.7%, 56.5%, and 35.2 % after re-resection and 83.7%, 43.1%, and 29.1 % after RFA (p = 0.48). For the second recurrence, 33.3 % of patients underwent a second round of RFA and 10.0 % underwent a third resection

Clinical practice guidelines and real-life practice on hepatocellular carcinoma: the Hong Kong perspective

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major public health burden in Hong Kong, and chronic hepatitis B is the most common HCC etiology in our region. With the high case load, extensive local expertise on HCC has been accumulated. This article summarized local guidelines and real-life practice on HCC management in Hong Kong. For HCC surveillance, liver ultrasound and serum alpha-fetoprotein for periodic screening is recommended in viral hepatitis or cirrhotic patients, and this is adhered to in clinical practice. HCC diagnosis is not covered in local guidelines, yet our practice is in-line with regional guidelines, where diagnosis is usually achieved by cross-sectional imaging and without the need for histology. Our guidelines recommend using the Hong Kong Liver Cancer Staging for pre-treatment staging, yet we routinely use other widely-adopted systems such as the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Staging and the Tumor-Node-Metastasis Staging as well. Our local guidelines have provided clear treatment algorithms for the whole range of HCC therapies, including resection, ablation, transplant, transarterial chemoembolization, transarterial radioembolization, stereotactic body radiation therapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. Real-life treatment choices are largely in line with the guidelines, although treatment protocols are individualized, and availability of specific therapies can vary between centers. Overall, HCC guidelines in Hong Kong are tailored based on local expertise and our unique patient population. The guidelines are up-to-date and provide practical pathways to assist our routine practice. Regular updates of local guidelines are warranted to account for the rapidly evolving paradigm of HCC management

Expert Panel Statement on Laparoscopic Living Donor Hepatectomy

Background: With improvements in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) techniques and the increased experience of surgeons in laparoscopic major liver resection, laparoscopic donor hepatectomy is performed increasingly. Therefore, expert opinion on this procedure is required. Objective: The study aimed to report the current status and summarize the expert opinion on laparoscopic donor hepatectomy. Methods: An expert consensus meeting was held on September 8, 2016, in Seoul, Korea. Results: Laparoscopic donor left lateral sectionectomy could be considered the standard practice in pediatric LDLT. In adult LDLT, laparoscopy-assisted donor hepatectomy or left hepatectomy is potentially the next need, requiring more evidence for becoming standard practice. Laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy is still in the developmental stage, and more supporting evidence is required. Waving the cost consideration, the robotic approach could be a valid alternative for the suitable approaches of laparoscopy. Conclusions: Laparoscopic donor hepatectomy is increasing its role in both pediatric and adult LDLT. However, for major donor hepatectomy, more evidence is needed

Validation of graft and standard liver size predictions in right liver living donor liver transplantation

Purpose: To assess the accuracy of a formula derived from 159 living liver donors to estimate the liver size of a normal subject: standard liver weight (g) = 218 + body weight (kg) × 12.3 + 51 (if male). Standard liver volume (SLV) is attained by a conversion factor of 1.19 mL/g. Methods: The total liver volume (TLV) of each of the subsequent consecutive 126 living liver donors was determined using the right liver graft weight (RGW) on the back table, right/left liver volume ratio on computed tomography, and the conversion factor. The estimated right liver graft weight (ERGW) was determined by the right liver volume on computed tomography (CT) and the conversion factor. SLV and ERGW were compared with TLV and RGW, respectively, by paired sample t test. Results: Donor characteristics of both series were similar. SLV and TLV were 1,099.6 ± 139.6 and 1,108.5 ± 175.2 mL, respectively, (R 2 = 0.476) (p = 0.435). The difference between SLV and TLV was only -8.9 ± 128.2 mL (-1.0 ± 11.7%). ERGW and RGW were 601.5 ± 104.1 and 597.1 ± 102.2 g, respectively (R 2 = 0.781) (p = 0.332). The conversion factor from liver weight to volume for this series was 1.20 mL/g. The difference between ERGW and RGW was 4.3 ± 49.8 g (0.3 ± 8.8%). ERGW was smaller than RGW for over 10% (range 0.21-40.66 g) in 18 of the 126 donors. None had the underestimation of RGW by over 20%. Conclusion: SLV and graft weight estimations were accurate using the formula and conversion factor. © 2011 The Author(s).published_or_final_versionSpringer Open Choice, 21 Feb 201

A human in vitro model system for investigating genome-wide host responses to SARS coronavirus infection

10.1186/1471-2334-4-34BMC Infectious Diseases4-BIDM

Antimicrobial resistance among migrants in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are rising globally and there is concern that increased migration is contributing to the burden of antibiotic resistance in Europe. However, the effect of migration on the burden of AMR in Europe has not yet been comprehensively examined. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify and synthesise data for AMR carriage or infection in migrants to Europe to examine differences in patterns of AMR across migrant groups and in different settings. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus with no language restrictions from Jan 1, 2000, to Jan 18, 2017, for primary data from observational studies reporting antibacterial resistance in common bacterial pathogens among migrants to 21 European Union-15 and European Economic Area countries. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to report data on carriage or infection with laboratory-confirmed antibiotic-resistant organisms in migrant populations. We extracted data from eligible studies and assessed quality using piloted, standardised forms. We did not examine drug resistance in tuberculosis and excluded articles solely reporting on this parameter. We also excluded articles in which migrant status was determined by ethnicity, country of birth of participants' parents, or was not defined, and articles in which data were not disaggregated by migrant status. Outcomes were carriage of or infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms. We used random-effects models to calculate the pooled prevalence of each outcome. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016043681. FINDINGS: We identified 2274 articles, of which 23 observational studies reporting on antibiotic resistance in 2319 migrants were included. The pooled prevalence of any AMR carriage or AMR infection in migrants was 25·4% (95% CI 19·1-31·8; I2 =98%), including meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (7·8%, 4·8-10·7; I2 =92%) and antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (27·2%, 17·6-36·8; I2 =94%). The pooled prevalence of any AMR carriage or infection was higher in refugees and asylum seekers (33·0%, 18·3-47·6; I2 =98%) than in other migrant groups (6·6%, 1·8-11·3; I2 =92%). The pooled prevalence of antibiotic-resistant organisms was slightly higher in high-migrant community settings (33·1%, 11·1-55·1; I2 =96%) than in migrants in hospitals (24·3%, 16·1-32·6; I2 =98%). We did not find evidence of high rates of transmission of AMR from migrant to host populations. INTERPRETATION: Migrants are exposed to conditions favouring the emergence of drug resistance during transit and in host countries in Europe. Increased antibiotic resistance among refugees and asylum seekers and in high-migrant community settings (such as refugee camps and detention facilities) highlights the need for improved living conditions, access to health care, and initiatives to facilitate detection of and appropriate high-quality treatment for antibiotic-resistant infections during transit and in host countries. Protocols for the prevention and control of infection and for antibiotic surveillance need to be integrated in all aspects of health care, which should be accessible for all migrant groups, and should target determinants of AMR before, during, and after migration. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, the Wellcome Trust, and UK National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare-associated Infections and Antimictobial Resistance at Imperial College London