Operative safety of orthotopic liver transplant in patients with prior transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts: A 20-year experience

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) is the definitive treatment of most types of liver failure. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and portocaval shunt placement procedures reduce the systemic vascular complications of portal hypertension. TIPS placement remains a "bridge" therapy that enables treatment of refractory symptoms until transplantation becomes available. The aim of the present study was to describe the operative impact of TIPS prior to OLT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on patients that underwent liver transplant at the Hospital San José within the timeframe of 1999 and February 2020.

RESULTS

We reviewed a total of 92 patients with OLT. Sixty-six patients were male and 26 were female, with a mean age of 52 years. Nine (9.8%) of the 92 patients had a TIPS, before the OLT. Preoperative Child-Pugh class, MELD score, and sodium and platelet levels were similar between groups. We found no difference in the means of intensive care unit stay, operative time, or blood transfusions for liver transplant, with or without previous TIPS. There was no significant difference between groups regarding vascular and biliary complication rates or the need for early intervention. The overall one-year mortality rate in the TIPS group was 11%.

CONCLUSIONS

TIPS is an appropriate therapeutic bridge towards liver transplant. We found no greater operative or postoperative complications in patients with TIPS before OLT, when compared with OLT patients without TIPS. The need for transfusion, operative time, and ICU stay were similar in both groups.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy for renal transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Renal transplantation remains the definitive treatment for end-stage renal disease. Currently employed minimally invasive techniques include robotic-assisted laparoscopy and laparoscopy. This study aims to determine whether either method provides an advantage.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted. Data were analysed using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included. Operative time and operative bleeding were similar between both approaches, with a mean difference (MD) of 16min (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.06, 37.38; p = 0.11) and 10.44ml (95% CI -43.89, 64.78; p = 0.71), respectively. Robotics had longer warm ischemia time (MD 1.14min; 95% CI 0.65, 1.63; p = 0.00001) but reduced length of stay (LOS) (MD -0.23days; 95% CI -0.45, -0.01; p = 0.04) and pain (MD -1.26 VAS; 95% CI -1.77, 0.75). Similar complication and conversion rates were seen among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic approaches provide a viable alternative to laparoscopic surgery. Operative time, bleeding volumes, complications and conversion rates are similar between both techniques; apparent robotic advantages on LOS and Pain need to be better analysed by future studies.