R Nagubandi

Experience with more than 500 minimally invasive hepatic procedures.

Objective:To evaluate our experience with more than 500 minimally invasive hepatic procedures. Summary Background Data:Recent data have confirmed the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive liver surgery. Despite these reports, no programmatic approach to minimally invasive liver surgery has been proposed. Methods:We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent a minimally invasive procedure for the management of hepatic tumors between January 2001 and April 2008. Patients were divided into 3 groups: laparoscopy with intraoperative ultrasound and biopsy only, laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and minimally invasive resection. To compare the various forms of surgery, we analyzed the incidence of complications, tumor recurrence, mortality, and cost. Statistical analysis was performed using χ2 analysis, Student t test, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with the log-rank test, and multivariable Cox models. Results:A total of 590 minimally invasive hepatic procedures were performed during 489 operative interventions. The representative tumor histologies were: hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; N = 210), colorectal carcinoma (N = 40), miscellaneous liver metastases (N = 42), biliary cancer (N = 20), and benign tumors (N = 176). Thirty-five patients underwent laparoscopic ultrasound and confirmatory biopsy alone; 201 patients underwent 240 laparoscopic RFAs, and 253 patients underwent 306 minimally invasive resections. Conversion rates to open surgery for the RFA and resection group were 2% overall. One hundred ninety-nine (40.6%) patients were cirrhotic; 31 resections were performed in cirrhotic patients. Complication and mortality rates for RFA and resection were comparable (11% vs. 16%, and 1.5% vs. 1.6%). However, complication rates (14% vs. 29%; P = 0.02) and mortality (0.3% vs. 9.7%; P = 0.006) rates were higher in the cirrhotic versus noncirrhotic resection group. Overall recurrence rates for RFA and resection groups were 24% and 23%, respectively. Local recurrence rates were higher in the RFA group (6.3% versus 1.5%; P < 0.06). Overall patient survival differed between HCC patients receiving RFA alone and those receiving RFA and OLT (P < 0.0001). Overall survival for cancer patients receiving RFA versus resection differed significantly when unadjusted for other covariates (P = 0.01), and remained marginally significant in a multivariable model (P = 0.056). Conclusions:Minimally invasive hepatic surgery has become a viable alternative to open hepatic surgery. Our present data are equivalent or superior to those encountered in any large open series. Our experience with RFA confirms a low local recurrence rate and an excellent technique for bridging patients to transplantation. Morbidity and mortality rates for minimally invasive hepatic resections in cirrhotics, is similar to other reported open resection series. This series confirmed excellent interim survival rates after laparoscopic HR and superiority over RFA in the treatment of cancer, with significantly lower local tumor recurrence rate.

Hand transplantation in the United States: experience with 3 patients.

BACKGROUND Composite tissue allotransplantation (CTA) is a newly emerging field of transplantation that involves the simultaneous transfer of multiple tissues with differing antigenicity. Hand transplantation, the most widely recognized form of CTA, aims to improve function and the quality of life of upper limb amputees. METHODS In 1999, an institutional review board-approved hand transplantation protocol was implemented at the Jewish Hospital, University of Louisville. Suitable patients were evaluated and underwent hand transplantation. The surgical technique was akin to that used in limb reimplantation, and the immunosuppression protocol used was similar to renal transplantation. RESULTS Between 1999 and 2006, 3 patients underwent hand transplantation at our center. Although episodes of acute rejection were seen in all patients during the early postoperative period, only 1 immunologic event occurred after the first year. Graft function improved with time period. Carroll test scores were superior to those recorded with a prosthesis at the end of 1 year. Additionally, recovery of protective sensation was seen in all 3 patients and limited discriminatory sensation in 2. Complications related to immunosuppression have included cytomegalovirus infection in 2 patients, diabetes in 1, hyperlipidemia in 2, and osteonecrosis in 1. At a follow-up of 8, 6, and 1 year(s), all the recipients are healthy and have returned to a productive life. CONCLUSIONS The long-term success reported here should encourage wider application of the CTA in general and hand transplantation in particular. Methods of minimizing long-term immunosuppression need to be pursued.

Increasing Utilization of Human T-Cell Lymphotropic Virus () Donors in Liver Transplantation: Is it Safe?

Background. Liver transplantation is the best treatment option for endstage liver disease. The human T-cell lymphotrophic virus (HTLV) has been associated with leukemia/lymphoma and progressive neurologic disease. There has, however, been an increased utilization of HTLV (+) grafts with little data available to support or discourage their use. Methods. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses related to graft and patient survival for recipients of HTLV (+) donors and compared them with recipients of HTLV (−) donors using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Complete analysis of recipient and donor clinical and demographic factors was performed. Results. There were 81 adult recipients of HTLV (+) donors and 29,747 HTLV (−) donor recipients. HTLV (+) donors were more likely to be older, women, and black, with a higher average donor risk index and creatinine, and were more likely to be shared nationally. Recipients of HTLV (+) organs were at slightly elevated risk of graft failure (HR=1.39, 95% CI 0.91–2.11) and death (HR=1.20, CI 0.71–2.02) relative to HTLV (−) donor recipients (P=0.12 and 0.5, respectively). The risk decreased after multivariate analysis - graft survival (HR=1.20, CI 0.79–1.83) and patient survival (HR=1.06, CI 0.63–1.79). Conclusion. Our analysis reveals no statistically significant difference in graft or patient survival between recipients of HTLV (+) and (−) donors. Serious limitations of these data are that serologic testing for HTLV has a high false positive rate and that there was a short follow-up period. Until these issues are addressed, extreme caution should be exercised when using these organs.