Diverting loop ileostomy adds little cumulative morbidity to the primary operation and is a safe option for diversion to protect a low colorectal anastomosis. To further reduce morbidity, the interval between primary operation and ileostomy closure should be no shorter than 8.5 weeks.

The complication and success rates in patients treated with either percutaneous cryosurgery (PCS) or percutaneous radiofrequency (PRF) for unresectable hepatic malignancies are similar. Design: Retrospective study. Setting: University hospital. Patients and Methods: Sixty-four patients were treated with either PCS (n = 31) or PRF (n = 33). Patient treatment was based on the random availability of the probes. Tumors were evaluated by a blinded comparison of pretreatment and posttreatment helical computed tomographic scans. All living patients had at least a 6-month follow-up. Main Outcome Measures: Complication rate, initial treatment success (complete devascularization of the tumor), and local recurrence (tumor revascularization within or at its periphery). Results: The distribution of tumor types was similar in the 2 groups (P = .76). One patient with cirrhosis died of variceal hemorrhage on day 30 after PCS (mortality, 3.2%), while no mortality was observed after PRF (P=.48). Complications occurred in 9 (29%) of the patients following PCS and in 8 (24%) of the patients following PRF (P=.66). Initial treatment success was comparable in the 2 treatment groups (30 [83%] of 36 tumors following PCS vs 34 [83%] of 41 tumors following PRF). However, local recurrences occurred more frequently after PCS than after PRF (16 [53%] of 30 vs 6 [18%] of 34; P =.003). The higher rate of local recurrence was identified for metastases (10 [71%] of 14 after PCS vs 3 [19%] of 16 after PRF; P=.004), while the difference was not significant for hepatocellular carcinoma (6 [38%] of 16 after PCS vs 3 [17%] of 18 after PRF; P =.25). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the use of PCS (P=.003) and more than 1 treatment (P=.05) were independent risk factors for local tumor recurrence. Conclusion: While similar initial treatment success and complication rates are observed following either PCS or PRF, local recurrences occur more frequently following PCS, particularly for metastases.

Background: Incidental gallbladder cancer is defined as a cancer discovered by histological examination after cholecystectomy. It is a potentially curable disease. However, some questions related to their management remain controversial and a defined strategy is associated with better prognosis. Aim: To develop the first evidence-based consensus for management of patients with incidental gallbladder cancer in Brazil. Methods: Sixteen questions were selected, and 36 Brazilian and International members were included to the answer them. The statements were based on current evident literature. The final report was sent to the members of the panel for agreement assessment. Results: Intraoperative evaluation of the specimen, use of retrieval bags and routine histopathology is recommended. Complete preoperative evaluation is necessary and the reoperation should be performed once final staging is available. Evaluation of the cystic duct margin and routine 16b1 lymph node biopsy is recommended. Chemotherapy should be considered and chemoradiation therapy if microscopically positive surgical margins. Port site should be resected exceptionally. Staging laparoscopy before reoperation is recommended, but minimally invasive radical approach only in specialized minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary centers. The extent of liver resection is acceptable if R0 resection is achieved. Standard lymph node dissection is required for T2 tumors and above, but common bile duct resection is not recommended routinely. Conclusions: It was possible to prepare safe recommendations as guidance for incidental gallbladder carcinoma, addressing the most frequent topics of everyday work of digestive and general surgeons.

The variables of recipient's age, creatinine, urgency of retransplantation, and early failure of the initial transplantation were factors that were independently related to the long-term survival of patients with liver retransplants.

One-year, 5-year, and 10-year graft and patient survival rates following retransplantation were 54.0%, 42.5%, 36.8% and 61.2%, 53.7%, and 50.1%, respectively. These percentages were significantly less than those following a single hepatic transplantation at the authors' center during the same period (82.3%, 72.1%, and 66.9%, respectively). On multivariate analysis, three patient variables were significantly associated with a poorer patient outcome: urgency of retransplantation (excluding primary nonfunction), age, and creatinine. Primary nonfunction as an indication for retransplantation, total bilirubin, and factor II level were associated with a better prognosis. The final model was highly predictive of survival: according to the combination of the factors affecting outcome, 5-year patient survival rates varied from 15% to 83%. Retransplant patients had significantly longer hospital and intensive care unit stays and accumulated significantly higher total hospital charges than those receiving only one transplant. CONCLUSIONS These data confirm the utility of retransplantation in the elective situation. In the emergency setting, retransplantation should be used with discretion, and it should be avoided in subgroups of patients with little chance of success.