No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThere has been worldwide debate on lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer, with increasing consensus on performing an extended (D2) resection. There is a paucity of data in Australia. Our aim is to compare overall outcomes between a D1 and D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer in a single specialist unit.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis on patients who underwent a curative primary gastric resection for gastric adenocarcinoma between January 1996 and April 2016, primary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to balance covariates between D1/D1+ and D2 groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves of D1/D1+ versus D2 were constructed and evaluated using the log-rank test with subgroup analyses for pathological node (pN) status. Multiple Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine predictors of overall survival.ResultsTwo hundred four patients underwent a gastrectomy, 54 had D1/D1+, and 150 had a D2 lymphadenectomy. After PSM, there were 39 patients in each group, the 10-year OS for D1/D1+ was 52.1 and 76.2% for D2 (p = 0.008), and 10-year DFS was 35% for D1 and 58.1% for D2 (p = 0.058). Subgroup analysis showed that node-negative (N0) patients had improved 5-year OS for D2 (90.9%), compared to D1/D1+ (76.4%) (p = 0.028). There was no difference in operative mortality between the groups (D1 vs D2: 2 vs 0%, p = 0.314), nor in post-operative complications (p = 0.227). Multiple Cox analysis showed advanced tumor stage (stages III and IV), and lymphadenectomy type (D1) and the presence of postoperative complications were independent predictors of poor overall survival.ConclusionsD2 lymphadenectomy with spleen and pancreas preservation can be performed safely on patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. Significant improvement in overall survival is observed in patients with N0 disease who underwent D2 lymphadenectomy without increasing operative morbidity or mortality. This paper supports the notion of a global consensus for a D2 lymphadenectomy, particularly in the Western context.

Background. Adult kidney transplantation is most commonly into an extraperitoneal potential space, and surgically placed drains are used routinely in many centers. There is limited evidence of clinical benefit for prophylactic drainage in other major abdominal and vascular surgery. Transplantation is, however, a unique setting combining organ dysfunction and immunosuppression, and the risks and benefits of prophylactic drain placement are not known. This study attempts to examine existing literature to determine whether prophylactic intraoperative drains have an impact on the likelihood of perigraft fluid collections and other wound-related complications following kidney transplantation. Methods. A literature search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted to identify published comparative studies, including recipients receiving prophylactic drains to recipients in whom drains were omitted. The main outcomes were the incidence of peritransplant fluid collections and wound-related complications. Meta-analysis was performed on these data. Results. Four retrospective cohort studies were deemed eligible for quantitative analysis and 1 additional conference abstract was included in qualitative discussion. A total of 1640 patients, 1023 with drains and 617 without, were included in the meta-analysis. There was a lower rate of peritransplant collections associated with the drain group (RR 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.90). There was no significant difference in the incidence of wound-related complications between the groups (RR 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-2.11). Conclusions. These data associate a higher rate of peritransplant fluid collections with omission of prophylactic drainage, without a difference in the incidence of wound-related complications. Further research is required to definitively determine the impact of drains in this patient group.

No abstract

No abstract

ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation has been successfully utilised in a deceased donor and living donor kidney transplantation to improve organ utilisation and decrease waiting times. We describe a case of a successful, unanticipated ABO-incompatible donation after cardiac death (DCD) kidney transplant in a patient who had a previous ABOi haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and had reverted to his original blood group B, after matching as a blood group A recipient with a blood group A donor. The recipient was unsensitized with a cPRA which was 0% and no donor-specific antibodies and zero HLA mismatch. An urgent anti-A titre was 1 : 2. Given the low antibody titres, we proceeded to transplantation. The patient developed delayed graft function and required dialysis on postoperative day 1 and day 2. The creatinine fell spontaneously on day 5, with progressively increased urine output and stable graft function on discharge at day 6. Anti-A titres were 1 : 1 on serial postoperative measurements. There were no rejection episodes, and the patient has a functioning graft at 16 months posttransplant. We describe a rare case in which the blood group can change after stem cell transplant and should be checked. We also demonstrate that a DCD ABOi transplant in the context of low anti-A titres for a patient with previous ABOi stem cell transplant can be performed successfully with standard immunosuppression.

Surgical site infections (SSI) of the abdominal wall in renal transplant recipients can on occasion require management with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). This is often successful, with a low risk of further complications. However, we describe three cases in which persistent or recurrent surgical site sepsis occurred, whilst NPWT was being deployed in adults with either wound dehiscence or initial SSI. This type of complication in the setting of NPWT has not been previously described in renal transplant recipients. Our case series demonstrates that in immunosuppressed transplant recipients, there may be ineffective microbial or bacterial bioburden clearance associated with the NPWT, which can lead to further infections. Hence recognition for infections in renal transplant patients undergoing treatment with NPWT is vital; furthermore, aggressive management of sepsis control with early debridement, antimicrobial use, and reassessment of the use of wound dressing is necessary to reduce the morbidity associated with surgical site infections and NPWT.