Purpose The impact of an out-of-hours laparoscopic cholecystectomy on outcome is controversial. We sought to determine the association between an out-of-hours procedure and postoperative complications within 90 days. Methods Between 2014 and 2016, 1553 laparoscopic cholecystectomies were performed. Therapeutic, operative, and outcome data were prospectively collected and analyzed. We defined out of hours as during weekends, national holidays, and daily between 5PM and 8AM. Results Most patients operated on were female (n=988; 63.6%) and the majority of procedures were electives (n=1341; 86.3%). Although all procedures were performed with a laparoscopic intent, 42 (2.7%) were converted to open procedure. In total, 145 (9.3%) procedures were out of hours, all nonelective, and in most cases for acute cholecystitis (n=111; 7.1%). Overall, there were 212 complications in 191 patients (12.3%), most (n=153; 9.9%) classified as minor. The conversion rate in the out-of-hours group was significantly higher (9.7% vs 2.0%; p<0.001). While univariate analyses revealed out-of-hours procedure (OR=1.83; p=0.008) to be associated with an increased risk of complications, when controlling for confounding factors by multivariate analysis, this association was not found. However, operation by surgical staff (OR=1.71) and conversion to laparotomy (OR=3.74) were found to be independently associated with an increased risk of complications (both p<0.05), while an emergency procedure tended to be associated with postoperative morbidity (OR=1.82; p=0.069). Conclusion An out-of-hours laparoscopic cholecystectomy was not found to be an independent risk factor for developing postoperative morbidity and time of day should therefore only be a relative contraindication.

A Common Rejection Module (CRM) consisting of 11 genes expressed in allograft biopsies was previously reported to serve as a biomarker for acute rejection (AR), correlate with the extent of graft injury, and predict future allograft damage. We investigated the use of this gene panel on the urine cell pellet of kidney transplant patients. Urinary cell sediments collected from patients with biopsy-confirmed acute rejection, borderline AR (bAR), BK virus nephropathy (BKVN), and stable kidney grafts with normal protocol biopsies (STA) were analyzed for expression of these 11 genes using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). We assessed these 11 CRM genes for their abundance, autocorrelation, and individual expression levels. Expression of 10/11 genes were elevated in AR when compared to STA. Psmb9 and Cxcl10could classify AR versus STA as accurately as the 11-gene model (sensitivity = 93.6%, specificity = 97.6%). A uCRM score, based on the geometric mean of the expression levels, could distinguish AR from STA with high accuracy (AUC = 0.9886) and correlated specifically with histologic measures of tubulitis and interstitial inflammation rather than tubular atrophy, glomerulosclerosis, intimal proliferation, tubular vacuolization or acute glomerulitis. This urine gene expression-based score may enable the non-invasive and quantitative monitoring of AR.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDSA type 2 endoleak (T2EL) following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is associated with an increased need for secondary intervention and presumed risk of rupture, thus analysing the impact of an isolated T2EL on mortality is necessary. After an 11 year follow up, survival in patients who underwent a secondary intervention for T2EL was not better than those who were treated conservatively. Most importantly, this study highlights the need for a conservative approach and for high quality prospective studies to better understand the natural course of T2EL, and to guide the direction of their management.Objective: The aims of the present study were to examine the impact of type 2 endoleaks (T2EL) on overall survival and to determine the need for secondary intervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods: A multicentre retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands was conducted among patients with an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) who underwent EVAR between 2007 and 2012. The primary endpoint was overall survival for patients with (T2ELþ) or without (T2EL-) a T2EL. Secondary endpoints were sac growth, AAA rupture, and secondary intervention. KaplaneMeier survival and multivariable Cox regression analysis were used. Results: A total of 2 018 patients were included. The median follow up was 62.1 (range 0.1 e 146.2) months. No difference in overall survival was found between T2ELþ (n ¼ 388) and T2EL-patients (n ¼ 1630) (p ¼ .54). The overall survival estimates at five and 10 years were 73.3%/69.4% and 45.9%/44.1% for T2ELþ/T2EL-patients, respectively. Eighty-five of 388 (21.9%) T2ELþ patients underwent a secondary intervention. There was no difference in overall survival between T2ELþ patients who underwent a secondary intervention and those who were treated conservatively (p ¼ .081). Sac growth was observed in 89 T2ELþ patients and 44/89 patients (49.4%) underwent a secondary intervention. In 41/44 cases (93.1%), sac growth was still observed after the intervention, but was left untreated. Aneurysm rupture occurred in 4/388 T2EL patients. In Cox regression analysis, higher age, ASA classification, and maximum iliac diameter were significantly associated with worse overall survival. Conclusion:No difference in overall survival was found between T2ELþ and T2EL-patients. Also, patients who underwent a secondary intervention did not have better survival compared with those who did not undergo a secondary intervention. This study reinforces the need for conservative treatment of an isolated T2EL and the importance of a prospective study to determine possible advantages of the intervention.

No abstract

Purpose: To study the effects of imaging surveillance after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) on reintervention and mortality. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted comparing complication rates in EVAR patients compliant with the imaging surveillance protocol vs partially or noncompliant patients. Two authors independently selected articles and performed quality assessment and data extraction. Risk differences for reintervention and mortality between compliant and partially/noncompliant patients were meta-analyzed. The pooled risk difference (RD) is reported with the 95% confidence interval (CI). The review protocol is registered at Prospero (CRD42017080494). Results: A total of 11 cohort studies involving 21,838 patients were included. Studies differed in imaging, their surveillance protocols, and definitions of compliance subgroups. Median follow-up was 31.7 months (interquartile range 29.8, 49.3). The overall reintervention rate was 5%, while the overall mortality was 31%. The RD for the reintervention rate was 4% (95% CI 1% to 7%) in favor of partial/noncompliance [number needed to harm 25 (95% CI 14 to 100)], while mortality showed a nonsignificant RD of 12% (95% CI −2% to 26%) in favor of partial/noncompliance. Two studies reported that 41% to 53% of reinterventions were performed for complications detected through imaging surveillance; the other events were detected through patient symptoms. Conclusion: Patients who are compliant with imaging surveillance appear to undergo more reinterventions than those who are partially or noncompliant. However, imaging surveillance does not seem to protect against mortality. This suggests that the recommended yearly imaging surveillance may not be beneficial for all EVAR patients.