Background: ALPPS (associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy) was introduced with the promise to reduce posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) in extended hepatectomies but has higher morbidity and mortality rates compared to conventional methods of volume enhancement. There are few studies of the incidence of PHLF after ALPPS and little information on how to avoid PHLF by functional testing. It remains unclear what causes the compromise in liver function despite rapid volume gain and if any of the modifications proposed reduce the incidence of PHLF. This review summarizes published data on this topic. Methods: This is a systematic review that studies literature on the incidence of liver failure and assessment of liver function following ALPPS as well as modifications of the existing technique. Articles were searched in PubMed, evaluated, selected, and tabulated. Results: The literature search revealed 326 articles that met the selection criteria. PHLF criteria as defined by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS) were the most commonly used criteria, but PHLF was frequently not defined. PHLF occurred most frequently after stage 2 of ALPPS at around 30% in most larger studies. Hepatobiliary scintigraphy showed a discrepancy between volume and functional growth of the liver. Function increase was only 50% compared to volume increase. Mechanistic explanations using histologic analyses have been given to explain the immaturity of the liver after rapid hypertrophy. Modifications of ALPPS showed a comparable volumetric gain when compared to classic ALPPS, but data were lacking to assess PHLF. Conclusion: ALPPS has relatively high rates of PHLF, morbidity, and mortality. This may be explained by data demonstrating functional growth when compared to volume growth. ALPPS should not be performed without functional assessment and with caution.

No abstract

Background: Timely and effective bystander first aid can improve outcomes for trauma victims. Bystanders are present at most traumas and are more likely to assist with prior training. Materials and methods: An evidence-based course was created for the general public in highrisk Chicago neighborhoods focused on basic traumatic first aid, including scene management, hemorrhage control, and mitigating the psychological impact of trauma to overcome the bystander effect. Prospectively, participants completed knowledge-based and self-efficacy assessments precourse, postcourse, and 6 mo follow-up. The change in self-efficacy and knowledge scores was analyzed. Results: Over 32 courses, 503 participants were taught; 474 and 460 participants completed precourse and postcourse surveys, respectively, whereas 60 of 327 who consented for follow-up completed the 6-mo survey. Postcourse, participants were more likely to assist trauma victims and felt more confident in the quality of care they could provide; the effect remained significant at 6 mo (all P < 0.001). All seven self-efficacy empowerment-based questions individually demonstrated improvement from precourse to postcourse (P < 0.001), with an overall mean (SD) increase of 2.8 (2.1, P < 0.001); six maintained significance at follow-up with an overall mean increase of 2.8 (1.9, P < 0.001). Knowledge scores improved from 6.2 of 10 to 7.2 postcourse and 7.7 at follow-up (P < 0.001). Most improved were the ability to render first aid and apply tourniquets. Conclusions: The TFRC increased self-efficacy, successfully teaching initial trauma care, particularly hemorrhage control and scene safety, suggesting that a grassroots approach to trauma care may improve outcomes in communities that experience high violence rates.

Brief Reports should be submitted online to www.editorialmanager.com/ amsurg. (See details online under ''Instructions for Authors''.) They should be no more than 4 double-spaced pages with no Abstract or sub-headings, with a maximum of four (4) references. If figures are included, they should be limited to two (2). The cost of printing color figures is the responsibility of the author.In general, authors of case reports should use the Brief Report format.

No abstract