No abstract

Ischaemia–reperfusion injury (IRI) in the liver, a major complication of haemorrhagic shock, resection and transplantation, is a dynamic process that involves the two interrelated phases of local ischaemic insult and inflammation-mediated reperfusion injury. This Review highlights the latest mechanistic insights into innate–adaptive immune crosstalk and cell activation cascades that lead to inflammation-mediated injury in livers stressed by ischaemia–reperfusion, discusses progress in large animal experiments and examines efforts to minimize liver IRI in patients who have received a liver transplant. The interlinked signalling pathways in multiple hepatic cell types, the IRI kinetics and positive versus negative regulatory loops at the innate–adaptive immune interface are discussed. The current gaps in our knowledge and the pathophysiology aspects of IRI in which basic and translational research is still required are stressed. An improved appreciation of cellular immune events that trigger and sustain local inflammatory responses, which are ultimately responsible for organ injury, is fundamental to developing innovative strategies for treating patients who have received a liver transplant and developed ischaemia–reperfusion inflammation and organ dysfunction.

Many GI operations can be performed safely without prophylactic drainage. Drains should be omitted after hepatic, colonic, or rectal resection with primary anastomosis and appendectomy for any stage of appendicitis (recommendation grade A), whereas prophylactic drainage remains indicated after esophageal resection and total gastrectomy (recommendation grade D). For many other GI procedures, especially involving the upper GI tract, there is a further demand for well-designed RCTs to clarify the value of prophylactic drainage.

Steatosis per se is a risk factor for postoperative complications after major hepatectomy and should be considered in the planning of surgery. Caution must be taken to perform major hepatectomy in steatotic patients with preexisting cholestasis.

OBJECTIVE To use the concept of benchmarking to establish robust and standardized outcome references after pancreatico-duodenectomy (PD). BACKGROUND Best achievable results after PD are unknown. Consequently, outcome comparisons among different cohorts, centers or with novel surgical techniques remain speculative. METHODS This multicenter study analyzes consecutive patients (2012-2015) undergoing PD in 23 international expert centers in pancreas surgery. Outcomes in patients without significant comorbidities and major vascular resection (benchmark cases) were analyzed to establish 20 outcome benchmarks for PD. These benchmarks were tested in a cohort with a poorer preoperative physical status (ASA class 3) and a cohort treated by minimally invasive approaches. RESULTS Two thousand three hundred seventy-five (38%) low-risk cases out of a total of 6186 PDs were analyzed, disclosing low in-hospital mortality (1.6%) but high morbidity, with a 73% benchmark morbidity rate cumulated within 6 months following surgery. Benchmark cutoffs for pancreatic fistulas (B-C), severe complications (grade 3), and failure-to-rescue rate were 19%, 30%, and 9%, respectively. The ASA 3 cohort showed comparable morbidity but a higher in hospital-mortality (3% vs 1.6%) and failure-to-rescue rate (16% vs 9%) than the benchmarks. The proportion of benchmark cases performed varied greatly across centers and continents for both open (9%-93%) and minimally invasive (11%-62%) PD. Centers operating mostly on complex PD cases disclosed better results than those with a majority of low-risk cases. CONCLUSION The proposed outcome benchmarks for PD, established in a large-scale international patient cohort and tested in 2 different cohorts, may allow for meaningful comparisons between different patient cohorts, centers, countries, and surgical techniques.