Background: Short-term survival after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) has improved over the past decades, but long-term survival remains impaired. The effects of obesity on long-term survival after OLT are controversial. Because pre-transplant body mass index (BMI) can be confounded by ascites, we hypothesized that posttransplant BMI at 1 year could predict long-term survival. Methods: A post-hoc analysis was performed of an observational cohort study consisting of adult recipients of a first OLT between 1993 and 2010. Baseline BMI was measured at 1-year post-transplantation to represent a stable condition. Recipients were stratified into normal weight (BMI b 25 kg/m 2 ), overweight (25 ≤ BMI ≤ 30 kg/m 2 ), and obese (BMI N 30 kg/m 2 ). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed with log-rank testing, followed by multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Results: Out of 370 included recipients, 184 had normal weight, 136 were overweight, and 50 were obese at 1year post-transplantation. After median follow-up for 12.3 years, 107 recipients had died, of whom 46 (25%) had normal weight, 39 (29%) were overweight, and 22 (44%) were obese (log-rank P = 0.020). Obese recipients had a significantly increased mortality risk compared to normal weight recipients (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.08-3.68, P = 0.027). BMI was inversely associated with 15 years patient survival (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03-1.14, P = 0.001 per kg/ m 2 ), independent of age, gender, muscle mass, transplant characteristics, cardiovascular risk factors, kidney-and liver function. Conclusion:Obesity at 1-year post-transplantation conveys a 2-fold increased mortality risk, which may offer potential for interventional strategies (i.e. dietary advice, lifestyle modification, or bariatric surgery) to improve long-term survival after OLT.

Background: There is no consensus on the optimal treatment for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. Several studies indicate superior patient satisfaction in favour of operative reconstruction. It is unknown what drives superior satisfaction in this treatment group. The aim of this study was to explore patient satisfaction and identify contributors to patient satisfaction after operative and nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in adults using a focus group approach. Methods: Four face-to-face and two web-based focus groups were hosted. A total of 24 participants who were treated nonoperatively (n = 14) or operatively (n = 10) agreed to participate. Participants were selected using purposive sampling, ensuring variation in gender, age, treatment complications and outcomes. A question script was developed to systematically explore patient expectations, attitudes and satisfaction with different dimensions of care. All focus groups were voice-recorded and transcribed at verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted on all face-to-face and web-based transcripts. Results: The main emerging themes across treatment groups were; need for more information, functional recovery, speed of recovery and patient-doctor interaction. There was no difference in themes observed between operative and nonoperative focus groups. The lack of information was the most important complaint in dissatisfied patients. Conclusion: Our study shows that informing patients about their injury, treatment options and expectations for recovery is paramount for overall patient satisfaction after treatment for a displaced midshaft clavicle fracture.

Background There is no consensus on the optimal treatment for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. Several studies indicate superior patient satisfaction in favour of operative reconstruction. It is unknown what drives superior satisfaction in this treatment group. The aim of this study was to explore patient satisfaction and identify contributors to patient satisfaction after operative and nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in adults using a focus group approach. Methods Four face-to-face and two web-based focus groups were hosted. A total of 24 participants who were treated nonoperatively (n = 14) or operatively (n = 10) agreed to participate. Participants were selected using purposive sampling, ensuring variation in gender, age, treatment complications and outcomes. A question script was developed to systematically explore patient expectations, attitudes and satisfaction with different dimensions of care. All focus groups were voice-recorded and transcribed at verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted on all face-to-face and web-based transcripts. Results The main emerging themes across treatment groups were; need for more information, functional recovery, speed of recovery and patient-doctor interaction. There was no difference in themes observed between operative and nonoperative focus groups. The lack of information was the most important complaint in dissatisfied patients. Conclusion Our study shows that informing patients about their injury, treatment options and expectations for recovery is paramount for overall patient satisfaction after treatment for a displaced midshaft clavicle fracture. Level of evidence: Level III, focus group study