Search

Introduction There is a recent debate on the "transplantability" of ECD (Expanded Criteria Donors) kidneys and the selection criteria used to allocate them to single or double transplantation. Remuzzi et al. have defined a protocol incorporating pre-transplant donor biopsy to guide the use of older donor organs. They allocated organs as single or double transplants on the basis of histological findings. We aim to show the pros and cons of the only histological evaluation in the allocation of ECD kidneys, to compare the different experiences in United States and Europe and thus to discuss whether this tool should be used alone or included in a comprehensive clinical and histopathological evaluation. Discussion In the United States many Authors stated that the biopsy actually increases the percentage of kidney discarded and they raised questions about the importance of the biopsy in evaluating ECD kidneys for transplantation. On the other hand, the experiences of the majority of european transplant centers showed that allocating kidneys as single or dual transplant based on biopsy findings may achieve good graft and patient outcomes. Moreover, the experience of some centers as ours showed that kidneys allocated as DKT (Dual Kidney Transplant) on the basis of Remuzzi’s score could have been suitable for single transplantation suggesting the need of an adjustment of the Remuzzi Score System. Many Authors, who are in favor of histological evaluation, actually believe that a comprehensive clinical and histopathological assessment before transplantation remains necessary. Summary We lack precise national- or international-based selection criteria to guide clinicians. An adjustment of the Remuzzi Score System could be taken into consideration such as narrowing the indication for DKT from those ECD kidneys with higher scores and including the histological evaluation in a multifactor score.

Given the recent advances in anesthesia, surgery, and monitoring technology, day surgery (DS) offers potential advantages for elderly patients undergoing elective surgery. Epidemiological data show a continuous expansion of elderly population, associated with an increased demand for surgical treatments by older patients. This review summarizes current selection criteria, anaesthesiology techniques and methods for perioperative management in geriatric outpatient surgery.

Background Liposarcoma is the most common type of soft tissue sarcoma (STS). It is divided into five groups according to histological pattern: well-differentiated, myxoid, round cell, pleomorphic, and dedifferentiated. Dedifferentiated liposarcoma most commonly occurs in the retroperitoneum, while an intraperitoneal location is extremely rare. Only seven cases have been reported in literature. Many pathologists recognize that a large number of intra-abdominal poorly differentiated sarcomas are dedifferentiated liposarcomas. We report a case initially diagnosed as undifferentiated sarcoma that was reclassified as intraperitoneal dedifferentiated liposarcoma showing an amplification of the MDM2 gene. Case presentation A 59-year-old woman with abdominal pain and constipation was referred to the Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy, in November 2012. On physical examination, a very large firm mass was palpable in the meso-hypogastrium. Computed tomography (CT) scan showed a heterogeneous density mass (measuring 10 × 19 cm) that was contiguous with the mesentery and compressed the third part of the duodenum and jejunum. At laparotomy, a large mass occupying the entire abdomen was found, adhering to the first jejunal loop and involving the mesentery. Surgical removal of the tumor along with a jejunal resection was performed because the first jejunal loop was firmly attached to the tumor. Macroscopic examination showed a solid, whitish, cerebroid, and myxoid mass, with variable hemorrhage and cystic degeneration, measuring 26 × 19 × 5 cm. Microscopic examination revealed two main different morphologic patterns: areas with spindle cells in a myxoid matrix and areas with pleomorphic cells. The case was initially diagnosed as undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Histological review showed areas of well-differentiated liposarcoma. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis was performed and demonstrated an amplification of the MDM2 gene. Definitive diagnosis was intraperitoneal dedifferentiated liposarcoma. No adjuvant therapy was given, but 5 months after laparotomy, the patient presented with a locoregional recurrence and chemotherapy with high-dose ifosfamide was started. Conclusions No guidelines are available for the management of intraperitoneal dedifferentiated liposarcoma. We report this case to permit the collection of a larger number of cases to improve understanding and management of this tumor. Moreover, this study strongly suggests that poorly differentiated sarcomas should prompt extensive sampling to demonstrate a well-differentiated liposarcoma component and, if possible, FISH analysis.