Search

Bile duct injury (BDI) is a dangerous complication of cholecystectomy, with significant postoperative sequelae for the patient in terms of morbidity, mortality, and long-term quality of life. BDIs have an estimated incidence of 0.4–1.5%, but considering the number of cholecystectomies performed worldwide, mostly by laparoscopy, surgeons must be prepared to manage this surgical challenge. Most BDIs are recognized either during the procedure or in the immediate postoperative period. However, some BDIs may be discovered later during the postoperative period, and this may translate to delayed or inappropriate treatments. Providing a specific diagnosis and a precise description of the BDI will expedite the decision-making process and increase the chance of treatment success. Subsequently, the choice and timing of the appropriate reconstructive strategy have a critical role in long-term prognosis. Currently, a wide spectrum of multidisciplinary interventions with different degrees of invasiveness is indicated for BDI management. These World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines have been produced following an exhaustive review of the current literature and an international expert panel discussion with the aim of providing evidence-based recommendations to facilitate and standardize the detection and management of BDIs during cholecystectomy. In particular, the 2020 WSES guidelines cover the following key aspects: (1) strategies to minimize the risk of BDI during cholecystectomy; (2) BDI rates in general surgery units and review of surgical practice; (3) how to classify, stage, and report BDI once detected; (4) how to manage an intraoperatively detected BDI; (5) indications for antibiotic treatment; (6) indications for clinical, biochemical, and imaging investigations for suspected BDI; and (7) how to manage a postoperatively detected BDI. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-021-00369-w.

Background & Aims: All oral direct acting antivirals (DAA) have been shown to improve the liver function of patients with decompensated cirrhosis but it is presently unknown whether this clinical improvement may lead to the delisting of some patients. The aim of this study was to assess if and which patients can be first inactivated due to clinically improvement and subsequently delisted in a real life setting. Methods: 103 consecutive listed patients without hepatocellular carcinoma were treated with different DAA combinations in 11 European centres between February 2014 and February 2015. Results: The cumulative incidence of inactivated and delisted patients by competing risk analysis was 15.5% and 0% at 24 weeks, 27.6% and 10.3% at 48 weeks, 33.3% and 19.2% at 60 weeks. The 34 patients who were inactivated showed a median improvement of 3.4 points for MELD (delta MELD, p < 0.0001) and 2 points for Child-Pugh (CP) (delta-CP, p < 0.0001). Three variables emerged from the most parsimonious multivariate competing risk model as predictors of inactivation for clinical improvement, namely, baseline MELD classes (MELD 16-20: HR = 0.120; p = 0.0005, MELD > 20: HR = 0.042; p < 0.0001), delta MELD (HR = 1.349; p < 0.0001) and delta albumin (HR = 0.307; p = 0.0069) both assessed after 12 weeks of DAA therapy. Conclusions: This study showed that all oral DAAs were able to reverse liver dysfunction and favoured the inactivation and delisting of about one patient out-of-three and one patient out-of-five in 60 weeks, respectively. Patients with lower MELD scores had higher chances to be delisted. The longer term benefits of therapy need to be ascertained. Lay summary: The excellent efficacy and safety profile of the new drugs against Hepatitis C virus, "direct acting antivirals" or DAAs, have made antiviral therapy possible also for patients with advanced liver disease and for those on the waiting list for liver transplantation (LT). This study shows for the first time that the DAAs may lead to a remarkable clinical improvement allowing the delisting of one patient out of 5. (C) 2016 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

We read with interest the lead article by Castera and Pinzani,1 particularly the comment regarding the role of transient elastography (TE) in the context of acute hepatitis (AH). The assumption that liver stiffness is determined exclusively by hepatic fibrosis has been challenged by evidence that patients with AH can have high values of liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by TE.2 AH is a suitable model for studying the kinetics of LSM, since inflammation and necrosis increase rapidly and sometimes massively, but may revert with equal speed. We evaluated 92 consecutive patients (mean age 41.8±16.3 years, 71.7% males) with symptomatic AH to assess how LSM was influenced by aetiology, and whether LSM kinetics correlated with the clinical course of AH. Twelve patients (13%) had …

Summary. Liver biopsy is frequently required in HBeAg-negative disease to determine the stage of fibrosis. It can be difficult to distinguish cohorts with undetectable HBeAg who may have varying degrees of fibrosis due to different stages of disease. We have assessed the utility of transient elastography (TE) to evaluate differences in HBeAg-negative patients. A total of 220 HBsAg-positive individuals were studied: 125 (group 1) had an inactive HBsAg carrier state and 95 (group 2) were HBeAg-negative, anti-HBe-positive patients with persistently or intermittent elevation of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and/or HBV DNA >105 copies/mL. Mean stiffness was 4.83 ± 1.2 kPa in group 1 vs 8.53 ± 6 kPa in group 2 (P