Search

Introduction: Numerous extended donor criteria (EDC) have been identified in liver transplantation (LT), but different EDC have different impacts on graft and patient survival. This study aimed to identify major EDC (maEDC) that were best able to predict the outcome after LT and to examine the plausibility of an allocation algorithm based on these criteria., Methods: All consecutive LTs between 12/2006 and 03/2014 were included (n = 611). We analyzed the following EDC: donor age > 65 years, body mass index > 30, malignancy and drug abuse history, intensive care unit stay/ventilation > 7 days, aminotransferases > 3 times normal, serum bilirubin > 3 mg/dL, serum Na + > 165 mmol/L, positive hepatitis serology, biopsy-proven macrovesicular steatosis (BPS) > 40%, and cold ischemia time (CIT) > 14 h. We analyzed hazard risk ratios of graft failure for each EDC and evaluated primary non-function (PNF). In addition, we analyzed 30-day, 90-day, 1-year, and 3-year graft survival. We established low- and high-risk graft (maEDC 0 vs. ≥ 1) and recipient (labMELD < 20 vs. ≥ 20) groups and compared the post-LT outcomes between these groups., Results: BPS > 40%, donor age > 65 years, and CIT > 14 h (all p < 0.05) were independent predictors of graft failure and patient mortality and increased PNF, 30-day, 90-day, 1-year, and 3-year graft failure rates. Three-year graft and patient survival decreased in recipients of ≥ 1 maEDC grafts (all p < 0.05) and LT of high-risk grafts into high-risk recipients yielded worse outcomes compared with other groups., Conclusion: Donor age > 65 years, BPS > 40%, and CIT > 14 h are major EDC that decrease short and 3-year graft survival, and 3-year patient survival. An allocation algorithm based on maEDC and labMELD is therefore plausible.

Objective: To determine whether circular plastic wound edge protectors (CWEPs) significantly reduce the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in comparison to standard surgical towels in patients undergoing laparotomy., Background: SSIs cause substantial morbidity, prolonged hospitalization, and costs and remain one of the most frequent surgical complications. CWEPs have been proposed as a measure to reduce the incidence of SSIs., Methods: In this randomized controlled, multicenter, 2-arm, parallel-group design, patient- and observer-blinded trial patients undergoing open elective abdominal surgery were assigned to either intraoperative wound coverage with a CWEP or standard coverage with surgical towels. Primary endpoint was superiority of intervention over control in terms of the incidence of SSIs within a 30-day postoperative period., Results: Between September 2010 and November 2012, 608 patients undergoing laparotomy were randomized at 16 centers across Germany. Three patients in the device group and 11 patients in the control group did not undergo laparotomy. Patients' and procedural characteristics were well balanced between the 2 groups. Forty-eight patients discontinued the study prematurely, mainly because of relaparotomy (control, n=9; intervention, n=9) and death (control, n=4; intervention, n=7). A total of 79 patients experienced SSIs within 30 days of surgery, 27 of 274 (9.9%) in the device group and 52 of 272 (19.1%) in the control group (odds ratio=0.462, 95% confidence interval: 0.281-0.762; P=0.002). Subgroup analyses indicate that the effect could be more pronounced in colorectal surgery, and in clean-contaminated/contaminated surgeries., Conclusions: Our trial shows that CWEPs are effective at reducing the incidence of SSIs in elective and clean or clean-contaminated open abdominal surgery.

Background: Although centralization of complex surgical procedures such as pancreaticoduodenectomies is associated with a reduction in morbidity and mortality rates, it is unclear whether such surgeries are adequately represented in the German disease-related group (DRG) system., Patients and Methods: Out of all patients who underwent pancreatic resections (n = 450) at our institution between January 2008 and November 2011, 76 patients who underwent a pylorus-preserving pancreatic head resection due to pancreatic head adenocarcinoma were selected for analysis. The revenues generated by these surgical procedures were compared with those of 144 patients who had undergone elective laparoscopic cholecystectomies for symptomatic gallstone disease between January 2009 and September 2010 in our hospital., Results: In patients undergoing pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy, revenues per case were 1,585.55 Euros, with an average length of hospital stay (ALOS) of 19.9 days (range 7-55 days) and an average postoperative hospital stay of 16 days; however, if the ALOS was exceeded, expenditures increasingly exceeded returns. Analysis of the cohort of patients with pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomies demonstrated average revenues per day of 79.27 Euros. In contrast, for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, which was treated with high surgical standardization and stringent case management, the ALOS was only 2.8 days, producing average revenues of 288.80 Euros per day and total revenues of 817.53 Euros per case., Conclusion: At university hospitals, cost-effective realization of major pancreatic surgery is difficult, while highly standardized surgeries such as laparoscopic cholecystectomies can be performed at a favorable balance. This may be due to, firstly, an underrepresentation of university hospitals in the German DRG calculation basis and, secondly, to a relatively long preoperative hospital stay as a result of extensive diagnostic measures. We consider this kind of preoperative assessment paramount for an academic pancreatic center and thus argue for an increased reimbursement for these procedures.

Introduction: The Impact Factor (IF) has originally been designed as a bibliometric tool to estimate the relevance of a scientific journal and has as such gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community. It denominates the ratio of all citations received by a particular journal within 1 year and all original research or review articles published by that journal during the preceding 2 years., Discussion: Recently, the IF is more and more frequently used to judge the importance of single articles or the scientific achievement of researchers themselves. These approaches are associated with a number of backlashes such as the inability of the IF to reflect citation rates of single articles, the lack of elimination of self-citations and the time frame within which the IF is calculated (i.e., the two preceding years). Thus, for the evaluation of single articles, citation rankings would be-though time consuming in their compilation-more adequate. For the assessment of the scientific output of individual researchers, the h-index is emerging as a valuable tool which reflects both the citation rate as well as the number of publications of a given researcher., Conclusion: Although the IF is suitable for judging the overall importance of journals, IF rankings should be made solely within the respective subspecialty categorizations to avoid overrepresentation of larger research areas. In conclusion, the IF remains the widest accepted qualitative tool for the benchmarking of journals, though the assessment of individual scientific quality remains a challenging endeavor.