Search

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is the classical hepatobiliary manifestation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and a lead indication for liver transplantation (LT) in the western world. In this article, we present a Consensus Statement on LT practice, developed by a dedicated Guidelines’ Taskforce of the European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT). The overarching goal is to provide practical guidance on commonly debated topics, including indications and timing of LT, management of bile duct stenosis in patients on the transplant waiting list, technical aspects of transplantation, immunosuppressive strategies post-transplant, timing and extension of intestinal resection and futility criteria for re-transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The indication and surgical complexity of orthotopic liver transplantation underscore the need for strategies to optimize the recovery for transplant recipients. We conducted a systematic review aimed at identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the evidence examining the effect of in-patient rehabilitation for liver transplant recipients and provide related practice recommendations. METHODS: Health research databases were systematically reviewed for studies that included adults who received liver transplantation and participated in acute, post-transplant rehabilitation. Postoperative morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay, and other markers of surgical recovery were extracted. Practice recommendations are provided by an international panel using GRADE. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in the review (including 3901 participants). Rehabilitation interventions varied widely in design and composition; however, details regarding intervention delivery were poorly described in general. The quality of evidence was rated as very low largely owing to "very serious" imprecision, poor reporting, and limited data from comparative studies. Overall, the studies suggest that in-patient rehabilitation for recipients of liver transplantation is safe, tolerable, and feasible, and may benefit functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: Two practice recommendations related to in-patient rehabilitation following LT were yielded from this review: (1) it is safe, tolerable, and feasible; and (2) it improves postoperative functional outcomes. Each of the recommendations are weak and supported by low quality of evidence. No recommendation could be made related to benefits or harms for clinical, physiological, and other outcomes. Adequately powered and high quality randomized controlled trials are urgently needed in this area.

Background: Curative-intent therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) include radiofrequency ablation (RFA), liver resection (LR), and liver transplantation (LT). Controversy exists in treatment selection for earlystage tumours. We sought to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of patients who received either RFA, LR, or LT as first-line treatment for solitary HCC < 3 cm in an intention-to-treat analysis. Materials and methods: All patients with solitary HCC < 3 cm who underwent RFA, LR, or were listed for LT between Feb-2000 and Nov-2018 were analyzed. Cox regression analysis was then performed to compare intention-to-treat (ITT) survival by initial treatment allocation and disease-free survival (DFS) by treatment received in patients eligible for all three treatments. Results: A total of 119 patients were identified (RFA n = 83; LR n = 25; LT n = 11). The overall intention-to-treat survival was similar between the three groups. The overall DFS was highest for the LT group. This was significantly higher than RFA (p = 0.02), but not statistically significantly different from LR (p = 0.14). After multivariable adjustment, ITT survival was similar in the LR and LT groups relative to RFA (LR HR:1.13, 95%CI 0.33-3.82; p = 0.80; LT HR:1.39, 95%CI 0.35-5.44; p = 0.60). On multivariable DFS analysis, only LT was better relative to RFA (LR HR:0.52, 95%CI 0.26-1.02; p = 0.06; LT HR:0.15, 95%CI 0.03-0.67; p = 0.01). Compared to LR, LT was associated with a numerically lower hazard on multivariable DFS analysis, though this did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.30, 95%CI 0.06-1.43; p = 0.13) Conclusion: For treatment-naive patients with solitary HCC < 3 cm who are eligible for RFA, LR, and LT, adjusted ITT survival is equivalent amongst the treatment modalities, however, DFS is better with LR and LT, compared with RFA. Differences in recurrence between treatment modalities and equipoise in ITT survival provides support for a future prospective trial in this setti

Background: Curative-intent therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) include radiofrequency ablation (RFA), liver resection (LR), and liver transplantation (LT). Controversy exists in treatment selection for early-stage tumours. We sought to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of patients who received either RFA, LR, or LT as first-line treatment for solitary HCC ≤ 3 cm in an intention-to-treat analysis. Materials and methods: All patients with solitary HCC ≤ 3 cm who underwent RFA, LR, or were listed for LT between Feb-2000 and Nov-2018 were analyzed. Cox regression analysis was then performed to compare intention-to-treat (ITT) survival by initial treatment allocation and disease-free survival (DFS) by treatment received in patients eligible for all three treatments. Results: A total of 119 patients were identified (RFA n = 83; LR n = 25; LT n = 11). The overall intention-to-treat survival was similar between the three groups. The overall DFS was highest for the LT group. This was significantly higher than RFA (p = 0.02), but not statistically significantly different from LR (p = 0.14). After multivariable adjustment, ITT survival was similar in the LR and LT groups relative to RFA (LR HR:1.13, 95%CI 0.33–3.82; p = 0.80; LT HR:1.39, 95%CI 0.35–5.44; p = 0.60). On multivariable DFS analysis, only LT was better relative to RFA (LR HR:0.52, 95%CI 0.26–1.02; p = 0.06; LT HR:0.15, 95%CI 0.03–0.67; p = 0.01). Compared to LR, LT was associated with a numerically lower hazard on multivariable DFS analysis, though this did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.30, 95%CI 0.06–1.43; p = 0.13) Conclusion: For treatment-naïve patients with solitary HCC ≤ 3 cm who are eligible for RFA, LR, and LT, adjusted ITT survival is equivalent amongst the treatment modalities, however, DFS is better with LR and LT, compared with RFA. Differences in recurrence between treatment modalities and equipoise in ITT survival provides support for a future prospective trial in this setting.