1.
Should Cell Salvage be Used in Liver Resection and Transplantation? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Rajendran L, Lenet T, Shorr R, Abou Khalil J, Bertens KA, Balaa FK, Martel G
Annals of surgery. 2022
-
-
-
Free full text
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of intraoperative blood salvage and autotransfusion (IBSA) use on red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and postoperative outcomes in liver surgery. BACKGROUND Intraoperative RBC transfusions are common in liver surgery and associated with increased morbidity. IBSA can be utilized to minimize allogeneic transfusion. A theoretical risk of cancer dissemination has limited IBSA adoption in oncologic surgery. METHODS Electronic databases were searched from inception until May 2021. All studies comparing IBSA use to control in liver surgery were included. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently, in duplicate. The primary outcome was intraoperative allogeneic RBC transfusion (proportion of patients and volume of blood transfused). Core secondary outcomes included: overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), transfusion-related complications, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization costs. Data from transplant and resection studies were analyzed separately. Random effects models were used for meta-analysis. RESULTS Twenty-one observational studies were included (16 transplant, 5 resection, n=3,433 patients). Seventeen studies incorporated oncologic indications. In transplant, IBSA was associated with decreased allogeneic RBC transfusion (MD -1.81, 95% CI[-3.22, -0.40], P=0.01, I2=86%, very-low certainty). Few resection studies reported on transfusion for meta-analysis. No significant difference existed in OS or DFS in liver transplant (HR=1.12[0.75, 1.68], P=0.59, I2=0%; HR=0.93[0.57, 1.48], P=0.75, I2=0%) and liver resection (HR=0.69[0.45, 1.05], P=0.08, I2=0%; HR=0.93[0.59, 1.45], P=0.74, I2=0%). CONCLUSION IBSA may reduce intraoperative allogeneic RBC transfusion without compromising oncologic outcomes. The current evidence base is limited in size and quality, and high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients undergoing oncologic and non-oncologic liver surgery (either resection or transplantation), (21 studies, n= 3,433).
Intervention
Any intraoperative blood salvage and autotransfusion (IBSA) device.
Comparison
No IBSA use.
Outcome
Data from transplant and resection studies were analyzed separately. Despite significant heterogeneity, most studies reported lower rates and volumes of intraoperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion in patients undergoing IBSA. In transplant, IBSA was associated with decreased allogeneic red blood cell transfusion (mean difference: -1.81, very-low certainty). Few resection studies reported on transfusion for meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in overall survival or disease-free survival in liver transplant and liver resection.
2.
Passive Versus Active Intra-Abdominal Drainage Following Pancreatic Resection: Does A Superior Drainage System Exist? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Park LJ, Baker L, Smith H, Lemke M, Davis A, Abou-Khalil J, Martel G, Balaa FK, Bertens KA
World journal of surgery. 2021
Abstract
Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a major source of morbidity following pancreatic resection. Surgically placed drains under suction or gravity are routinely used to help mitigate the complications associated with POPF. Controversy exists as to whether one of these drain management strategies is superior. The objective was to identify and compare the incidence of POPF, adverse events, and resource utilization associated with passive gravity (PG) versus active suction (AS) drainage following pancreatic resection. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to May 18, 2020. Outcomes of interest included POPF, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), surgical site infection (SSI), other major morbidity, and resource utilization. Descriptive qualitative and pooled quantitative meta-analyses were performed. One randomized control trial and five cohort studies involving 10 663 patients were included. Meta-analysis found no difference in the odds of developing POPF between AS and PG (p = 0.78). There were no differences in other endpoints including PPH (p = 0.58), SSI (wound p = 0.21, organ space p = 0.05), major morbidity (p = 0.71), or resource utilization (p = 0.72). The risk of POPF or other adverse outcomes is not impacted by drain management following pancreatic resection. Based on current evidence, a suggestion cannot be made to support the use of one drain over another at this time. There is a trend toward increased intra-abdominal wound infections with AS drains (p = 0.05) that merits further investigation.