Recipient Age for Liver Transplantation: Should It Be Limited? A Propensity Score Matching Analysis of a Large European Series.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The demand for older patients not to be denied access to liver transplantation (LT) has intensified as the European population continues to live longer and maintains better health. AIM: This study aims to ascertain the impact of recipient age on the post-LT survival in 2 well-balanced populations at Vall d'Hebron University Hospital. METHODS: From January 1990 to December 2016, LT recipients (young group: 50-65 years of age; elderly group: >65 years of age) were compared by means of a propensity score matching (PSM) method. RESULTS: Prior to PSM, graft survival and patient survival were worse for the elderly group (P < .001). In 1126 LT recipients, a caliper width of 0.01 was used based on the donor (age, sex, cause of donor death, and donor intensive care unit stay) and recipient covariates (sex, body mass index, indication for LT, intraoperative blood transfusion, cardiovascular risk factors, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease [MELD]-Era). After PSM, 206 patients were matched; 1-, 5-, and 10-year patient survival rates were 77%, 63%, and 52% vs 80%, 64%, and 45% (P = .50) for young vs elderly recipients, respectively. Similar graft survival rates were observed in both groups (P = .42). CONCLUSIONS: Advanced age alone should not exclude patients from LT.

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) in ovarian cancer patients - A multi-centre comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is a common functional disorder after low anterior resection impacting the quality of life. Data on LARS derives nearly exclusively from rectal cancer studies. Therefore, the study was designed to assess LARS in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients, who underwent rectal resection and to compare it with a female rectal cancer cohort. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional multi-centre analysis was performed on female patients suffering from either rectal or EOC who received a low anterior resection as part of their therapy regimen. None of the patients received pre- or postoperative radiotherapy. LARS was defined by using the validated LARS score and its severity was divided into "no", "minor" and "major LARS". RESULTS: In total, 125 female patients (44.8% (n = 56) EOC vs. 55.2% (n = 69) rectal cancer patients) met the final inclusion criteria and were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Median follow-up was 22 (IQR 12-56) months. In total, 30.4% (n = 38) of the patient group reported bowel dysfunction after surgery. Rates of LARS were not significantly different between EOC and rectal cancer patients (major LARS 16.1% (n = 9) vs. 15.9% (n = 11); minor LARS 17.9% (n = 10) vs. 11.6% (n = 8); p = 0.984). The time interval between surgery and final assessment had no impact on the postoperative bowel function (p = 0.820). CONCLUSION: LARS is a frequent and highly underreported postoperative disorder in EOC patients who require cytoreductive surgery with rectal resection. The functional outcome is comparable to female patients with rectal cancer who underwent low anterior resection without receiving radiotherapy.

Systematic review of functional outcomes and quality of life after transanal endoscopic microsurgery and transanal minimally invasive surgery: a word of caution.

PURPOSE: The introduction of transanal endoscopic or minimally invasive surgery has allowed organ preservation for rectal tumors with good oncological results. Data on functional and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes are scarce and controversial. This systematic review sought to synthesize fecal continence, QoL, and manometric outcomes after transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) or transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS). METHODS: A systematic review of the literature including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted searching for articles reporting on functional outcomes after TEM or TAMIS between January 1995 and June 2018. The evaluated outcome parameters were pre- and postoperative fecal continence (primary endpoint), QoL, and manometric results. Data were extracted using the same scales and measurement units as from the original study. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies comprising 1297 patients were included. Fecal continence outcomes were evaluated in 23 (79%) studies with a wide variety of assessment tools and divergent results. Ten studies (34%) analyzed QoL changes, and manometric variables were assessed in 15 studies (51%). Most studies reported some deterioration in manometric scores without major QoL impairment. Due to the heterogeneity of the data, it was not possible to perform any pooled analysis or meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These techniques do not seem to affect continence by themselves except in minor cases. The possibility of worsened function after TEM and TAMIS should not be underestimated. There is a need to homogenize or standardize functional and manometric outcomes assessment after TEM or TAMIS.