Multiple factors influence graft rejection after kidney transplantation. Pre-operative factors affecting graft function and survival include donor and recipient characteristics such as age, gender, race, and immunologic compatibility. In addition, several peri- and post-operative parameters affect graft function and rejection, such as cold and warm ischemia times, and post-operative immunosuppressive treatment. Exposure to non-self-human leucocyte antigens (HLAs) prior to transplantation up-regulates the recipient’s immune system. A higher rate of acute rejection is observed in transplant recipients with a history of pregnancies or significant exposure to blood products because these patients have higher panel reactive antibody (PRA) levels. Identifying these risk factors will help physicians to reduce the risk of allograft rejection, thereby promoting graft survival. In the current review, we summarize the existing literature on donor- and recipient-related risk factors of graft rejection and graft loss following kidney transplantation.

Background: Systematic reviews are an important tool of evidence-based surgery. Surgical systematic reviews and trials, however, require a special methodological approach. Purpose: This article provides recommendations for conducting state-of-the-art systematic reviews in surgery with or without meta-analysis. Conclusions: For systematic reviews in surgery, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) should be searched. Critical appraisal is at the core of every surgical systematic review, with information on blinding, industry involvement, surgical experience, and standardisation of surgical technique holding special importance. Due to clinical heterogeneity among surgical trials, the random-effects model should be used as a default. In the experience of the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery, adherence to these recommendations yields high-quality surgical systematic reviews.

With increasing trends for the adoption of robotic surgery, many centers are considering changing their practices from open or laparoscopic to robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. We compared the outcomes of robot-assisted rectal resection with those of open and laparoscopic surgery. We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases until October 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing robotic surgery with open or laparoscopic rectal resection were included. Fifteen RCTs and 11 prospective studies involving 6922 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed that robotic surgery has lower blood loss, less surgical site infection, shorter hospital stays, and higher negative resection margins than open resection. Robotic surgery also has lower conversion rates, lower blood loss, lower rates of reoperation, and higher negative circumferential margins than laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery had longer operation times and higher costs than open and laparoscopic surgery. There were no differences in other complications, mortality, and survival between robotic surgery and the open or laparoscopic approach. However, heterogeneity between studies was moderate to high in some analyses. The robotic approach can be the method of choice for centers planning to change from open to minimally invasive rectal surgery. The higher costs of robotic surgery should be considered as a substitute for laparoscopic surgery (PROSPERO: CRD42022381468).

Background: In patients with hepatic cystic echinococcosis (CE), treatment effectiveness, outcomes, complications, and recurrence rate are controversial. Endocystectomy is a conservative surgical approach that adequately removes cyst contents without loss of parenchyma. This conservative procedure has been modified in several ways to prevent complications and to improve surgical outcomes. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the intraoperative and postoperative complications of endocysectomy for hepatic CE as well as the hepatic CE recurrence rate following endocystectomy. Methods: A systematic search was made for all studies reporting endocystectomy to manage hepatic CE in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Study quality was assessed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) criteria and the Cochrane revised tool to assess risk of bias in randomized trials (RoB2). The random-effects model was used for meta-analysis and the arscine-transformed proportions were used to determine complication-, mortality-, and recurrence rates. This study is registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42020181732). Results: Of 3,930 retrieved articles, 54 studies reporting on 4,058 patients were included. Among studies reporting preoperative anthelmintic treatment (31 studies), albendazole was administered in all of them. Complications were reported in 19.4% (95% CI: 15.9–23.2; I² = 84%; p-value <0.001) of the patients; biliary leakage (10.1%; 95% CI: 7.5–13.1; I² = 81%; p-value <0.001) and wound infection (6.6%; 95% CI: 4.6–9; I² = 27%; p-value = 0.17) were the most common complications. The post-endocystectomy mortality rate was 1.2% (95% CI: 0.8–1.8; I² = 21%; p-value = 0.15) and the recurrence rate was 4.8% (95% CI: 3.1–6.8; I² = 87%; p-value <0.001). Thirty-nine studies (88.7%) had a mean follow-up of more than one year after endocystectomy, and only 14 studies (31.8%) had a follow-up of more than five years. Conclusion: Endocystectomy is a conservative and feasible surgical approach. Despite previous disencouraging experiences, our results suggest that endocystectomy is associated with low mortality and recurrence.

The major extended donor criteria (maEDC; steatosis >40%, age >65 years, and cold ischemia time >14 h) influence graft and patient outcomes after liver transplantation. Despite organ shortages, maEDC organs are often considered unsuitable for transplantation. We investigated the outcomes of maEDC organ liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Two hundred and sixty-four HCC liver transplant patients were eligible for analysis. Risk factor analysis was performed for early allograft dysfunction; primary nonfunction; 30-day and 90-day graft failure; and 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year patient mortality. One-year graft survival was higher in recipients of no-maEDC grafts. One-year patient survival did not differ between the recipients of no-maEDC and maEDC organs. The univariate and multivariate analyses revealed no association between maEDC grafts and one-year patient mortality. Graft survival differed between the recipients of no-maEDC and maEDC organs after correcting for a laboratory model of end-stage liver disease (labMELD) score with a cut-off value of 20, but patient survival did not. Patient survival did not differ between recipients who did and did not meet the Milan criteria and who received grafts with and without maEDC. Instead of being discarded, maEDC grafts may expand the organ pool for patients with HCC without impairing patient survival or recurrence-free survival.