Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35567584›Full record

SynthesisClinical transplantation2022

Which cava anastomotic techniques are optimal regarding immediate and short-term outcomes after liver transplantation: A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations.

Tamer M Shaker, James D Eason, Brian R Davidson, Rolf N Barth, Jacques Pirenne, Oscar Imventarza, Michael Spiro, Dimitri Aristotle Raptis, John Fung, ERS4OLT.org Working Group

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical transplantation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Tamer M ShakerDivision of Transplant, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
James D EasonJames D. Eason Transplant Institute, University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
Brian R DavidsonUCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, Royal Free Campus, Rowland Hill Street, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Rolf N BarthDepartment of Surgery, Transplantation Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Jacques PirenneDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Transplantation, Lab of Abdominal Transplantation, Transplantation Research Group, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Oscar ImventarzaLiver Transplant Unit, Hospital Argerich, Hospital Garrahan, Stalyc Representative, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Michael SpiroDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Dimitri Aristotle RaptisClinical Service of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
John FungDepartment of Surgery, Transplantation Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
ERS4OLT.org Working Group

Funding

This manuscript was prepared for the ERAS4OLT.org Consensus Conference 2022, which is partially funded by the International Liver Transplant Society (ILTS).
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt has long been debated whether cava anastomosis should be performed with the piggyback technique or cava replacement, with or without veno-venous bypass (VVB), with or without temporary portocaval shunt (PCS) in the setting of liver transplantation.

objectivesTo identify whether different cava anastomotic techniques and other maneuvers benefit the recipient regarding short-term outcomes and to provide international expert panel recommendations. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.

methodsA systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel (CRD42021240979).

resultsOf 3205 records screened, 307 publications underwent full-text assessment for eligibility and 47 were included in qualitative synthesis. Four studies were randomized control trials. Eighteen studies were comparative. The remaining 25 were single-center retrospective noncomparative studies.

conclusionBased on existing data and expert opinion, the panel cannot recommend one cava reconstruction technique over another, rather the surgical approach should be based on surgeon preference and center dependent, with special consideration toward patient circumstances (Quality of evidence: Low | Grade of Recommendation: Strong). The panel recommends against routine use of vevo-venous bypass (Quality of evidence: Very Low | Grade of Recommendation: Strong) and against the routine use of temporary porto-caval shunt (Quality of evidence: Very Low | Grade of Recommendation: Strong).

Indexed as

KavaLiver TransplantationAnastomosis, SurgicalHumansPortacaval Shunt, SurgicalRetrospective StudiesVena Cava, Inferiorcaval replacementcavocavostomyliver transplantationpiggyback techniquerenal functiontemporary portocaval shuntvenovenous bypass

Identifiers

PMID35567584
PMCPMC10078200

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.