Published online Jul 28, 2018. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i28.3171
Peer-review started: May 16, 2018
First decision: June 6, 2018
Revised: July 8, 2018
Accepted: July 16, 2018
Article in press: July 16, 2018
Published online: July 28, 2018
Processing time: 72 Days and 8.6 Hours
Recurrence of PSC (rPSC) following liver transplantation occurs in up to a quarter of transplant recipients. Prophylactic colectomy has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the incidence of rPSC.
Current literature on the benefit of prophylactic colectomy for prevention of rPSC post liver transplantation does not include any randomized controlled trials. Findings of reported studies need thus to be examined in a critical way, to assess strength of current evidence and to highlight areas for future improvement.
This study aims to critically review the existing evidence regarding prophylactic colectomy for prevention of post liver transplant rPSC, to evaluate reported studies and to identify shortcomings that should be addressed in future studies.
A systematic review was carried out, using structured search terms and a reproducible study selection procedure. Data were extracted and tabulated. The quality of the included studies was evaluated according to modified methodological index for non-randomized studies criteria.
From a total of 180 publications, 6 were included in the final analysis and all of them were retrospective cohort studies. There was significant heterogeneity in the studied samples, regarding other prognostic factors as well as timing and type of colectomy, but the overall evidence favoured a protective role of pre-/peri- liver transplantation (LT) colectomy in rPSC.
This study reviews and reports the results of the existing literature in a systematic and objective way. In the absence of randomized prospective studies, such an approach is indicated for drawing conclusions based on findings of retrospective cohort studies. It confirms the overall impression that colectomy might convey protection against rPSC after LT, but the current literature cannot provide definite answers. Finally, our work identifies a lack of comparable groups and failure to report loss to follow-up as the main limitations of reported studies.
According to the findings of the present study, prophylactic colectomy seems to play a protective role in rPSC post LT, but the existing evidence is not strong. The question would be better answered through prospective randomized trials. It is understood though that such attempt might face several difficulties, particularly in terms of sample size. Alternatively, if retrospective studies were to be carried out, they should include comparison between two groups, those who undergo prophylactic colectomy and those who don’t, and patients’ characteristics, follow-up and outcomes should be reported in a more detailed way.