Report of two Cases of Acute Pancreatitis after Liver Transplantation for HCC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Acute pancreatitis(AP) following liver transplantation(LT) is a rare but fatal complication, that carries significant morbidity and mortality. There are no published guidelines on how to manage these patients. Herein, we present two cases of LT recipients, who developed AP early after cadaveric LT to explore the etiology and management of AP in these patients. Case presentation: Two male patients, aged 63 and 62, were enrolled. Both had HBV -related HCC and staged beyond Hangzhou Criteria. Case 1 had previous partial hepatectomy for HCC and developed multiple intrahepatic recurrences. Both had longer operation time than usual, hemorrhage and prolonged hypotension during LT, due to extensive adhesions and coagulopathy.Both received a triple immunosuppressive regimen. Subsequently, both developed AP postoperatively at day 14 and day 7. Abdominal CT revealed an enlarged pancreas with peripancreatic encapsulated effusion around the head and tail of the pancreas, respectively(Fig. 1A, C). They were managed conservatively by somatostatin, enteral nutrition and peripancreatic effusion drainage (ultrasound or CT-guided). Case 2 required additional nephroscope-guided debridement for the pancreatic abscess. Case 1 had resolved peripancreatic effusion at day 62 post-LT(Fig.1B), Case 2 still had peripancreatic encapsulated effusion at day 35 post-LT(Fig.1D). Conclusions AP is a rare complication in post LT patients. Common causative factors include surgical factors, infection, biliary complications and immunosuppression. In this study, prolonged intraoperative hypotension and extensive dissection during the operation might be the cause of AP. Conservative management by somatostatin, drainage and minimally invasive surgical procedures for debridement was important in treating AP post-LT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".