Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Predicting and optimising risks for non-hepatic surgery in patients with cirrhosis: insights from the #FGDebate
  1. Rex Wan-Hin Hui1,
  2. Nadir Abbas2,3,
  3. Philip Dunne4,
  4. Dhiraj Tripathi2,5
  1. 1 Department of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
  2. 2 Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  3. 3 The Liver Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
  4. 4 Department of Gastroenterology, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK
  5. 5 The Liver Unit, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Rex Wan-Hin Hui, Department of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong; huirex{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The Frontline Gastroenterology Twitter-debate (#FGDebate) in April 2023 focused on risks of non-hepatic surgery in patients with cirrhosis and was based on the BSG and BASL guidelines.1 The event generated 186 tweets and >292 000 impressions.

Prognostic scores

The debate kicked-off with a case presentation, followed by discussion on prognostic scores for estimating surgical risks. Among online participants, 53.2% chose the Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) or Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores for risk prediction. Other scores chosen included the VOCAL-Penn Score2 (26.2%), Mayo Surgical Score3 (16.3%) and Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient (HVPG) (4.3%). Most respondents chose CTP or MELD as these were familiar and tried-and-tested. However, neither CTP or MELD truly assesses the presence or severity …

View Full Text


  • Twitter @RexWHHui, @Nadirabbas_x

  • Contributors RW-HH drafted the initial manuscript. NA, PD and DT provided critical appraisal and revised the manuscript. All authors have reviewed and approved the final version of this manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.