Clinical transplantation · 2022
Optimal surgical workup to ensure safe recovery of the donor after living liver donation - A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations.
Систематический обзорСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Testa Giuliano, Nadalin Silvio, Klair Tarunjeet, Florman Sander, Balci Deniz, Frola Carlo, Spiro Michael, Raptis Dimitri Aristotle, Selzner Markus, ERAS4OLT.org working group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The essential premise of living donor liver transplantation is the assurance that the donors will have a complication-free perioperative course and a prompt recovery. Selection of appropriate donors is the first step to support this premise and is based on tests that constitute the donor workup. The exclusion of liver pathologies and assessment of liver anatomy and volume in the donor candidate are the most important elements in the selection of the appropriate candidate.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is evidence to define an optimal donor surgical workup that would improve short-term outcomes of the donor after living liver donation.
DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.
METHODS: Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel.
RESULTS: Although a liver biopsy remains the only method to exactly determine the percentage and type of steatosis and to detect other liver pathologies, its routine use is not supported. Both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) appear to be adequate for quantifying liver volume; the preference for one or the other is often based on center expertise. MRI is clearly a better technique to assess biliary anatomy, although aberrant biliary anatomy may not be clearly detected. MRI is also more accurate than CT in determining low grades of steatosis. CT angiography is the imaging test of choice to assess the vascular anatomy. There is no evidence of the need for catheter angiography in the modern evaluation of a living liver donor.
CONCLUSIONS: A donor liver biopsy is indicated if abnormalities are present in serological or imaging tests. Both MRI and CT imaging appear to be adequate methodologies. The routine use of catheter angiography is not supported in view of the adequacy of CT angiography in delineating liver vascular anatomy. No imaging modality available to quantify liver volume is superior to another. Biliary anatomy is better defined with MRI, although poor definition can be expected, particularly for abnormal ducts.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is evidence to define an optimal donor surgical workup that would improve short-term outcomes of the donor after living liver donation.
DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.
METHODS: Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel.
RESULTS: Although a liver biopsy remains the only method to exactly determine the percentage and type of steatosis and to detect other liver pathologies, its routine use is not supported. Both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) appear to be adequate for quantifying liver volume; the preference for one or the other is often based on center expertise. MRI is clearly a better technique to assess biliary anatomy, although aberrant biliary anatomy may not be clearly detected. MRI is also more accurate than CT in determining low grades of steatosis. CT angiography is the imaging test of choice to assess the vascular anatomy. There is no evidence of the need for catheter angiography in the modern evaluation of a living liver donor.
CONCLUSIONS: A donor liver biopsy is indicated if abnormalities are present in serological or imaging tests. Both MRI and CT imaging appear to be adequate methodologies. The routine use of catheter angiography is not supported in view of the adequacy of CT angiography in delineating liver vascular anatomy. No imaging modality available to quantify liver volume is superior to another. Biliary anatomy is better defined with MRI, although poor definition can be expected, particularly for abnormal ducts.