Pediatric surgery international · 2024
Risk factors for post-operative portal vein stenosis in pediatric liver transplantation: a single center case-control study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Qian Yigang, Zhang Wei, Wang Weili, Li Zhiwei, Shao Yi, Gao Shunliang, Wu Jian, Yu Jun, Zhang Min, Shen Yan, Bai Xueli, Liang Tingbo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The incidence of post-transplant poral vein stenosis (PVS) is higher in pediatric liver transplantation, probably resulting from various portal vein (PV) reconstruction methods or other factors.
METHODS: 332 patients less than 12 years old when receiving liver transplantation (LT) were enrolled in this research. Portal vein reconstruction methods include anastomosis to the left side of the recipient PV trunk (type 1, n = 170), to the recipient left and right PV branch patch (type 2, n = 79), using vein graft interposition (type 3, n = 32), or end-to-end PV anastomosis (type 4, n = 50). The incidence of PVS was analyzed in terms to different PV reconstruction methods and other possible risk factors.
RESULTS: PVS occurred in 35 (10.5%) patients. Of the 32 patients using vein graft, 20 patients received a cryopreserved vein graft, 11 (55%) developed PVS, while the remaining 12 patients received a fresh iliac vein for PV interposition and none of them developed PVS. 9 patients whose liver donor was under 12 years old developed PVS, with an incidence of 18.8%.
CONCLUSION: Cryopreserved vein graft interposition and a liver donor under 12 are independent risk factors for PVS in pediatric LT.
METHODS: 332 patients less than 12 years old when receiving liver transplantation (LT) were enrolled in this research. Portal vein reconstruction methods include anastomosis to the left side of the recipient PV trunk (type 1, n = 170), to the recipient left and right PV branch patch (type 2, n = 79), using vein graft interposition (type 3, n = 32), or end-to-end PV anastomosis (type 4, n = 50). The incidence of PVS was analyzed in terms to different PV reconstruction methods and other possible risk factors.
RESULTS: PVS occurred in 35 (10.5%) patients. Of the 32 patients using vein graft, 20 patients received a cryopreserved vein graft, 11 (55%) developed PVS, while the remaining 12 patients received a fresh iliac vein for PV interposition and none of them developed PVS. 9 patients whose liver donor was under 12 years old developed PVS, with an incidence of 18.8%.
CONCLUSION: Cryopreserved vein graft interposition and a liver donor under 12 are independent risk factors for PVS in pediatric LT.