Cirugia pediatrica : organo oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Cirugia Pediatrica · 2010
[Need of hepatic bipartition or split in the transplant in children].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание 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.
Andrés A M, López Santamaría M, Burgos L, Herńandez F, Encinas J L, Barrena S, Miguel M, Leal N, Martínez L, Gámez M, Murcia J, Frauca E, Jara P, Tovar J A
Аннотация
AIM: To analyze the benefits of Split (for adult and for child) in liver transplantation.
PATIENT/METHODS: 1) Analysis of the waiting list mortality estimated on 228 inclusions for transplant since January 2004 to December 2008.2) Impact of the variant techniques (living-related donor and split) on the waiting list mortality in our patients. 3) Analysis of the outcome of 33 split livers which allowed to perform 66 transplants (1994-2008).
RESULTS: Estimated as number of patients by 1,000 candidates by year of exposure, the waiting list mortality was 110 in children older than 5 year old, 180 in children from 2 to 5 year-old, 90 in children between 1 and 2 year-old and 510 in younger than 1 year (p<0.05 for the last group). 36/66 split grafts were implanted by our group. Five grafts were lost, 3 due to retransplantation and 2 due to death. Overall patient/graft survival alter 10 years of follow-up was 94.5% and 85.1%, respectively. The rest of the grafts (n=30), were used in other hospitals, and 4 were lost in the early postoperative period. Since the beginning of the study, 85.4% of children between 1 and 2 years, received a living-donor or a split graft, as only 59.9% in the younger than 1 year-old group.
CONCLUSION: Our results absolutely justify the ethics of split liver transplantation for an adult and a child. Despite other factors, the benefits of the variant techniques in the 1-2 year-old group are obvious. Up to 60% optimization with these techniques in children younger than 1 year would not be yet enough in order to decrease the mortality waiting list down to that of the rest of the groups.
PATIENT/METHODS: 1) Analysis of the waiting list mortality estimated on 228 inclusions for transplant since January 2004 to December 2008.2) Impact of the variant techniques (living-related donor and split) on the waiting list mortality in our patients. 3) Analysis of the outcome of 33 split livers which allowed to perform 66 transplants (1994-2008).
RESULTS: Estimated as number of patients by 1,000 candidates by year of exposure, the waiting list mortality was 110 in children older than 5 year old, 180 in children from 2 to 5 year-old, 90 in children between 1 and 2 year-old and 510 in younger than 1 year (p<0.05 for the last group). 36/66 split grafts were implanted by our group. Five grafts were lost, 3 due to retransplantation and 2 due to death. Overall patient/graft survival alter 10 years of follow-up was 94.5% and 85.1%, respectively. The rest of the grafts (n=30), were used in other hospitals, and 4 were lost in the early postoperative period. Since the beginning of the study, 85.4% of children between 1 and 2 years, received a living-donor or a split graft, as only 59.9% in the younger than 1 year-old group.
CONCLUSION: Our results absolutely justify the ethics of split liver transplantation for an adult and a child. Despite other factors, the benefits of the variant techniques in the 1-2 year-old group are obvious. Up to 60% optimization with these techniques in children younger than 1 year would not be yet enough in order to decrease the mortality waiting list down to that of the rest of the groups.