Transplantation proceedings · 2005
Right hemiliver transplant: results from living and cadaveric donors.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Giacomoni A, De Carlis L, Lauterio A, Slim A O, Aseni P, Sammartino C, Mangoni I, Belli L S, De Gasperi A
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: Although right hemiliver transplant from living donors (LD) is gaining acceptance as a way to overcome the critical organ shortage, splitting a liver for two adults from cadaveric donor (CD) is still controversial.
METHODS: From May 1999 to August 2004 we performed nine right hemiliver transplants using segments 5-6-7-8 from CD and 18 from LD.
RESULTS: We compared the two procedures to evaluate both the technical aspects and the patients' outcomes. In the CD group, three recipients died (33%), two of whom were UNOS Status 2A. Patient and graft survivals were 67% (median follow-up: 23 months). Among the LD group, three recipients died (17%) and two were retransplanted; one because of arterial thrombosis and the other as a consequence of small-for-size syndrome. Patient and graft survivals were 83% and 72%, respectively (median follow-up: 8 months). There were five early complications in the CD group (55%) and five (27%) in the LD group. Two patients in the LD group experienced a late stenosis of the biliary anastomosis.
DISCUSSION: Data from our early experience show that better results are achieved by right hemiliver transplants from LD; the morbidity and mortality are higher among the CD group. We believe that this finding is probably a consequence of better preoperative donor evaluation, shorter ischemia time, better logistics, and learning curve. Recipient selection is crucial; this kind of graft is at high risk of poor function, technical complications, and infections. Further experience will help to clarify the reliability of right hemiliver transplants from CD.
METHODS: From May 1999 to August 2004 we performed nine right hemiliver transplants using segments 5-6-7-8 from CD and 18 from LD.
RESULTS: We compared the two procedures to evaluate both the technical aspects and the patients' outcomes. In the CD group, three recipients died (33%), two of whom were UNOS Status 2A. Patient and graft survivals were 67% (median follow-up: 23 months). Among the LD group, three recipients died (17%) and two were retransplanted; one because of arterial thrombosis and the other as a consequence of small-for-size syndrome. Patient and graft survivals were 83% and 72%, respectively (median follow-up: 8 months). There were five early complications in the CD group (55%) and five (27%) in the LD group. Two patients in the LD group experienced a late stenosis of the biliary anastomosis.
DISCUSSION: Data from our early experience show that better results are achieved by right hemiliver transplants from LD; the morbidity and mortality are higher among the CD group. We believe that this finding is probably a consequence of better preoperative donor evaluation, shorter ischemia time, better logistics, and learning curve. Recipient selection is crucial; this kind of graft is at high risk of poor function, technical complications, and infections. Further experience will help to clarify the reliability of right hemiliver transplants from CD.