ANZ journal of surgery · 2008
Liver transplantation: a small-volume unit experience.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Nieuwenhuijs Vincent B, Chen John W, John Libby, Ring John, Harley Hugh, Dolan Paul M, Padbury Robert T A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Results of liver transplantation have improved significantly over the last three decades. Hospital volume has been cited as an important outcome factor. The South Australian (SA) programme commenced in 1992 as the fourth centre in Australia.
METHODS: Patient and graft survival curves were computed from the Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) Liver Transplant Registry. SA results were compared with the rest of ANZ. All recipients of a cadaveric liver from the start of the SA programme in 1992 until the 100th case in 2005 were included and compared with recipients from ANZ in the same period.
RESULTS: In SA, 100 recipients received 104 grafts (average 8.0/year). In the same period 1438 recipients received 1530 grafts in ANZ (mean 23.4/year per unit). The median follow up was 6.2 years. Patient and graft survival curves were similar (P = 0.51, log-rank test.) Survival rates at 1, 5 and 10 years were 0.93, 0.83, 0.61 and 0.88, 0.80, 0.72 for SA and ANZ, respectively (P = NS). There was trend towards a higher mortality rate of recurrent hepatitis C in SA patients when compared with the rest of ANZ (4.0 vs 1.3% respectively, P = 0.06). Recipient variables, such as age and primary liver disease did not differ between SA and ANZ. For the SA patients the biliary anastomotic stricture rate was 20%, primary non-function rate was 2%, hepatic artery thrombosis 1% and portal vein thrombosis 1%.
CONCLUSION: Good results are possible in a small-volume unit for cadaveric adult liver transplant.
METHODS: Patient and graft survival curves were computed from the Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) Liver Transplant Registry. SA results were compared with the rest of ANZ. All recipients of a cadaveric liver from the start of the SA programme in 1992 until the 100th case in 2005 were included and compared with recipients from ANZ in the same period.
RESULTS: In SA, 100 recipients received 104 grafts (average 8.0/year). In the same period 1438 recipients received 1530 grafts in ANZ (mean 23.4/year per unit). The median follow up was 6.2 years. Patient and graft survival curves were similar (P = 0.51, log-rank test.) Survival rates at 1, 5 and 10 years were 0.93, 0.83, 0.61 and 0.88, 0.80, 0.72 for SA and ANZ, respectively (P = NS). There was trend towards a higher mortality rate of recurrent hepatitis C in SA patients when compared with the rest of ANZ (4.0 vs 1.3% respectively, P = 0.06). Recipient variables, such as age and primary liver disease did not differ between SA and ANZ. For the SA patients the biliary anastomotic stricture rate was 20%, primary non-function rate was 2%, hepatic artery thrombosis 1% and portal vein thrombosis 1%.
CONCLUSION: Good results are possible in a small-volume unit for cadaveric adult liver transplant.