Transplantation · 2021
Parietal Peritoneum as a Novel Substitute for Middle Hepatic Vein Reconstruction During Living Donor Liver Transplantation.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяVideo-Audio MediaНазвание 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.
Hong Suk Kyun, Yi Nam-Joon, Cho Jae-Hyung, Lee Jeong-Moo, Hong Kwangpyo, Han Eui Soo, Lee Kwang-Woong, Suh Kyung-Suk
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although autologous, cryopreserved, or artificial vascular grafts can be used as interpositional vascular substitutes for middle hepatic vein (MHV) reconstruction during living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), they are not always available, are limited in size and length, and are associated with risks of infection. This study aimed to evaluate the parietal peritoneum as a novel substitute for MHV reconstruction during LDLT.
METHODS: Prospectively collected data of 15 patients who underwent LDLT using the right liver with reconstruction of MHV using the recipients' own parietal peritoneum graft were retrospectively reviewed.
RESULTS: The 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-mo patency rates were 57.1%, 57.1%, 57.1%, and 28.6%, respectively. Among the 15 cases assessed, the most recent 6 cases showed patent graft flow until discharge with 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-mo patency rates of 80.0%, 80.0%, 80.0%, and 20.0%, respectively. All patients survived with tolerable liver function tests. There were no significant congestion-related problems, except for 1 patient who experienced MHV thrombosis requiring aspiration thrombectomy and stent insertion. There were no infection-related complications. All patients survived to the final follow-up, with a minimum follow-up duration of 8 mo. When comparing the latter 6 cases of peritoneal grafts and the recent 28 cases of conventional polytetrafluorethylene graft, the overall patency rate of the polytetrafluorethylene group was higher (P = 0.002). There were no major differences other than long-term patency rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Parietal peritoneum may be a novel autologous substitute for MHV reconstruction during LDLT.
METHODS: Prospectively collected data of 15 patients who underwent LDLT using the right liver with reconstruction of MHV using the recipients' own parietal peritoneum graft were retrospectively reviewed.
RESULTS: The 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-mo patency rates were 57.1%, 57.1%, 57.1%, and 28.6%, respectively. Among the 15 cases assessed, the most recent 6 cases showed patent graft flow until discharge with 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-mo patency rates of 80.0%, 80.0%, 80.0%, and 20.0%, respectively. All patients survived with tolerable liver function tests. There were no significant congestion-related problems, except for 1 patient who experienced MHV thrombosis requiring aspiration thrombectomy and stent insertion. There were no infection-related complications. All patients survived to the final follow-up, with a minimum follow-up duration of 8 mo. When comparing the latter 6 cases of peritoneal grafts and the recent 28 cases of conventional polytetrafluorethylene graft, the overall patency rate of the polytetrafluorethylene group was higher (P = 0.002). There were no major differences other than long-term patency rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Parietal peritoneum may be a novel autologous substitute for MHV reconstruction during LDLT.