Cargando…

Outcomes of right-lobe and left-lobe living-donor liver transplantations using small-for-size grafts

AIM: To analyze the outcomes of living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using left-lobe (LL) or right-lobe (RL) small-for-size (SFS) grafts. METHODS: Prospectively collected data of adult patients who underwent LDLT at our hospital in the period from January 2003 to December 2013 were reviewed. Th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: She, Wong Hoi, Chok, Kenneth SH, Fung, James YY, Chan, Albert CY, Lo, Chung Mau
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5483501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28694667
http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i23.4270
Descripción
Sumario:AIM: To analyze the outcomes of living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using left-lobe (LL) or right-lobe (RL) small-for-size (SFS) grafts. METHODS: Prospectively collected data of adult patients who underwent LDLT at our hospital in the period from January 2003 to December 2013 were reviewed. The patients were divided into the RL-LDLT group and the LL-LDLT group. The two groups were compared in terms of short- and long-term outcomes, including incidence of postoperative complication, graft function, graft survival, and patient survival. A SFS graft was defined as a graft with a ratio of graft weight (GW) to recipient standard liver volume (RSLV) (GW/RSLV) of < 50%. The Urata formula was used to estimate RSLV. RESULTS: Totally 218 patients were included for analysis, with 199 patients in the RL-LDLT group and 19 patients in the LL-LDLT group. The two groups were similar in terms of age (median, 53 years in the RL-LDLT group and 52 years in the LL-LDLT group, P = 0.997) but had significantly different ratios of men to women (165:34 in the RL-LDLT group and 8:11 in the LL-LDLT group, P < 0.0001). The two groups were also significantly different in GW (P < 0.0001), GW/RSLV (P < 0.0001), and graft cold ischemic time (P = 0.007). When it comes to postoperative complication, the groups were comparable (P = 0.105). Five patients died in hospital, 4 (2%) in the RL-LDLT group and 1 (5.3%) in the LL-LDLT group (P = 0.918). There were 38 graft losses, 33 (16.6%) in the RL-LDLT group and 5 (26.3%) in the LL-LDLT group (P = 0.452). The 5-year graft survival rate was significantly better in the RL-LDLT group (95.2% vs 89.5%, P = 0.049). The two groups had similar 5-year patient survival rates (RL-LDLT: 86.8%, LL-LDLT: 89.5%, P = 0.476). CONCLUSION: The use of SFS graft in LDLT requires careful tailor-made surgical planning and meticulous operation. LL-LDLT can be a good alternative to RL-LDLT with similar recipient outcomes but a lower donor risk. Further research into different patient conditions is needed in order to validate the use of LL graft.