File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)

Conference Paper: Similar donor and recipient outcomes after left lobe and right lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation

TitleSimilar donor and recipient outcomes after left lobe and right lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation
Authors
Issue Date2016
PublisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hepatology.org/
Citation
The 67th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) - The Liver Meeting 2016, Boston, MA., 11-15 November 2016. In Hepatology, 2016, v. 64 suppl. S1, p. 696A, abstract no. 1390 How to Cite?
AbstractBACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the impact of graft selection on donor and recipient outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). METHODS: This was a retrospective study that involved all patients who had LDLT at a university hospital. Data was retrieved from a prospective collected database from 1996 to 2015. For recipients, we evaluated pre-transplant demographics, MELD, graft size, operative details, portal flow modulation, graft function at day7, complication, and patient and graft survival. For donors, we looked into graft type, postoperative complications, hospital stays and mortality. RESULTS: There’re 579 LDLT during study period (543 right and 36 left lobe). Eighteen (50%) grafts from left lobe with graft weight to estimated standard liver volume (ELSV) ≤ 35% while only 53/543 (9.8%) for right lobe was ≤ 35% (p<0.001). Portal flow modulation was required in 6/36 (16.7%) left lobe and 28/543 (5.2%) right lobe graft (p=0.03). Recipients’ MELD was significantly higher in right lobe (23 vs. 14, p=0.04). Hospital stay was similar (21 vs. 18 days, p=0.38) while ICU stay was longer for left recipients (7 vs. 4 days, p=0.003). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (11.1% for left and 10.1% for right, p=0.3) and 5-year survival (Figure 1). Donor outcomes were better after left lobe donation. Peak INR was 1.2 vs.1.5 (p<0.001) and peak bilirubin was 29 vs. 50umol/L (p<0.001). ICU stay was the same (1 vs. 1 day, p=0.42) and hospital stay was shorter for left lobe donors (6 vs. 8 days, p=0.02). There’s no 30 day or hospital mortality in donors. Overall complications were higher in right lobe donors (5.6 vs. 19%, p=0.04). There’s no difference in recipient outcomes and day 7 graft function after left/right lobe LDLT after adjusting preLT MELD with propensity score matching. CONCLUSION: With left lobe LDLT, portal flow modulation was more required to prevent small for size syndrome. Left lobe donors have better outcomes while recipient survival at 5-year was the same. In carefully selected patients, left lobe LDLT provides similar outcomes as to right lobe donation.
DescriptionPoster Session 3: no. 1390
This free journal suppl. entitled: Special Issue: The 67th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases: The Liver Meeting 2016
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/236464
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 12.9
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 5.011

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWong, CLT-
dc.contributor.authorFung, JYY-
dc.contributor.authorChok, KSH-
dc.contributor.authorChan, ACY-
dc.contributor.authorLo, CM-
dc.date.accessioned2016-11-25T00:53:46Z-
dc.date.available2016-11-25T00:53:46Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationThe 67th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) - The Liver Meeting 2016, Boston, MA., 11-15 November 2016. In Hepatology, 2016, v. 64 suppl. S1, p. 696A, abstract no. 1390-
dc.identifier.issn0270-9139-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/236464-
dc.descriptionPoster Session 3: no. 1390-
dc.descriptionThis free journal suppl. entitled: Special Issue: The 67th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases: The Liver Meeting 2016-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the impact of graft selection on donor and recipient outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). METHODS: This was a retrospective study that involved all patients who had LDLT at a university hospital. Data was retrieved from a prospective collected database from 1996 to 2015. For recipients, we evaluated pre-transplant demographics, MELD, graft size, operative details, portal flow modulation, graft function at day7, complication, and patient and graft survival. For donors, we looked into graft type, postoperative complications, hospital stays and mortality. RESULTS: There’re 579 LDLT during study period (543 right and 36 left lobe). Eighteen (50%) grafts from left lobe with graft weight to estimated standard liver volume (ELSV) ≤ 35% while only 53/543 (9.8%) for right lobe was ≤ 35% (p<0.001). Portal flow modulation was required in 6/36 (16.7%) left lobe and 28/543 (5.2%) right lobe graft (p=0.03). Recipients’ MELD was significantly higher in right lobe (23 vs. 14, p=0.04). Hospital stay was similar (21 vs. 18 days, p=0.38) while ICU stay was longer for left recipients (7 vs. 4 days, p=0.003). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (11.1% for left and 10.1% for right, p=0.3) and 5-year survival (Figure 1). Donor outcomes were better after left lobe donation. Peak INR was 1.2 vs.1.5 (p<0.001) and peak bilirubin was 29 vs. 50umol/L (p<0.001). ICU stay was the same (1 vs. 1 day, p=0.42) and hospital stay was shorter for left lobe donors (6 vs. 8 days, p=0.02). There’s no 30 day or hospital mortality in donors. Overall complications were higher in right lobe donors (5.6 vs. 19%, p=0.04). There’s no difference in recipient outcomes and day 7 graft function after left/right lobe LDLT after adjusting preLT MELD with propensity score matching. CONCLUSION: With left lobe LDLT, portal flow modulation was more required to prevent small for size syndrome. Left lobe donors have better outcomes while recipient survival at 5-year was the same. In carefully selected patients, left lobe LDLT provides similar outcomes as to right lobe donation.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hepatology.org/-
dc.relation.ispartofHepatology-
dc.rightsHepatology. Copyright © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.-
dc.rightsPreprint: This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: [FULL CITE], which has been published in final form at [Link to final article using the DOI]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. Postprint: This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: [FULL CITE], which has been published in final form at [Link to final article using the DOI]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. Special Statement for Preprint only Before publication: 'This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in [The Journal of Pathology] Copyright © ([year]) ([Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland])'. After publication: the preprint notice should be amended to follows: 'This is a preprint of an article published in [include the complete citation information for the final version of the Contribution as published in the print edition of the Journal]' For Cochrane Library/ Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, add statement & acknowledgement : ‘This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 20XX, Issue X. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.’ Please include reference to the Review and hyperlink to the original version using the following format e.g. Authors. Title of Review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 20XX, Issue #. Art. No.: CD00XXXX. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX (insert persistent link to the article by using the URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX) (This statement should refer to the most recent issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in which the Review published.)-
dc.titleSimilar donor and recipient outcomes after left lobe and right lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation-
dc.typeConference_Paper-
dc.identifier.emailWong, CLT: wongtcl@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailFung, JYY: jfung@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailChok, KSH: chok6275@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailChan, ACY: acchan@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLo, CM: chungmlo@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityWong, CLT=rp01679-
dc.identifier.authorityFung, JYY=rp00518-
dc.identifier.authorityChok, KSH=rp02110-
dc.identifier.authorityChan, ACY=rp00310-
dc.identifier.authorityLo, CM=rp00412-
dc.description.naturelink_to_OA_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/hep.28799-
dc.identifier.hkuros270405-
dc.identifier.volume64-
dc.identifier.issuesuppl. S1-
dc.identifier.spage696A, abstract no. 1390-
dc.identifier.epage696A, abstract no. 1390-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-
dc.identifier.issnl0270-9139-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats