File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Conference Paper: Comparable short and long term outcomes in deceased and living donor liver retransplantation

TitleComparable short and long term outcomes in deceased and living donor liver retransplantation
Authors
Issue Date2017
PublisherSpringer New York LLC. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.springer.com/west/home/medicine?SGWID=4-10054-70-173733513-0
Citation
The 26th Conference of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL 2017), Shanghai, China, 15-19 February 2017. In Hepatology International, 2017, v. 11 n. 1 suppl., p. S39, abstract no. OP029 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: Most studies of liver retransplantation were published more than a decade ago. Those published recently all have their focus on deceased donor liver retransplantation (re-DDLT). Living donor liver retransplantation re-LDLT remains an untouched topic. To determine if re-LDLT is a justifiable alternative to re-DDLT. Methods: Liver retransplantation recipients were divided into the reDDLT and re-LDLT groups. The groups were compared in terms of demographic characteristics, pre-retransplant and intraoperative details, and short- and long-term outcomes. Risk for living donors was examined. Result: Twenty-nine patients had a total of 33 re-DDLTs and 15 patients received re-LDLT. The re-LDLT group had significantly lighter grafts (median, 525 vs. 1295 g, p B 0.001), smaller ratio of graft weight to estimated standard liver volume (median, 56.98 vs. 107.7%, p B 0.001), shorter cold ischemia (median, 106 vs. 451 min, p B 0.001), and lower international normalized ratio on postoperative day 14 (median, 1.1 vs. 1.15, p = 0.013). The groups were otherwise comparable. Grade-5 complication occurred to two patients in the reDDLT group. The groups were similar in patient survival (p = 0.326) and graft survival (p = 0.102). No living donors died, but three (20%) of them developed grade-1 complications. Conclusion: With the required expertise, re-LDLT can produce satisfactory results which are comparable to those of re-DDLT while keeping the donor risk at bay. In places where the demand for deceased donor liver grafts far outstrips supply, re-LDLT can be considered as an alternative to re-DDLT if the expertise is available and if the potential recipient benefits can balance out the potential donor risks.
DescriptionThis journal suppl. entitled: Conference Abstracts: 26th Annual Conference of APASL, February 15–19, 2017, Shanghai, China
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/238763
ISSN
2017 Impact Factor: 4.117
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.669

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChok, KSH-
dc.contributor.authorChan, ACY-
dc.contributor.authorFung, JYY-
dc.contributor.authorDai, WC-
dc.contributor.authorCheung, TT-
dc.contributor.authorLo, CM-
dc.date.accessioned2017-02-20T01:25:47Z-
dc.date.available2017-02-20T01:25:47Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationThe 26th Conference of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL 2017), Shanghai, China, 15-19 February 2017. In Hepatology International, 2017, v. 11 n. 1 suppl., p. S39, abstract no. OP029-
dc.identifier.issn1936-0533-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/238763-
dc.descriptionThis journal suppl. entitled: Conference Abstracts: 26th Annual Conference of APASL, February 15–19, 2017, Shanghai, China-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Most studies of liver retransplantation were published more than a decade ago. Those published recently all have their focus on deceased donor liver retransplantation (re-DDLT). Living donor liver retransplantation re-LDLT remains an untouched topic. To determine if re-LDLT is a justifiable alternative to re-DDLT. Methods: Liver retransplantation recipients were divided into the reDDLT and re-LDLT groups. The groups were compared in terms of demographic characteristics, pre-retransplant and intraoperative details, and short- and long-term outcomes. Risk for living donors was examined. Result: Twenty-nine patients had a total of 33 re-DDLTs and 15 patients received re-LDLT. The re-LDLT group had significantly lighter grafts (median, 525 vs. 1295 g, p B 0.001), smaller ratio of graft weight to estimated standard liver volume (median, 56.98 vs. 107.7%, p B 0.001), shorter cold ischemia (median, 106 vs. 451 min, p B 0.001), and lower international normalized ratio on postoperative day 14 (median, 1.1 vs. 1.15, p = 0.013). The groups were otherwise comparable. Grade-5 complication occurred to two patients in the reDDLT group. The groups were similar in patient survival (p = 0.326) and graft survival (p = 0.102). No living donors died, but three (20%) of them developed grade-1 complications. Conclusion: With the required expertise, re-LDLT can produce satisfactory results which are comparable to those of re-DDLT while keeping the donor risk at bay. In places where the demand for deceased donor liver grafts far outstrips supply, re-LDLT can be considered as an alternative to re-DDLT if the expertise is available and if the potential recipient benefits can balance out the potential donor risks.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherSpringer New York LLC. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.springer.com/west/home/medicine?SGWID=4-10054-70-173733513-0-
dc.relation.ispartofHepatology International-
dc.rightsThe final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/[insert DOI]-
dc.titleComparable short and long term outcomes in deceased and living donor liver retransplantation-
dc.typeConference_Paper-
dc.identifier.emailChok, KSH: chok6275@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailChan, ACY: acchan@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailFung, JYY: jfung@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailDai, WC: daiwc@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailCheung, TT: cheung68@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLo, CM: chungmlo@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityChok, KSH=rp02110-
dc.identifier.authorityChan, ACY=rp00310-
dc.identifier.authorityFung, JYY=rp00518-
dc.identifier.authorityCheung, TT=rp02129-
dc.identifier.authorityLo, CM=rp00412-
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s12072-016-9783-9-
dc.identifier.hkuros271451-
dc.identifier.volume11-
dc.identifier.issue1 suppl.-
dc.identifier.spageS39, abstract no. OP029-
dc.identifier.epageS39, abstract no. OP029-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats