scholarly journals Liver regeneration after adult living donor and deceased donor split-liver transplants

2004 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 1078-1078 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zakiyah Kadry ◽  
Nazia Selzner ◽  
Markus Selzner ◽  
Pierre-Alain Clavien
2004 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 374-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abhinav Humar ◽  
Kambiz Kosari ◽  
Timothy D. Sielaff ◽  
Brooke Glessing ◽  
Maria Gomes ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 399-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abhinav Humar ◽  
Kirsten Horn ◽  
Ann Kalis ◽  
Brooke Glessing ◽  
William D. Payne ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 214-240
Author(s):  
Lainie Friedman ◽  
J. Richard Thistlethwaite, Jr

In the 1980s in the United States (US), young children in liver failure were at proportionately greater risk of dying on the deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) waitlist than adults because of the lack of appropriately sized grafts. This led to the development of two deceased donor liver techniques—reduced-size (trimming the graft to decrease its size) and split-liver (where one liver could provide grafts to two candidates). These developments decreased but did not eliminate waitlist mortality for young children. Split-liver DDLT paved the way for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in children using the lateral segments of the left lobe. Pediatric LDLT began slowly at only a few centers with successful donor and recipient results. Adult-to-adult LDLT expanded quickly despite many US programs having limited experience, low volumes, and significant donor morbidity. The ethical issues raised by the rapid expansion of adult-to-adult LDLT in the US are discussed.


2008 ◽  
Vol 86 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 612-613
Author(s):  
E OʼLoughlin ◽  
M Stormon ◽  
A Shun ◽  
D Verran ◽  
M Crawford ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 339-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shimul A Shah ◽  
Gary A Levy ◽  
Lesley D Adcock ◽  
Gary Gallagher ◽  
David R Grant

The present review outlines the principles of living donor liver transplantation, donor workup, procedure and outcomes. Living donation offers a solution to the growing gap between the need for liver transplants and the limited availability of deceased donor organs. With a multidisciplinary team focused on donor safety and experienced surgeons capable of performing complex resection/reconstruction procedures, donor morbidity is low and recipient outcomes are comparable with results of deceased donor transplantation.


2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (12) ◽  
pp. 1140-1147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaifali Sandal ◽  
Anthony Almudevar ◽  
Sandesh Parajuli ◽  
Anirban Bose

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinsoo Rhu ◽  
Jong Man Kim ◽  
Kyunga Kim ◽  
Heejin Yoo ◽  
Gyu-Seong Choi ◽  
...  

AbstractThis study was designed to build models predicting early graft failure after liver transplantation. Cox regression model for predicting early graft failure after liver transplantation using post-transplantation aspartate aminotransferase, total bilirubin, and international normalized ratio of prothrombin time was constructed based on data from both living donor (n = 1153) and deceased donor (n = 359) liver transplantation performed during 2004 to 2018. The model was compared with Model for Early Allograft Function Scoring (MEAF) and early allograft dysfunction (EAD) with their C-index and time-dependent area-under-curve (AUC). The C-index of the model for living donor (0.73, CI = 0.67–0.79) was significantly higher compared to those of both MEAF (0.69, P = 0.03) and EAD (0.66, P = 0.001) while C-index for deceased donor (0.74, CI = 0.65–0.83) was only significantly higher compared to C-index of EAD. (0.66, P = 0.002) Time-dependent AUC at 2 weeks of living donor (0.96, CI = 0.91–1.00) and deceased donor (0.98, CI = 0.96–1.00) were significantly higher compared to those of EAD. (both 0.83, P < 0.001 for living donor and deceased donor) Time-dependent AUC at 4 weeks of living donor (0.93, CI = 0.86–0.99) was significantly higher compared to those of both MEAF (0.87, P = 0.02) and EAD. (0.84, P = 0.02) Time-dependent AUC at 4 weeks of deceased donor (0.94, CI = 0.89–1.00) was significantly higher compared to both MEAF (0.82, P = 0.02) and EAD. (0.81, P < 0.001). The prediction model for early graft failure after liver transplantation showed high predictability and validity with higher predictability compared to traditional models for both living donor and deceased donor liver transplantation.


2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (s16) ◽  
pp. 29-29
Author(s):  
H. Tan ◽  
K. Tom ◽  
N. Thai ◽  
J. Marsh ◽  
T. Shaw-Stiffel ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document