PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the relative impact of segmental grafts from cadaveric and living donors on outcomes in 3,409 pediatric transplants (<18 years) between 1990 and 1996. METHODS: Analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Scientific registry data from 1990 to 1996 was performed. RESULTS: Liver grafts consisted of 2,636 whole grafts (WLG), 246 liver donor grafts (LDG), 89 split liver graft (SLG), and 438 reduced-size grafts (RSG). Although the number of pediatric transplants were unchanged between 1990 and 1996, segmental grafts made up an increasing proportion from 14.5% to 29.2%, and WLG decreased proportionately. The increase among segmental grafts occurred for LDG (threefold), followed by SLG (53%) and RSG (50%). One-year graft and patient survival rates for 3,409 transplants were 69.7% and 81.9%, respectively and were significantly higher (P<.001) in nonhospitalized patients than in hospitalized patients (79.8% and 91.3% v 61.0% and 73.7%). LDG graft survival (75.9%) was comparable with WLG(70.9%) but significantly better at 1 year than SLG (60.3%, P = .007) and RSG (61.1%, P = .001), even after excluding retransplants and ICU patients. Patient survival rates were not different statistically between groups. A separate analysis of outcomes in recipients less than 1 year of age suggested significantly better graft and patient survivals for LDG (83.3% and 89.4%) than for WLG (62.3% and 76.5%) and RSG (62.7% and 75%). CONCLUSIONS: Segmental liver grafts from cadaveric and living donors constitute an increasing proportion of pediatric transplants. Survival rates of cadaveric segmental graft are inferior to those of live donor segmental grafts even after adjustment for medical condition. Live donor grafts demonstrate consistently superior graft and patient outcomes in pediatric recipients less than 1 year of age, and should be promoted aggressively as a solution to the critical shortage of size matched grafts in small recipients.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the relative impact of segmental grafts from cadaveric and living donors on outcomes in 3,409 pediatric transplants (<18 years) between 1990 and 1996. METHODS: Analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Scientific registry data from 1990 to 1996 was performed. RESULTS: Liver grafts consisted of 2,636 whole grafts (WLG), 246 liver donor grafts (LDG), 89 split liver graft (SLG), and 438 reduced-size grafts (RSG). Although the number of pediatric transplants were unchanged between 1990 and 1996, segmental grafts made up an increasing proportion from 14.5% to 29.2%, and WLG decreased proportionately. The increase among segmental grafts occurred for LDG (threefold), followed by SLG (53%) and RSG (50%). One-year graft and patient survival rates for 3,409 transplants were 69.7% and 81.9%, respectively and were significantly higher (P<.001) in nonhospitalized patients than in hospitalized patients (79.8% and 91.3% v 61.0% and 73.7%). LDG graft survival (75.9%) was comparable with WLG(70.9%) but significantly better at 1 year than SLG (60.3%, P = .007) and RSG (61.1%, P = .001), even after excluding retransplants and ICU patients. Patient survival rates were not different statistically between groups. A separate analysis of outcomes in recipients less than 1 year of age suggested significantly better graft and patient survivals for LDG (83.3% and 89.4%) than for WLG (62.3% and 76.5%) and RSG (62.7% and 75%). CONCLUSIONS: Segmental liver grafts from cadaveric and living donors constitute an increasing proportion of pediatric transplants. Survival rates of cadaveric segmental graft are inferior to those of live donor segmental grafts even after adjustment for medical condition. Live donor grafts demonstrate consistently superior graft and patient outcomes in pediatric recipients less than 1 year of age, and should be promoted aggressively as a solution to the critical shortage of size matched grafts in small recipients.
Authors: Ivan R Diamond; Annie Fecteau; J Michael Millis; Julian E Losanoff; Vicky Ng; Ravinder Anand; Changhong Song Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: D C Broering; L Mueller; R Ganschow; J S Kim; E G Achilles; H Schäfer; M Gundlach; L Fischer; M Sterneck; C Hillert; K Helmke; J R Izbicki; M Burdelski; X Rogiers Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Robert S Venick; Douglas G Farmer; Sue V McDiarmid; John P Duffy; Sherilyn A Gordon; Hasan Yersiz; Johnny C Hong; Jorge H Vargas; Marvin E Ament; Ronald W Busuttil Journal: Transplantation Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: C M Miller; G E Gondolesi; S Florman; C Matsumoto; L Muñoz; T Yoshizumi; T Artis; T M Fishbein; P A Sheiner; L Kim-Schluger; T Schiano; B L Shneider; S Emre; M E Schwartz Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Faisal A Abaalkhail; Mohammed I Al Sebayel; Mohammed A Shagrani; Wael A O'Hali; Nasser M Almasri; Abduljaleel A Alalwan; Mohammed Y Alghamdi; Hamad Al-Bahili; Mohammed S AlQahtani; Saleh I Alabbad; Waleed K Al-Hamoudi; Saleh A Alqahtani Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2021-09 Impact factor: 1.422
Authors: Geraldine C Diaz; John F Renz; Chris Mudge; John P Roberts; Nancy L Ascher; Jean C Emond; Philip Rosenthal Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 12.969