OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of technical modifications on living-donor liver transplants in children since their introduction in 1989. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although more than 4,000 liver transplants are performed every year in the United States, only approximately 500 are performed in children. Living-donor liver transplantation has helped to alleviate the organ shortage for small children in need of liver transplantation. Few centers have amassed a sufficient number of cases to evaluate the impact of the different techniques used in pediatric living-donor liver transplantation. METHODS: From 1989 through 1997, 104 primary living-donor liver transplants were performed at the University of Chicago. Three phases of the living-donor liver transplant program can be defined based on the techniques of vascular reconstruction: phase 1, November 1989 to November 1994 (n = 78); phase 2, November 1994 to January 1996 (n = 6); and January 1996 to present (n = 20). The patients' charts were reviewed retrospectively. The incidence and type of vascular complications and patient and graft survival rates were analyzed. RESULTS: Although the demographics of the patients have not changed during the three phases of the living-donor liver transplant program, the outcomes have improved. Without the use of conduits, the incidence of portal vein complications has significantly decreased from 44% to 8%. The incidence of hepatic artery thrombosis has decreased from 22% to 0% with the use of microvascular techniques. The combined use of both techniques has led to a significant increase in graft survival, from 74% to 94%. CONCLUSIONS: The living-donor liver transplant recipient operation has undergone significant technical changes since its introduction in 1989. These changes have decreased the vascular complications associated with this type of graft. Avoiding the use of vascular conduits and performing microvascular hepatic artery anastomoses are the critical steps in improving graft survival.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of technical modifications on living-donor liver transplants in children since their introduction in 1989. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although more than 4,000 liver transplants are performed every year in the United States, only approximately 500 are performed in children. Living-donor liver transplantation has helped to alleviate the organ shortage for small children in need of liver transplantation. Few centers have amassed a sufficient number of cases to evaluate the impact of the different techniques used in pediatric living-donor liver transplantation. METHODS: From 1989 through 1997, 104 primary living-donor liver transplants were performed at the University of Chicago. Three phases of the living-donor liver transplant program can be defined based on the techniques of vascular reconstruction: phase 1, November 1989 to November 1994 (n = 78); phase 2, November 1994 to January 1996 (n = 6); and January 1996 to present (n = 20). The patients' charts were reviewed retrospectively. The incidence and type of vascular complications and patient and graft survival rates were analyzed. RESULTS: Although the demographics of the patients have not changed during the three phases of the living-donor liver transplant program, the outcomes have improved. Without the use of conduits, the incidence of portal vein complications has significantly decreased from 44% to 8%. The incidence of hepatic artery thrombosis has decreased from 22% to 0% with the use of microvascular techniques. The combined use of both techniques has led to a significant increase in graft survival, from 74% to 94%. CONCLUSIONS: The living-donor liver transplant recipient operation has undergone significant technical changes since its introduction in 1989. These changes have decreased the vascular complications associated with this type of graft. Avoiding the use of vascular conduits and performing microvascular hepatic artery anastomoses are the critical steps in improving graft survival.
Authors: Y Yamaoka; K Ozawa; A Tanaka; K Mori; T Morimoto; Y Shimahara; M Zaima; K Tanaka; K Kumada Journal: Transplantation Date: 1991-07 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: H Kasai; M Makuuchi; S Kawasaki; S Ishizone; S Kitahara; H Matsunami; H Kawarazaki Journal: Transplantation Date: 1992-07 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: C E Broelsch; P F Whitington; J C Emond; T G Heffron; J R Thistlethwaite; L Stevens; J Piper; S H Whitington; J L Lichtor Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1991-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: K Ozawa; S Uemoto; K Tanaka; K Kumada; Y Yamaoka; N Kobayashi; T Inamoto; Y Shimahara; K Mori; K Honda Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1992-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: L H Stevens; J C Emond; J B Piper; T G Heffron; J R Thistlethwaite; P F Whitington; C E Broelsch Journal: Transplantation Date: 1992-02 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: K Mori; I Nagata; S Yamagata; H Sasaki; F Nishizawa; Y Takada; F Moriyasu; K Tanaka; Y Yamaoka; K Kumada Journal: Transplantation Date: 1992-08 Impact factor: 4.939
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: 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