OBJECTIVE: To report the results of a multicenter experience of split liver transplantation (SLT) with pediatric donors. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: There are no reports in the literature regarding pediatric liver splitting; further; the use of donors weighing <40 kg for SLT is currently not recommended. METHODS: From 1997 to 2004, 43 conventional split liver procedures from donors aged <15 years were performed. Nineteen donors weighing < or =40 kg and 24 weighing >40 kg were used. Dimensional matching was based on donor-to-recipient weight ratio (DRWR) for left lateral segment (LLS) and on estimated graft-to-recipient weight ratio (eGRWR) for extended right grafts (ERG). In 3 cases, no recipient was found for an ERG. The celiac trunk was retained with the LLS in all but 1 case. Forty LLSs were transplanted into 39 children, while 39 ERGs were transplanted into 11 children and 28 adults. RESULTS: Two-year patient and graft survival rates were not significantly different between recipients of donors < or =40 kg and >40 kg, between pediatric and adult recipients, and between recipients of LLSs and ERGs. Vascular complication rates were 12% in the < or =40 kg donor group and 6% in the >40 kg donor group (P = not significant). There were no differences in the incidence of other complications. Donor ICU stay >3 days and the use of an interposition arterial graft were associated with an increased risk of graft loss and arterial complications, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Splitting of pediatric liver grafts is an effective strategy to increase organ availability, but a cautious evaluation of the use of donors < or =40 kg is necessary. Prolonged donor ICU stay is associated with poorer outcomes. The maintenance of the celiac trunk with LLS does not seem detrimental for right-sided grafts, whereas the use of interposition grafts for arterial reconstruction should be avoided.
OBJECTIVE: To report the results of a multicenter experience of split liver transplantation (SLT) with pediatric donors. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: There are no reports in the literature regarding pediatric liver splitting; further; the use of donors weighing <40 kg for SLT is currently not recommended. METHODS: From 1997 to 2004, 43 conventional split liver procedures from donors aged <15 years were performed. Nineteen donors weighing < or =40 kg and 24 weighing >40 kg were used. Dimensional matching was based on donor-to-recipient weight ratio (DRWR) for left lateral segment (LLS) and on estimated graft-to-recipient weight ratio (eGRWR) for extended right grafts (ERG). In 3 cases, no recipient was found for an ERG. The celiac trunk was retained with the LLS in all but 1 case. Forty LLSs were transplanted into 39 children, while 39 ERGs were transplanted into 11 children and 28 adults. RESULTS: Two-year patient and graft survival rates were not significantly different between recipients of donors < or =40 kg and >40 kg, between pediatric and adult recipients, and between recipients of LLSs and ERGs. Vascular complication rates were 12% in the < or =40 kg donor group and 6% in the >40 kg donor group (P = not significant). There were no differences in the incidence of other complications. Donor ICU stay >3 days and the use of an interposition arterial graft were associated with an increased risk of graft loss and arterial complications, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Splitting of pediatric liver grafts is an effective strategy to increase organ availability, but a cautious evaluation of the use of donors < or =40 kg is necessary. Prolonged donor ICU stay is associated with poorer outcomes. The maintenance of the celiac trunk with LLS does not seem detrimental for right-sided grafts, whereas the use of interposition grafts for arterial reconstruction should be avoided.
Authors: S Emre; Y Soejima; G Altaca; M Facciuto; T M Fishbein; P A Sheiner; M E Schwartz; C M Miller Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: W Petz; M Spada; A Sonzogni; M Colledan; A Segalin; A Lucianetti; A Bertani; M Guizzetti; G Peloni; B Gridelli Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2001 Feb-Mar Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: I M Sauer; A Pascher; T Steinmüller; U Settmacher; A R Müller; W O Bechstein; P Neuhaus Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2001 Feb-Mar Impact factor: 1.066
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: R M Ghobrial; H Yersiz; D G Farmer; F Amersi; J Goss; P Chen; S Dawson; S Lerner; N Nissen; D Imagawa; S Colquhoun; W Arnout; S V McDiarmid; R W Busuttil Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: C K Oh; S J Pelletier; R G Sawyer; A R Dacus; C S McCullough; T L Pruett; H A Sanfey Journal: Transplantation Date: 2001-03-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Salvatore Gruttadauria; Fabrizio di Francesco; Duilio Pagano; Sergio Li Petri; Davide Cintorino; Marco Spada; Bruno Gridelli Journal: World J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2010-03-27
Authors: Jin Ge; Emily R Perito; John Bucuvalas; Richard Gilroy; Evelyn K Hsu; John P Roberts; Jennifer C Lai Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Giuseppe Maria Ettorre; Roberto Santoro; Giovanni Vennarecci; Pasquale Lepiane; Mario Antonini; Eugenio Santoro Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2011-07-19
Authors: Marco Spada; Silvia Riva; Giuseppe Maggiore; Davide Cintorino; Bruno Gridelli Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-02-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Christina Dalzell; Paola A Vargas; Kyle Soltys; Frank Dipaola; George Mazariegos; Jose Oberholzer; Nicolas Goldaracena Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 3.782