Literature DB >> 17623050

Safety of modified extended right hepatectomy in living liver donors.

Eung-Ho Cho1, Kyung-Suk Suh, Hae W Lee, Woo Y Shin, Nam-Joon Yi, Kuhn U Lee.   

Abstract

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), the standard right graft has been adopted by many centers to meet the metabolic demands of large recipients. In conventional right liver graft, congestion at anterior section may be problematic especially when graft volume is insufficient. We previously introduced a technical aspect of modified extended right hepatectomy (MERH), in which the middle hepatic vein was excavated by preserving the entire segment 4 (Sg4) to the donor. In this report, we investigated the safety of donors who received MERH. Between August 2002 and July 2005, 97 donors underwent right liver donation. MERH was considered when remnant-left liver volume exceeded 35% of whole liver. Eighteen donors underwent MERH (MERH group, n=18). We compared the clinical outcomes of MERH group with those of donors who underwent conventional right hepatectomy (RH) with remnant liver volume exceeding 35% (RH group, n=37). No donor mortality occurred. No intra-operative transfusion and no re-operation were performed. There were no differences in operative time (290.8 min in MERH group vs. 297.0 min in RH group, respectively), blood loss (453.3 ml vs. 426.5 ml), and postoperative hospital stay (12.5 days vs. 12.8 days) between the two groups (P>0.05). Period of drain removal was longer in MERH group (12.5 days vs. 9.4 days, P<0.05). But, there was no difference in complication rate between the two groups (11/18 vs. 23/37, P>0.05). Computed tomography scan showed that congestion of Sg4 was occurred in 13 out of 18 MERH donors in early postoperative period, but all recovered at 4 months. The regeneration of the remnant liver after MERH and RH were similar (209.8% vs. 200.0% at 4 months, P>0.05). Our results show that MERH did not impair recovery or liver regeneration in donors, and indicate that MERH can be safely done in adult LDLT when the remnant liver exceeds 35%.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17623050     DOI: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2007.00520.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transpl Int        ISSN: 0934-0874            Impact factor:   3.782


  5 in total

Review 1.  Biliary complications in living liver donors.

Authors:  Yufeng Yuan; Mitsukazu Gotoh
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2010-04-28       Impact factor: 2.549

2.  Management of the middle hepatic vein in right lobe living donor liver transplantation: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Peng-Sheng Yi; Ming Zhang; Ming-Qing Xu
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2015-07-31

3.  Clamp-Crush Technique Versus Harmonic Scalpel for Hepatic Parenchymal Transection in Living Donor Hepatectomy: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Ahmad Mohamed Sultan; Ahmed Shehta; Tarek Salah; Mohamed Elshoubary; Ahmed Nabieh Elghawalby; Rami Said; Mohamed Elmorshedi; Ahmed Marwan; Usama Shiha; Omar Fathy; Mohamed Abdel Wahab
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-01-22       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Caudal middle hepatic vein trunk preserved right lobe graft in living donor liver transplantation.

Authors:  Kwangho Yang; Youngmok Park; Kimyung Moon; Jeho Ryu; Chongwoo Chu
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 1.859

5.  Excellent outcome in 238 consecutive living donor liver transplantations using the right liver graft in a large volume single center.

Authors:  Nam-Joon Yi; Kyung-Suk Suh; Suk-Won Suh; Ye Rim Chang; Geun Hong; Tae Yoo; Hyeyoung Kim; Min Su Park; Young Rok Choi; Kwang-Woong Lee; Chul-Woo Jung; Jeong Hoon Lee; Yoon Jun Kim; Jung-Hwan Yoon; Hyo-Suk Lee
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.352

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.