Viniyendra Pamecha1, Shyam Sunder Mahansaria2, Kishore G S Bharathy2, Senthil Kumar2, Shridhar Vasantrao Sasturkar2, Piyush Kumar Sinha2, Shiv Kumar Sarin3. 1. Department of Liver Transplantation and Hepato Pancreatico Biliary Surgery, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, D1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, 110070, India. viniyendra@yahoo.co.uk. 2. Department of Liver Transplantation and Hepato Pancreatico Biliary Surgery, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, D1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, 110070, India. 3. Department of Hepatology, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: A thorough donor evaluation in the living donation process is mandatory to ensure a safe outcome in an otherwise healthy individual. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the reasons for not proceeding to donation and the outcome of live liver donors. METHODS: A prospective study of potential donors who underwent evaluation and proceeded to surgery from 1 April 2012 to 31 January 2015 was conducted. The process of donor selection, its outcome and peri-operative complications were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 460 donors were evaluated in a stepwise manner for 367 potential recipients. Of the 321 (69.7 %) donors not proceeding to donation, the reasons were donor-related in 63.6 % and recipient-related in the rest. Common donor-related reasons were: donor reluctance (23.5 %), negative liver attenuation index (16.2 %), anatomic variations (10.3 %), inadequate remnant liver volume (9.8 %), unacceptable liver biopsy (8.8 %), and inadequate graft volume (5.4 %). A majority of donors (82.8 %) were turned down early in the (steps 1 and 2) evaluation process. Recipient death was the most common recipient-related reason [n = 51 (43.6 %)] for not proceeding to donation. There was no donor mortality. The overall complication rate was 19.8 % and major complication rate (grade 3 or higher) was 4.4 %. CONCLUSIONS: A stringent stepwise donor evaluation process leads to early recognition of unsuitable donors and a low complication rate.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: A thorough donor evaluation in the living donation process is mandatory to ensure a safe outcome in an otherwise healthy individual. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the reasons for not proceeding to donation and the outcome of live liver donors. METHODS: A prospective study of potential donors who underwent evaluation and proceeded to surgery from 1 April 2012 to 31 January 2015 was conducted. The process of donor selection, its outcome and peri-operative complications were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 460 donors were evaluated in a stepwise manner for 367 potential recipients. Of the 321 (69.7 %) donors not proceeding to donation, the reasons were donor-related in 63.6 % and recipient-related in the rest. Common donor-related reasons were: donor reluctance (23.5 %), negative liver attenuation index (16.2 %), anatomic variations (10.3 %), inadequate remnant liver volume (9.8 %), unacceptable liver biopsy (8.8 %), and inadequate graft volume (5.4 %). A majority of donors (82.8 %) were turned down early in the (steps 1 and 2) evaluation process. Recipient death was the most common recipient-related reason [n = 51 (43.6 %)] for not proceeding to donation. There was no donor mortality. The overall complication rate was 19.8 % and major complication rate (grade 3 or higher) was 4.4 %. CONCLUSIONS: A stringent stepwise donor evaluation process leads to early recognition of unsuitable donors and a low complication rate.
Authors: V Ratziu; P Giral; F Charlotte; E Bruckert; V Thibault; I Theodorou; L Khalil; G Turpin; P Opolon; T Poynard Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Camino Valentín-Gamazo; Massimo Malagó; Marc Karliova; Juergen T Lutz; Andrea Frilling; Silvio Nadalin; Giuliano Testa; Stefan G Ruehm; Yesim Erim; Andreas Paul; Hauke Lang; Guido Gerken; Christoph E Broelsch Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: M M Abecassis; R A Fisher; K M Olthoff; C E Freise; D R Rodrigo; B Samstein; I Kam; R M Merion Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2012-02-15 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Robert S Brown; Mark W Russo; Michelle Lai; Mitchell L Shiffman; Michael C Richardson; James E Everhart; Jay H Hoofnagle Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-02-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Amit Sharma; April Ashworth; Martha Behnke; Adrian Cotterell; Marc Posner; Robert A Fisher Journal: Transplantation Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: S Krishan; D Jain; Y Bathina; A Kale; N Saraf; S Saigal; N Choudhary; S S Baijal; A Soin Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2015-11-07 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Viniyendra Pamecha; Kishore G S Bharathy; Shyam S Mahansaria; Piyush K Sinha; Archana Rastogi; Shridhar V Sasturkar Journal: Hepatol Int Date: 2017-11-24 Impact factor: 6.047