Literature DB >> 29350831

Randomized trial on extended versus modified right lobe grafts in living donor liver transplantation.

Christi Titus Varghese1, Viju Kumar Bharathan1, Unnikrishnan Gopalakrishnan1, Dinesh Balakrishnan1, Ramachandran N Menon1, Othiyil Vayoth Sudheer1, Puneet Dhar1, Surendran Sudhindran1.   

Abstract

Despite advances in the practice of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), the optimum surgical approach with respect to the middle hepatic vein (MHV) in right lobe LDLT remains undefined. We designed a randomized trial to compare the early postoperative outcomes in recipients and donors between extended right lobe grafts (ERGs; transection plane was maintained to the left of MHV and division of MHV performed beyond the segment VIII vein) and modified right lobe grafts (MRGs; transection plane was maintained to the right of MHV; the segment V and VIII drainage was reconstructed using a conduit of recipient portal vein). Eligible patients (n = 86) were prospectively randomized into the ERG arm (n = 43) and the MRG arm (n = 43) at the beginning of donor hepatectomy. The primary endpoint considered in this equivalence trial was patency of the MHV or the reconstructed "neo-MHV" in the recipient. The secondary endpoints included biochemical parameters, postoperative complications, mortality in recipients as well as donors and volume regeneration of remnant liver in donors, measured at 2 months. The patency of the MHV was comparable in the ERG and MRG arms (90.7% versus 81.4%; difference, 9.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.8 to 24.4; z score, 1.245; P = 0.21). Volume regeneration of the remnant liver in donors was significantly better in the MRG arm (111.3% versus 87.3%; mean difference, 24%; 95% CI, 14.6-33.3; P < 0.001). The remaining secondary endpoints in donors and recipients were similar between the 2 arms. To conclude, MRG with reconstructed neo-MHV has comparable patency to native MHV in ERG and confers equivalent graft outflow in the recipient. Furthermore, it allows better remnant liver regeneration in the donor at 2 months. Liver Transplantation 24 888-896 2018 AASLD.
© 2018 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29350831     DOI: 10.1002/lt.25014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Liver Transpl        ISSN: 1527-6465            Impact factor:   5.799


  3 in total

1.  Textbook outcome among voluntary donors undergoing major living donor hepatectomy.

Authors:  Abu Bakar Hafeez Bhatti; Wajih Naqvi; Nazish Ali; Nusrat Yar Khan; Haseeb Haider Zia; Belqees Yawar Faiz; Abid Ilyas; Atif Rana; Nasir Ayub Khan
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2022-06-07       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Technique of robotic right donor hepatectomy.

Authors:  Biju Chandran; Christi Titus Varghese; Dinesh Balakrishnan; Krishnanunni Nair; Shweta Mallick; Johns Shaji Mathew; Binoj Sivasankara Pillai Thankamony Amma; Ramachandran Narayana Menon; Unnikrishnan Gopalakrishnan; Othiyil Vayoth Sudheer; S Sudhindran
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2022 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.407

3.  Influence of middle hepatic vein resection during right or left hepatectomy on post hepatectomy outcomes.

Authors:  Anisa Nutu; Michael Wilson; Erin Ross; Kunal Joshi; Robert Sutcliffe; Keith Roberts; Ravi Marudanayagam; Paolo Muiesan; Nikolaos Chatzizacharias; Darius Mirza; John Isaac; Bobby V M Dasari
Journal:  Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg       Date:  2022-05-23
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.