| Literature DB >> 30840808 |
Abstract
The most effective and fundamental treatment for end-stage liver disease is liver transplantation. Deceased-donor liver transplantation has been performed for many of these cases. However, living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has emerged as an alternative because it enables timely procurement of the donor organ. The success rate of LDLT has been improved by development of the surgical technique, use of immunosuppressant drugs, and accumulation of post-transplantation care experience. However, the occurrence of biliary stricture after LDLT remains a problem. This article reviews the pathogenesis, diagnosis, endoscopic management, and long-term outcomes of post-liver transplantation biliary stricture, with a focus on anastomotic stricture.Entities:
Keywords: Bile ducts; Cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic retrograde; Constriction, pathologic; Liver transplantation; Living donors
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30840808 PMCID: PMC6406087 DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2019.044
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Intern Med ISSN: 1226-3303 Impact factor: 2.884
Figure 1.Endoscopic management of a biliary anastomotic stricture (AS) using a fully covered self-expanding metal stent. (A) Cholangiography revealed the presence of a biliary AS (white arrow) after living-donor liver transplantation. (B) A fully covered self-expanding metal stent was placed across the AS. (C) Three months later, the metal stent was removed successfully through the duodenoscopy channel by pulling of the lasso. (D) Resolution of the AS (yellow arrow) was observed.
Long-term outcomes of endoscopic management of biliary anastomotic strictures after living-donor liver transplantation
| Study | No. of patients | No. of ERC | Success rate of stricture resolution, % | Duration of stent insertion, mon | Follow-up duration, mon | Recurrence rate, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hsieh et al. (2013) [ | 38 | 4.0 (3.0–5.3)[ | 100 | 5.3 (3.8–8.9)[ | 74.2 | 21.1 |
| Seo et al. (2009) [ | 68 | 2.3 (1.6–3.0)[ | 64.5 | 6.8 (3.9–9.7)[ | 12 | 30 |
| Kato et al. (2009) [ | 41 | 4 (1–11)[ | 51 | 16.6 (0.7–39.6)[ | - | 13 |
| Ranjan et al. (2016) [ | 10 | 4 (2–5)[ | 70 | 4 (2–12)[ | 9.5 | 20 |
| Kim et al. (2011) [ | 147 | 6.3 (2.9–9.7)[ | 36.9 | 12.7 (3.2–22.2)[ | 21.1 | 11.5 |
ERC, endoscopic retrograde cholangiography.
Values are presented as median (range).
Values are presented as mean (range).