Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Apr;10(4):859-867.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03017.x. Epub 2010 Feb 10.

Alleviating the burden of small-for-size graft in right liver living donor liver transplantation through accumulation of experience

Affiliations
Free article

Alleviating the burden of small-for-size graft in right liver living donor liver transplantation through accumulation of experience

S C Chan et al. Am J Transplant. 2010 Apr.
Free article

Abstract

The issue of small-for-size graft (SFSG) containing the middle hepatic vein in right liver living donor liver transplantation from 1996 to 2008 (n = 320) was studied. Characteristics of donors, grafts and recipients were comparable between Era I (first 50 cases) and Era II (next 270 cases) except that the median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was higher in Era I (29 vs. 24; p = 0.024). The median graft to standard liver volume ratio (G/SLV) in Era I was 49.0% (range, 32.8-86.2%), versus 49.3% (range, 28.4-89.4%) in Era II (p = 0.498). Hospital mortality rate, the study endpoint, dropped from 16.0% (8/50) in Era I to 2.2% (6/270) in Era II (p = 0.000). Univariate analysis showed that MELD score (p = 0.002), pretransplant hepatorenal syndrome (p = 0.000) and Era I (p = 0.000) were significant in hospital mortality. Logistic regression analysis showed that only Era I (relative risk 9.758; 95% confidence interval, 2.885-33.002; p = 0.000) was significant. In Era I, G/SLV<40% had a relative risk of 7.8 (95% confidence interval, 1.225-49.677; p = 0.030). The hospital mortality rates for G/SLV<40% were 50% (3/6) and 1.9% (1/52) in Era I and II respectively. In conclusion, through accumulation of experience, SFSG became less important as a factor in hospital mortality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kiuchi T, Tanaka K, Ito T et al. Small-for-size graft in living donor liver transplantation: How far should we go? Liver Transpl 2003; 9: S29-S35.
    1. Barr ML, Belghiti J, Villamil FG et al. A report of the Vancouver Forum on the care of the live organ donor: Lung, liver, pancreas, and intestine data and medical guidelines. Transplantation 2006; 81: 1373-1385.
    1. Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL, Yong BH, Chan JK, Ng IO. Safety of donors in live donor liver transplantation using right lobe grafts. Arch Surg 2000; 135: 336-340.
    1. Urata K, Kawasaki S, Matsunami H et al. Calculation of child and adult standard liver volume for liver transplantation. Hepatology 1995; 21: 1317-1321.
    1. Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu CL et al. Minimum graft size for successful living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 1999; 68: 1112-1116.