The demographics of patients in the United States who undergo living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) versus patients who undergo deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) are interesting with respect to the demographics of the donor service areas (DSAs). We examined adult recipients of primary,
Donor selection limits use of living-related liver transplantation
โ Scribed by John F. Renz; Chris L. Mudge; Melvin B. Heyman; Steve Tomlanovich; Ralph P. Kingsford; Barbara J. Moore; John D. Snyder; Hilary A. Perr; Amie L. Paschal; John P. Roberts; Nancy L. Ascher; Jean C. Emond
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1995
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 616 KB
- Volume
- 22
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0270-9139
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
โฆ Synopsis
The purpose of this investigation was to assess the applicability of living-related liver transplantation in an established regional transplant program by determining the frequency of acceptable living donors from an unselected population of pediatric transplant candidates and identify specific factors limiting application of this technique. During the period May 1992 to May 1994, all children accepted as transplant candidates at the University of California-San Francisco were evaluated for potential living-related liver transplantation. Indications for transplantation and patient demographics represented the spectrum anticipated at a regional center. Donor evaluation was performed using a three-phase evaluation process we have previously reported. Retrospective analysis identified 75 potential donors for 38 pediatric candidates (age range, 17 days to 14.5 years; mean, 5.1 years). Twenty-three percent of potential donors declined evaluation. Of the 75 potential donors, only 10 (13%) were found to be acceptable for donation. The leading causes for donor declination were significant medical history (23%), ABO blood group incompatibility (23%), and psychosocial history (20%). Of the 38 recipient candidates, 9 (23%) were offered living-donor transplantation. Five patients have received living-donor transplantation, and 4 patients await the procedure when medical indications exist. Seventy-seven percent of recipient candidates received or are awaiting cadaveric transplantation. These results suggest that current donor criteria markedly limit the application of living-related liver transplantation. (HEPATOLOGY 1995;22:1122-1126.) Liver transplantation is now the standard of care in both adult and pediatric patients afflicted with acute or chronic end-stage liver disease. In past years, the disproportionately high mortality rate observed in chil-Abbreviation: LRLT, living-related liver transplantation.
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES
RHD, right hepatic duct; RHV, right hepatic vein; RPS, right posterior segment; type I PV, PV variant with bifurcation; type II PV, PV variant with trifurcation; type III PV, PV variant with independent RPS PV branching from main PV; type A RHD, RHD variant with usual bifurcation of the hilar bile d
Segmental liver volume determination by computed tomographic scan was carried out preoperatively in nine donors for living related liver transplantation. The calculated volume was compared with the graft size actually obtained by three types of donor hepatectomy. The volume of the left lateral segme
For acute liver failure (ALF), living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) may reduce waiting time and provide better timing compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). However, there are concerns that a partial graft would result in reduced survival of critically ill LDLT recipients and