We report an emergency paired donor interchange living donor liver transplant performed on January 13, 2009. The 4 operations (2 liver transplants) were performed simultaneously. The aim was to avoid 2 ABO-incompatible liver transplants. One recipient in acute liver failure underwent transplantation
The application of paired donation to live donor liver transplantation
โ Scribed by Dorry L. Segev; Robert A. Montgomery
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2010
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 62 KB
- Volume
- 16
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 1527-6465
- DOI
- 10.1002/lt.22062
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
โฆ Synopsis
The last decade has seen substantial growth and expansion of kidney paired donation (KPD), a modality by which pairs of incompatible live kidney donors and their intended recipients exchange kidneys such that compatible transplants result, both in the United States 1-4 and internationally. [5][6][7] In this issue of Liver Transplantation, 2 independent groups take this concept into the realm of live donor liver transplantation. At Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong, motivated by a high-urgency acute liver failure, Chan and colleagues 8 matched 2 ABO-incompatible (ABOi) live donor pairs, and this resulted in 2 compatible and successful transplants. Hwang and colleagues 9 describe 16 patients who underwent live donor liver transplantation in the first 6 years of their exchange program at the Asan Medical Center in Seoul.
In the United States, deceased donor allocation in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease era has been very successful in allocating livers to the sickest patients. In the example illustrated by Chan and colleagues, 8 a patient in the United States with high-urgency acute liver failure would have a high likelihood of expeditiously receiving a deceased donor allograft. The balance between donor risk and reduced recipient waiting list mortality may account for the relatively low rate of live donor liver transplantation in the United States. As a result, incompatible donor/recipient pools in the United States are likely to remain small, and the impact of liver paired donation (LPD) in the United States is likely to be limited. This is contrasted with countries such as China, Korea, and Japan in which cultural or religious beliefs have
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES
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
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,
Background. An important long-term consideration for living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the expense compared with cadaveric-liver transplantation. LDLT is a more complex procedure than cadaveric transplantation and the cost of donor evaluation, donor surgery, and postoperative donor care m
The study objectives were to determine whether the findings of the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) reflect the U.S. national experience and to define risk factors for patient mortality and graft loss in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). A2ALL previousl
Hypothesis: Few studies have investigated the results of research focused on living donor adult liver transplantation. Different characteristics between right-and left-lobe grafts have not yet been clarified in living-donor adult liver transplantation. Left-lobe grafts remain an important option, ev