AIM To analyze the outcomes of living-donor liver transplantation(LDLT) using left-lobe(LL) or right-lobe(RL) small-for-size(SFS) grafts.METHODS Prospectively collected data of adult patients who underwent LDLT at our...AIM To analyze the outcomes of living-donor liver transplantation(LDLT) using left-lobe(LL) or right-lobe(RL) small-for-size(SFS) grafts.METHODS Prospectively collected data of adult patients who underwent LDLT at our hospital in the period from January 2003 to December 2013 were reviewed. The patients were divided into the RL-LDLT group and the LL-LDLT group. The two groups were compared in terms of short-and long-term outcomes, including incidence of postoperative complication, graft function, graft survival, and patient survival. A SFS graft was defined as a graft with a ratio of graft weight(GW) to recipient standard liver volume(RSLV)(GW/RSLV) of < 50%. The Urata formula was used to estimate RSLV.RESULTS Totally 218 patients were included for analysis, with 199 patients in the RL-LDLT group and 19 patients in the LL-LDLT group. The two groups were similar in terms of age(median, 53 years in the RL-LDLT group and 52 years in the LL-LDLT group, P = 0.997) but had significantly different ratios of men to women(165:34 in the RL-LDLT group and 8:11 in the LL-LDLT group, P < 0.0001). The two groups were also significantly different in GW(P < 0.0001), GW/RSLV(P < 0.0001), and graft cold ischemic time(P = 0.007). When it comes to postoperative complication, the groups were comparable(P = 0.105). Five patients died in hospital,4(2%) in the RL-LDLT group and 1(5.3%) in the LLLDLT group(P = 0.918). There were 38 graft losses, 33(16.6%) in the RL-LDLT group and 5(26.3%) in the LL-LDLT group(P = 0.452). The 5-year graft survival rate was significantly better in the RL-LDLT group(95.2% vs 89.5%, P = 0.049). The two groups had similar 5-year patient survival rates(RL-LDLT: 86.8%, LL-LDLT: 89.5%, P = 0.476).CONCLUSION The use of SFS graft in LDLT requires careful tailormade surgical planning and meticulous operation. LLLDLT can be a good alternative to RL-LDLT with similar recipient outcomes but a lower donor risk. Further research into different patient conditions is needed in order to validate the use of LL graft.展开更多
文摘AIM To analyze the outcomes of living-donor liver transplantation(LDLT) using left-lobe(LL) or right-lobe(RL) small-for-size(SFS) grafts.METHODS Prospectively collected data of adult patients who underwent LDLT at our hospital in the period from January 2003 to December 2013 were reviewed. The patients were divided into the RL-LDLT group and the LL-LDLT group. The two groups were compared in terms of short-and long-term outcomes, including incidence of postoperative complication, graft function, graft survival, and patient survival. A SFS graft was defined as a graft with a ratio of graft weight(GW) to recipient standard liver volume(RSLV)(GW/RSLV) of < 50%. The Urata formula was used to estimate RSLV.RESULTS Totally 218 patients were included for analysis, with 199 patients in the RL-LDLT group and 19 patients in the LL-LDLT group. The two groups were similar in terms of age(median, 53 years in the RL-LDLT group and 52 years in the LL-LDLT group, P = 0.997) but had significantly different ratios of men to women(165:34 in the RL-LDLT group and 8:11 in the LL-LDLT group, P < 0.0001). The two groups were also significantly different in GW(P < 0.0001), GW/RSLV(P < 0.0001), and graft cold ischemic time(P = 0.007). When it comes to postoperative complication, the groups were comparable(P = 0.105). Five patients died in hospital,4(2%) in the RL-LDLT group and 1(5.3%) in the LLLDLT group(P = 0.918). There were 38 graft losses, 33(16.6%) in the RL-LDLT group and 5(26.3%) in the LL-LDLT group(P = 0.452). The 5-year graft survival rate was significantly better in the RL-LDLT group(95.2% vs 89.5%, P = 0.049). The two groups had similar 5-year patient survival rates(RL-LDLT: 86.8%, LL-LDLT: 89.5%, P = 0.476).CONCLUSION The use of SFS graft in LDLT requires careful tailormade surgical planning and meticulous operation. LLLDLT can be a good alternative to RL-LDLT with similar recipient outcomes but a lower donor risk. Further research into different patient conditions is needed in order to validate the use of LL graft.
