These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Does caval reconstruction technique affect early graft function after liver transplantation? A preliminary analysis.
    Author: Lai Q, Nudo F, Molinaro A, Mennini G, Spoletini G, Melandro F, Guglielmo N, Parlati L, Mordenti M, Ginanni Corradini S, Berloco PB, Rossi M.
    Journal: Transplant Proc; 2011 May; 43(4):1103-6. PubMed ID: 21620063.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: In the past decades, the inferior vena cava (IVC) reconstruction technique has undergone several evolutions, such as biopump, piggyback technique (PB), and laterolateral approach (LLPB). Several advantages are reported comparing the PB technique to biopump use. However, comparison between PB and LLPB has not been as well investigated. The aim of this study was to compare the results in terms of immediate graft function and intermediate graft survival among 3 subgroups characterized by distinct caval reconstruction techniques. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 200 consecutive adult patients who underwent liver transplantation from January 2001 to December 2009. The patients were stratified according to 3 caval reconstructive techniques: biopump (n=135), PB (n=32) and LLPB (n=33). RESULTS: The LLPB group showed the shortest cold and warm ischemia times and the best immediate postoperative graft function. Survival analysis revealed LLPB patients to present the best 1-year graft survival rates: namely, 90.9% versus 75.0% and 74.1% among the PB and biopump groups, respectively (log-rank tests: LLPB vs biopump: P=.03; LLPB vs PB: P=.05). In our experience, LLPB showed the best graft survivals with an evident reduction in both cold and warm ischemia times. However, it is hard to obtain an irrefutable conclusion owing to the retrospective nature of this study, the small sample, and the different periods in which the groups were transplanted. CONCLUSIONS: LLPB technique was a safe procedure that minimized the sequelal of ischemia-reperfusion damage. This technique yielded results superior to venovenous bypass. No definitive conclusions can to be obtained in this study comparing classic PB or LLPB.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]