Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Hepatectomy in Living Liver Donors: Graft Weight Discrepancy.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Jiwon Seo, Suk Kyun Hong, Sola Lee, Su Young Hong, YoungRok Choi, Nam-Joon Yi, Kwang-Woong Lee, Kyung-Suk Suh
{"title":"Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Hepatectomy in Living Liver Donors: Graft Weight Discrepancy.","authors":"Jiwon Seo,&nbsp;Suk Kyun Hong,&nbsp;Sola Lee,&nbsp;Su Young Hong,&nbsp;YoungRok Choi,&nbsp;Nam-Joon Yi,&nbsp;Kwang-Woong Lee,&nbsp;Kyung-Suk Suh","doi":"10.12659/AOT.938274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND Accurate volumetric evaluation of donors' livers before surgery is crucial for successful living-donor liver transplantation. However, there are few studies on the volumetric evaluation in the recently popularized pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy method, in contrast to the number of studies for conventional donor hepatectomy. We aimed to analyze the difference between estimated graft weight and actual graft weight in pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) and conventional donor right hepatectomy (CDRH) procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS The medical records of 612 donors who underwent right hepatectomy in living-donor liver transplantation between January 2014 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The CDRH group targeted patients from January 2014 to October 2015, and the PLDRH group targeted patients from March 2016 to December 2020. RESULTS There were 119 and 376 donors who underwent CDRH and PLDRH, respectively. Although there was no significant difference in the estimated graft weights (P=0.994) and actual graft weights (P=0.489) between the groups, the estimated graft weights were significantly higher than the actual graft weights in both groups. However, the estimated graft weight and actual graft weight showed linear correlations in both the CDRH (r=0.81, P<0.001) and PLDRH (r=0.76, P<0.001) groups, with the CDRH group having greater linearity. CONCLUSIONS The estimates of graft weight were similar between the 2 groups. However, since the actual graft weight tended to be smaller in the PLDRH group, this should be considered before surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":7935,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Transplantation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/15/a6/anntransplant-27-e938274.PMC9724455.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12659/AOT.938274","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Accurate volumetric evaluation of donors' livers before surgery is crucial for successful living-donor liver transplantation. However, there are few studies on the volumetric evaluation in the recently popularized pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy method, in contrast to the number of studies for conventional donor hepatectomy. We aimed to analyze the difference between estimated graft weight and actual graft weight in pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) and conventional donor right hepatectomy (CDRH) procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS The medical records of 612 donors who underwent right hepatectomy in living-donor liver transplantation between January 2014 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The CDRH group targeted patients from January 2014 to October 2015, and the PLDRH group targeted patients from March 2016 to December 2020. RESULTS There were 119 and 376 donors who underwent CDRH and PLDRH, respectively. Although there was no significant difference in the estimated graft weights (P=0.994) and actual graft weights (P=0.489) between the groups, the estimated graft weights were significantly higher than the actual graft weights in both groups. However, the estimated graft weight and actual graft weight showed linear correlations in both the CDRH (r=0.81, P<0.001) and PLDRH (r=0.76, P<0.001) groups, with the CDRH group having greater linearity. CONCLUSIONS The estimates of graft weight were similar between the 2 groups. However, since the actual graft weight tended to be smaller in the PLDRH group, this should be considered before surgery.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

活体肝供者的纯腹腔镜与开放式右肝切除术:移植物重量差异。
背景术前对供肝进行准确的体积评估对于成功的活体供肝移植至关重要。然而,相对于常规供肝切除术的研究较多,近期推广的纯腹腔镜供肝切除术容积评价的研究较少。我们的目的是分析纯腹腔镜右肝切除(PLDRH)和传统右肝切除(CDRH)手术中估计移植重量和实际移植重量的差异。材料与方法回顾性分析2014年1月至2020年12月612例活体肝移植中行右肝切除术的供体病历。CDRH组的目标患者为2014年1月至2015年10月,PLDRH组的目标患者为2016年3月至2020年12月。结果分别有119例和376例献血者行CDRH和PLDRH。虽然两组间估计接枝重量(P=0.994)和实际接枝重量(P=0.489)差异无统计学意义,但两组的估计接枝重量均显著高于实际接枝重量。然而,估计接枝重量和实际接枝重量在CDRH中均呈线性相关(r=0.81, P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
79
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Transplantation is one of the fast-developing journals open to all scientists and fields of transplant medicine and related research. The journal is published quarterly and provides extensive coverage of the most important advances in transplantation. Using an electronic on-line submission and peer review tracking system, Annals of Transplantation is committed to rapid review and publication. The average time to first decision is around 3-4 weeks. Time to publication of accepted manuscripts continues to be shortened, with the Editorial team committed to a goal of 3 months from acceptance to publication. Expert reseachers and clinicians from around the world contribute original Articles, Review Papers, Case Reports and Special Reports in every pertinent specialty, providing a lot of arguments for discussion of exciting developments and controversies in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信