4.1 Article

Outcome and Technical Aspects of Liver Retransplantation: Analysis of 25-Year Experience in a Single Major Center

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
Volume 47, Issue 3, Pages 727-729

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2014.12.037

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The need for liver retransplantation (re-LT) has been increasing. Here we describe the outcome and technical aspects of re-LT during 25 years in a single major center. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent LT from March 1988 to February 2013. Among 1,312 LTs during 25 years, 38 (2.9%) were re-LTs, including 28 adults (mean age 52.0 y) and 10 children (mean age 5.7 y). Results. The most common indication was primary nonfunction in early re-LT and biliary complication in late re-LT. Preoperative major comorbidity was very common (81.6%). Among them, infection was the most frequent (52.6%). Living-donor re-LT constituted 21.1%. In operative technique, nonconventional methods were substantially performed, including high hilar dissection for hepatectomy (>50%), arterial anastomosis with the use of right gastroepiploic or jump graft (23.7%), and hepaticoenterostomy (60.5%). Several reanastomoses were needed in 10.5% for artery and 5.3% for duct. In adults and children, mean estimated blood losses were 9,541 mL and 977 mL, respectively. Mean operative times for adults and children were 508 and 432 minutes, respectively. In-hospital mortality was 35.7% in adults and 40.0% in children. The main cause of death was sepsis for both adults and children. Survival rates at 1 month and 1, 3, and 5 years were, respectively, 89.4%, 56.5%, 50.3%, and 50.3% in adults, and 70.0%, 60.0%, 60.0%, and 60.0% in children. Conclusions. Outcome of re-LT is poorer than primary LT regardless of the cause of graft failure. Therefore, more technical concerns need to be considered. We also need more efforts to control perioperative infections to improve survival after re-LT.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available