4.5 Article

Upper Midline Incision for Living Donor Right Hepatectomy

期刊

LIVER TRANSPLANTATION
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 193-198

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lt.21677

关键词

-

资金

  1. Korea Health Promotion Institute [0910000-1] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Innovations and refinements in the techniques of living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) have been made over the past decades, but the type and size of abdominal incision have been at a standstill since its inception. We introduce herein the upper midline incision for LDRH using the standard open technique. A prospective case-matched study was conducted on 23 consecutive donors who underwent LDRH under a supraumbilical upper midline incision (I group) from February to May 2008. These donors were matched 1:1 to 23 right liver donors with a conventional J-shaped incision (J group) according to age, gender, and body mass index. Under the mean incision length of 13.5 cm, LDRH was successfully completed in all 23 donors without extension of the incision, with a mean operative time of 232.3 +/- 29.2 minutes. No donors required blood transfusion during surgery. There were 2 cases of postoperative bleeding immediately controlled under the same incision and a case of pleural effusion. All donors fully recovered and returned to their previous activities. All grafts have been functioning well. Compared with the J group, the I group had a shorter operative time, a shorter period of analgesic use, and, after discharge, infrequent complaints of wound pain. This upper midline incision, even without laparoscopic assistance, can be used for LDRH with less pain and without impairing safety, reproducibility, or effectivity, allowing the seemingly insufficient incision to be recommended to the transplant centers that are practicing living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 15:193-198, 2009. (C) 2009 AASLD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据