4.5 Review

Liver Transplantation Today: Where We Are Now and Where We Are Going

期刊

LIVER TRANSPLANTATION
卷 24, 期 10, 页码 1470-1475

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lt.25320

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Liver transplantation was made a reality through the bravery, innovation, and persistence of Dr. Thomas Starzl. His death in 2017, at the age of 90, makes us pause to consider how far the field has come since its inception by this remarkable pioneer. It also is an opportunity to evaluate the continued novel innovations which contribute to the growth and potential for liver transplantation in the future. The liver transplant community in 2017 continued to be most significantly challenged by an overwhelming disparity between the need for liver transplant and the shortage of donor organs. The many ways in which this critical shortage are being addressed are examined in this article. The continued debate about equitable and efficacious organ allocation, the liver wars, has dominated much of the recent past, while efforts to optimize current organ availability have also been aggressively pursued. Efforts to optimize the use of marginal and expanded criteria organs have escalated in recent years and have been accompanied by rigorous scientific evaluation. The ongoing opioid epidemic, combined with the approval and availability of highly effective hepatitis C treatment options, has allowed the increased use of HCV positive organs in HCV positive and negative recipients. Machine perfusion, both cold and warm, has moved solidly into the liver transplant world potentiating optimization of marginal donors and also offering potential modulation of liver grafts (ie, gene therapy, stem cell therapy, and defatting). Finally, pharmacological and mechanical interventions in DCD procurement techniques have contributed to improved outcomes in DCD transplants. All of these are explored in this article as a tribute to innovative spirit of Dr. Starzl and his continued impact on liver transplant today.

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