4.6 Article

Obstructing Spontaneous Major Shunt Vessels is Mandatory to Keep Adequate Portal Inflow in Living-Donor Liver Transplantation

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 95, 期 10, 页码 1270-1277

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e318288cadc

关键词

Shunt vessels; Portal vein; Living-donor liver transplantation; Splenectomy

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. It has not been addressed whether the major spontaneous portosystemic shunt vessels should be ligated in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Methods. We performed a retrospective analysis of 324 cases of adult-to-adult LDLT. Results. Factors associated with the presence of major (>10 mm) shunt vessels (n=130) included portal vein (PV) thrombosis (27.7%), lower PV pressure at laparotomy, Child-Pugh class C, and transplantation of right-side grafts. The types of major portosystemic shunt vessels included splenorenal shunts (46.2%), gastroesophageal shunts (26.9%), mesocaval shunts (13.8%), and others (13.1%). Ligation of the major shunt vessels increased PV pressure (mean [SD], from 16.8 [3.9] mm Hg to 18.6 [4.3] mm Hg; P<0.001) and PV flow (mean [SD], from 1.35 [0.67] L/min to 1.67 [0.67] L/min; P<0.001) into the grafts. Post-LDLT computed tomography showed patent major shunts in 14 patients. Nine of such patients (64.3%) with unligated major shunt vessels (undetected shunt vessels, n=5; incomplete ligation, n=2; and the shunt was newly created or left open to maintain high PV pressure after reperfusion, n=3) required secondary interventions. Two of these patients died because of graft dysfunction. PV flow was significantly lower in the nine patients who underwent secondary ligation of the major shunt vessels compared with patients with successful primary ligation (mean [SD], 0.96 [0.34] L/min vs. 1.65 [0.63] L/min; P=0.001). Conclusions. It is an appropriate option to obstruct the major portosystemic shunt vessels to ensure adequate graft inflow in LDLT.

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

4.6
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