4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Transition of Spleen Volume Long After Pediatric Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Biliary Atresia

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
卷 50, 期 9, 页码 2718-2722

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2018.03.071

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. After undergoing the Kasai procedure for biliary atresia (BA), most patients develop severe splenomegaly that tends to be improved by liver transplantation. However, fluctuations in splenic volume long after transplantation remain to be elucidated. Patients and Methods. Seventy-one consecutive patients who had undergone pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for BA were followed up in our outpatient clinic for 5 years. They were classified into 3 groups according to their clinical outcomes: a good course group (GC, n = 41) who were maintained on only 1 or without an immunosuppressant, a liver dysfunction group (LD, n = 18) who were maintained on 2 or 3 types of immunosuppressants, and a vascular complication group (VC, n = 11). Splenic and hepatic volumes were calculated by computed tomography in 464 examinations and the values compared before and after the treatment, especially in the VC group. Results. Splenic volume decreased exponentially in the GC group, with splenic volume to standard spleen volume ratio (SD) being 1.59 (0.33) 5 years after liver transplantation. Splenic volume to standard spleen volume ratios were greater in the VC and LD groups than in the GC group. Patients in the VC group with portal vein stenosis developed liver atrophy and splenomegaly, whereas those with hepatic vein stenosis developed hepatomegaly and splenomegaly. Interventional radiation therapy tended to improve the associated symptoms. Conclusions. Fluctuations in splenic volume long after pediatric LDLT for BA may reflect various clinical conditions. Evaluation of both splenic and hepatic volumes can facilitate understanding clinical conditions following pediatric 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

4.1
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