4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Intraoperative blood loss is a risk factor for complications in donors after living donor hepatectomy

期刊

LIVER TRANSPLANTATION
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 950-957

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lt.20746

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Complications in a donor are a distressing but inevitable occurrence, since graft procurement is a major undertaking. Although the technique for procurement has some similarities to hepatic resection, a donor is very unlike a patient with malignancy. The risk factors identified in these patients cannot be extrapolated to donors. Donor hepatectomy carried out from June 1995 to March 2005 in Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical Center was reviewed with the aim of identifying risk factors for complications. There were 204 living donor liver transplants, with 205 donor hepatectomies, as 1 living donor liver transplantation was a dual graft. Ten donors (4.88%) suffered complications. There was no difference in terms of age, gender, body weight, operation, and parenchymal time between those who had complications and those who did not. There was also no difference in liver function tests between the 2 groups of donors, but the total bilirubin was significantly higher in donors with complications. The graft weight and remnant liver volume were also similar. The proportion of donors with fatty liver was the same between the 2 groups. The mean blood loss in donors with complications was 170 +/- 79 mL, and that for donors without complications was 95 +/- 77 mL. There was a statistically significant greater blood loss in donors with complications (P < 0.05). The number of segments removed in donors with complications was also higher compared to donors without complications (P < 0.03). Using multivariate analysis, intraoperative blood loss and the number of segments removed were found to be independent risk factors for donor complications. Intraoperative blood loss during graft procurement must be kept low to minimize complications in donors.

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