4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Cognitive performance of children who have undergone liver transplantation

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 75, 期 8, 页码 1236-1240

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.TP.0000062843.10397.32

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. We investigated the cognitive status and quality of life (QoL) in the late postoperative phase of children who had undergone liver transplantation (LTx). Methods. The sample consisted of 29 children who had undergone LTx at our center. The children were at least 6 years of age and had received the transplant between 3 and 10 years (mean 6.4 years) previously. In 16 of the 29 children, a living-related transplantation had been performed. Cognitive function was assessed with the three subscales of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC): the sequential processing scale, simultaneous processing scale, and achievement scale. QoL was measured with a specific questionnaire for children. Results. The children scored below the population mean but within the normal range on all subscales of the K-ABC, except for the sequential processing scale, on which the children scored significantly below the norm and below their own performance on the simultaneous processing scale. Scores were below average for everyday and psychic functions and in the normal range for social and physical functions on the QoL questionnaire. Age at transplantation and achievement in the K-ABC were highly negatively correlated. A multiple regression analysis revealed that age and height at transplantation, and also to a lesser degree the type of transplantation, predict the level of cognitive functioning in the late postoperative phase. Conclusion. We conclude that the cognitive functions and QoL of children in the late postoperative phase who have undergone LTx are at the lower end of the norm in the long-term follow-up. Children who are younger and more physically developed at the time of transplantation will have a better mental-development prognosis.

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