4.6 Article

Liver transplantation for Wilson's disease: long-term results and quality-of-life assessment.

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 75, 期 7, 页码 1003-1006

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.TP.0000055830.82799.B1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Wilson's disease associated with severe liver disease is effectively cured by orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). However, there are also anecdotal reports of improved or resolved neurologic symptoms after OLT in patients with stable or normal liver function. Side effects with conventional chelating agents are common, and it has been suggested that OLT should be considered in patients with severe progressive neurologic symptoms. However, the decision to apply this therapeutic modality to a subgroup of patients without significant liver disease is a quality-of-life issue. Methods. Long-term follow-up and quality-of-life data were obtained prospectively for 24 patients who underwent OLT between 1988 and 2000 for Wilson's disease associated with severe liver disease. In long-term survivors, quality of life was assessed using the 36-Item Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire. Results. One patient who had multiorgan failure before OLT died within 24 hr of surgery and two patients died within 1 year because of immunosuppressant-related complications. There have been no deaths or graft loss in patients who have undergone transplantation since 1994, and after a median follow-up of 92 months, all survivors have satisfactory graft function (5-year patient and graft survival, 87.5%), with quality-of-life scores (assessed in 86% of survivors) comparable to age- and sex-matched controls from the general population. Conclusions. The authors' results suggest that liver transplantation can be safely performed. in patients with Wilson's disease, with excellent long-term results and quality of life. Further study of the utility of liver transplantation in the management of patients with severe neurologic symptoms is justified.

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