4.8 Review

Machine perfusion in liver transplantation as a tool to prevent non-anastomotic biliary strictures: Rationale, current evidence and future directions

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
卷 63, 期 1, 页码 265-275

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2015.03.008

关键词

Liver transplantation; Bile Duct Diseases/etiology; Bile Duct Diseases/prevention & control; Bile Ducts/blood supply; Bile Ducts/injuries; Bile Ducts/surgery; Ischemia/prevention & control; Liver Transplantation/adverse effects; Reperfusion Injury/prevention & control; Machine perfusion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The high incidence of non-anastomotic biliary strictures (NAS) after transplantation of livers from extended criteria donors is currently a major barrier to widespread use of these organs. This review provides an update on the most recent advances in the understanding of the etiology of NAS. These new insights give reason to believe that machine perfusion can reduce the incidence of NAS after transplantation by providing more protective effects on the biliary tree during preservation of the donor liver. An overview is presented regarding the different endpoints that have been used for assessment of biliary injury and function before and after transplantation, emphasizing on methods used during machine perfusion. The wide spectrum of different approaches to machine perfusion is discussed, including the many different combinations of techniques, temperatures and perfusates at varying time points. In addition, the current understanding of the effect of machine perfusion in relation to biliary injury is reviewed. Finally, we explore directions for future research such as the application of (pharmacological) strategies during machine perfusion to further improve preservation. We stress the great potential of machine perfusion to possibly expand the donor pool by reducing the incidence of NAS in extended criteria organs. (C) 2015 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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