Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Increased Surgical Complications but Improved Overall Survival with Adult Living Donor Compared to Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Tang, Wei; Qiu, Jian-Guo; Cai, Yang; Cheng, Luo; Du, Cheng-You.
Afiliação
  • Tang W; Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, China.
  • Qiu JG; Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, China.
  • Cai Y; Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, China.
  • Cheng L; Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, China.
  • Du CY; Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, China.
Biomed Res Int ; 2020: 1320830, 2020.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32908865
BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) provides an alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for patients with end-stage liver disease in the circumstance of scarcity of deceased grafts. However, the outcomes of LDLT remain controversial. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LDLT with DDLT. Twelve outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies involving 38563 patients were included. LDLT was comparable in red blood cell transfusion, perioperative mortality, length of hospital stay, retransplantation rate, hepatitis C virus recurrence rate, and hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence rate with DDLT. Cold ischemia time was shorter and duration of recipient operation was longer in LDLT. Postoperative intra-abdominal bleeding rate occurred less frequently in LDLT recipients (odds ratio (OR) = 0.64, 95%confidence interval (CI) = 0.46 - 0.88, P = 0.006), but this did not decrease the perioperative mortality. LDLT was associated with significantly higher biliary (OR = 2.23, 95%CI = 1.59 - 3.13, P < 0.00001) and vascular (OR = 2.00, 95%CI = 1.31 - 3.07, P = 0.001) complication rates and better overall survival (OS) (1 year: OR = 1.32, 95%CI = 1.01 - 1.72, P = 0.04; 3 years: OR = 1.39, 95%CI = 1.14 - 1.69, P = 0.0010; and 5 years: OR = 1.33, 95%CI = 1.04 - 1.70, P = 0.02). According to subgroup analysis, biliary complication rate and OS improved dramatically as experience increased, while vascular complication rate could not be improved because it was mainly caused by the difference of the donor type itself. CONCLUSIONS: LDLT remains a valuable option for patients in need of liver transplantation for it provides an excellent alternative to DDLT without compromising recipient outcomes. Further refinement in biliary and vascular reconstruction techniques and the accumulation of liver transplantation centers' experience are the key factors in expanding the application of LDLT.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Complicações Pós-Operatórias / Doadores de Tecidos / Transplante de Fígado / Doadores Vivos Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Adult / Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Complicações Pós-Operatórias / Doadores de Tecidos / Transplante de Fígado / Doadores Vivos Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Adult / Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article