Extensive use of split liver for pediatric liver transplantation: A single-center experience

73Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The results of the extensive use of in situ liver splitting in a pediatric liver transplant program are presented. All referred donors were considered for split liver, and when the donor-recipient body weight ratio (DRWR) was greater than 2, the grafts were split. A modified split-liver technique was adopted when the DRWR was 2 or less. Eighty liver procurements were attempted and 72 (90%) were performed, enabling 65 children to receive 42 split, 22 whole, and 8 reduced-size livers. The right portions of the grafts were transplanted by other centers into adults. Median patient waiting time was 22 days, with no mortality on the waiting list. After a median follow-up of 14 months, overall patient and graft survival rates were 85% and 81%, respectively. Fifty-eight children received a single allograft, whereas 7 children required retransplantation. Two-year actuarial survival rates were 85% for split-liver recipients, 84% for whole-liver recipients, and 67% for reduced-size liver recipients. Vascular complications developed in 18% of the patients, with no difference among the 3 groups with different technique. Biliary complications developed in 25% of the children, mainly in reduced-size and split-liver recipients. Patient and graft survival rates for right split-liver grafts were 84% and 79%, respectively. Adopting a liberal policy of liver splitting provides allografts of optimal quality for pediatric transplantation, allowing a dramatic decrease in the waiting list time. The in situ split-liver technique should be considered the method of choice for expanding the cadaveric liver donor pool.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Spada, M., Gridelli, B., Colledan, M., Segalin, A., Lucianetti, A., Petz, W., … Torre, G. (2000). Extensive use of split liver for pediatric liver transplantation: A single-center experience. Liver Transplantation, 6(4), 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1053/jlts.2000.7570

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free