TY - JOUR
T1 - Left lobe living donor liver transplantation in adults
AU - Soejima, Yuji
AU - Shirabe, K.
AU - Taketomi, A.
AU - Yoshizumi, T.
AU - Uchiyama, H.
AU - Ikegami, Toru
AU - Ninomiya, M.
AU - Harada, Noboru
AU - Ijichi, H.
AU - Maehara, Yoshihiko
PY - 2012/7
Y1 - 2012/7
N2 - Adult left lobe (LL) living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has not generally been recognized as a feasible procedure because of the problem of graft size. The objectives of this study were to assess the feasibility and short- and long-term results of adult LL LDLT in comparison with right lobe (RL) LDLT. Data on 200 consecutive LL LDLTs, including five retransplants, were retrospectively compared with those of 112 RL LDLTs, in terms of survival, complications and donor morbidity. The mean graft weight to standard volume ratio of LL grafts was 38.7% whereas that of RL grafts was 47.6% (p < 0.0001). The 1-, 5- and 10-year patient survival rates of LL LDLT were 85.6%, 77.9% and 69.5%, respectively, which were comparable to those of RL LDLT (89.8%, 71.3% and 70.7%, respectively). The incidence of small-for-size syndromewas higher in LL LDLT (19.5%) than in RL LDLT (7.1%) (p < 0.01). The overall donor morbidity rates were comparable between LL (36.0%) and RL (34.8%), whereas postoperative liver function tests and hospital stay were significantly better (p < 0.0001) in LL donors. In conclusion, adult LL LDLT has comparable outcomes to that of RL LDLT. LL LDLT is viable and is the first choice in adult LDLT.
AB - Adult left lobe (LL) living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has not generally been recognized as a feasible procedure because of the problem of graft size. The objectives of this study were to assess the feasibility and short- and long-term results of adult LL LDLT in comparison with right lobe (RL) LDLT. Data on 200 consecutive LL LDLTs, including five retransplants, were retrospectively compared with those of 112 RL LDLTs, in terms of survival, complications and donor morbidity. The mean graft weight to standard volume ratio of LL grafts was 38.7% whereas that of RL grafts was 47.6% (p < 0.0001). The 1-, 5- and 10-year patient survival rates of LL LDLT were 85.6%, 77.9% and 69.5%, respectively, which were comparable to those of RL LDLT (89.8%, 71.3% and 70.7%, respectively). The incidence of small-for-size syndromewas higher in LL LDLT (19.5%) than in RL LDLT (7.1%) (p < 0.01). The overall donor morbidity rates were comparable between LL (36.0%) and RL (34.8%), whereas postoperative liver function tests and hospital stay were significantly better (p < 0.0001) in LL donors. In conclusion, adult LL LDLT has comparable outcomes to that of RL LDLT. LL LDLT is viable and is the first choice in adult LDLT.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863206790&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84863206790&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04022.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04022.x
M3 - Article
C2 - 22429497
AN - SCOPUS:84863206790
SN - 1600-6135
VL - 12
SP - 1877
EP - 1885
JO - American Journal of Transplantation
JF - American Journal of Transplantation
IS - 7
ER -