在成人活体肝移植中比较改良的扩展右叶移植物和改良的右叶移植物:巴基斯坦的经验。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.12669/pjms.40.8.7825
Abdul Ghaffar, Kaleem Ullah, Syed Hasnain Abbas, Hafiz Bilal
{"title":"在成人活体肝移植中比较改良的扩展右叶移植物和改良的右叶移植物:巴基斯坦的经验。","authors":"Abdul Ghaffar, Kaleem Ullah, Syed Hasnain Abbas, Hafiz Bilal","doi":"10.12669/pjms.40.8.7825","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the outcomes of modified extended right lobe graft (MERLG) and modified right lobe graft (MRLG) in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study was performed at the Liver transplant department of the Pir Abdul Qadir Shah Jeelani Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Gambat, Pakistan, from March 2019 to September 2020. The outcomes of 20 MERLG donors and recipients were compared to those of 74 MRLG donors and recipients. Demographics, operative parameters, complications, hospital stay, and one-year survival were compared between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean graft volume of the MERLG group was more (637.10 ± 71.35 g) than in the MRLG group (562.27 ± 57.77 g), (p= 0.001). Donor blood loss was higher in the MERLG group (680.10±170.60 ml) compared to the MRLG group (650.23±190.65 ml), p=0.527. In addition, the operative time was longer in the MERLG group (345.80±76.90 min) than in the MRLG group (318.12±100.80 min) (p= 0.257). The MERLG recipients were sicker (mean MELD score of 22.54±3.67) than the MRLG (18.86±4.37) (p=0.001). The drain output was higher in the MRLG group (1340 ± 470.32 ml) than in the MERLG group (1110 ± 450.60 ml) (P =0.045). No significant difference was found when comparing postoperative laboratory results and complications between the donor and recipient groups (p >0.05). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a 95% one-year survival in MERLG group compared to 90.7% in the MRLG group (p=0.549).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With appropriate technical expertise, MERLGs are technically safe and feasible in LDLT donors without any added risks. MERLGs also yielded better outcomes in sick recipients.</p>","PeriodicalId":19958,"journal":{"name":"Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11395375/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of modified extended right lobe graft versus modified right lobe graft in adult living donor liver transplantation: Experience from Pakistan.\",\"authors\":\"Abdul Ghaffar, Kaleem Ullah, Syed Hasnain Abbas, Hafiz Bilal\",\"doi\":\"10.12669/pjms.40.8.7825\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the outcomes of modified extended right lobe graft (MERLG) and modified right lobe graft (MRLG) in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study was performed at the Liver transplant department of the Pir Abdul Qadir Shah Jeelani Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Gambat, Pakistan, from March 2019 to September 2020. The outcomes of 20 MERLG donors and recipients were compared to those of 74 MRLG donors and recipients. Demographics, operative parameters, complications, hospital stay, and one-year survival were compared between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean graft volume of the MERLG group was more (637.10 ± 71.35 g) than in the MRLG group (562.27 ± 57.77 g), (p= 0.001). Donor blood loss was higher in the MERLG group (680.10±170.60 ml) compared to the MRLG group (650.23±190.65 ml), p=0.527. In addition, the operative time was longer in the MERLG group (345.80±76.90 min) than in the MRLG group (318.12±100.80 min) (p= 0.257). The MERLG recipients were sicker (mean MELD score of 22.54±3.67) than the MRLG (18.86±4.37) (p=0.001). The drain output was higher in the MRLG group (1340 ± 470.32 ml) than in the MERLG group (1110 ± 450.60 ml) (P =0.045). No significant difference was found when comparing postoperative laboratory results and complications between the donor and recipient groups (p >0.05). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a 95% one-year survival in MERLG group compared to 90.7% in the MRLG group (p=0.549).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With appropriate technical expertise, MERLGs are technically safe and feasible in LDLT donors without any added risks. MERLGs also yielded better outcomes in sick recipients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19958,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11395375/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.40.8.7825\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.40.8.7825","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较活体肝移植(LDLT)中改良扩展右叶移植(MERLG)和改良右叶移植(MRLG)的疗效:这项回顾性研究于 2019 年 3 月至 2020 年 9 月在巴基斯坦甘巴特 Pir Abdul Qadir Shah Jeelani 医学院医院肝移植科进行。20例MERLG供体和受体的结果与74例MRLG供体和受体的结果进行了比较。比较了两组的人口统计学、手术参数、并发症、住院时间和一年存活率:结果:MERLG 组的平均移植物体积(637.10 ± 71.35 克)大于 MRLG 组(562.27 ± 57.77 克)(P= 0.001)。与 MRLG 组(650.23±190.65 毫升)相比,MERLG 组的供体失血量更高(680.10±170.60 毫升),P=0.527。此外,MERLG 组的手术时间(345.80±76.90 分钟)长于 MRLG 组(318.12±100.80 分钟)(P= 0.257)。MERLG受者的病情(平均MELD评分为22.54±3.67)比MRLG(18.86±4.37)严重(P=0.001)。MRLG组的引流量(1340 ± 470.32 ml)高于MERLG组(1110 ± 450.60 ml)(P=0.045)。供体组和受体组的术后实验室结果和并发症比较无明显差异(P >0.05)。Kaplan-Meier分析显示,MERLG组的一年存活率为95%,而MRLG组为90.7%(P=0.549):结论:在适当的专业技术条件下,MERLG 在 LDLT 供体中技术上是安全可行的,不会增加任何风险。结论:对于 LDLT 供体而言,MERLG 在技术上是安全可行的,不会增加任何风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of modified extended right lobe graft versus modified right lobe graft in adult living donor liver transplantation: Experience from Pakistan.

Objectives: To compare the outcomes of modified extended right lobe graft (MERLG) and modified right lobe graft (MRLG) in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

Methods: This retrospective study was performed at the Liver transplant department of the Pir Abdul Qadir Shah Jeelani Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Gambat, Pakistan, from March 2019 to September 2020. The outcomes of 20 MERLG donors and recipients were compared to those of 74 MRLG donors and recipients. Demographics, operative parameters, complications, hospital stay, and one-year survival were compared between the two groups.

Results: The mean graft volume of the MERLG group was more (637.10 ± 71.35 g) than in the MRLG group (562.27 ± 57.77 g), (p= 0.001). Donor blood loss was higher in the MERLG group (680.10±170.60 ml) compared to the MRLG group (650.23±190.65 ml), p=0.527. In addition, the operative time was longer in the MERLG group (345.80±76.90 min) than in the MRLG group (318.12±100.80 min) (p= 0.257). The MERLG recipients were sicker (mean MELD score of 22.54±3.67) than the MRLG (18.86±4.37) (p=0.001). The drain output was higher in the MRLG group (1340 ± 470.32 ml) than in the MERLG group (1110 ± 450.60 ml) (P =0.045). No significant difference was found when comparing postoperative laboratory results and complications between the donor and recipient groups (p >0.05). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a 95% one-year survival in MERLG group compared to 90.7% in the MRLG group (p=0.549).

Conclusion: With appropriate technical expertise, MERLGs are technically safe and feasible in LDLT donors without any added risks. MERLGs also yielded better outcomes in sick recipients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences
Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
363
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: It is a peer reviewed medical journal published regularly since 1984. It was previously known as quarterly "SPECIALIST" till December 31st 1999. It publishes original research articles, review articles, current practices, short communications & case reports. It attracts manuscripts not only from within Pakistan but also from over fifty countries from abroad. Copies of PJMS are sent to all the import medical libraries all over Pakistan and overseas particularly in South East Asia and Asia Pacific besides WHO EMRO Region countries. Eminent members of the medical profession at home and abroad regularly contribute their write-ups, manuscripts in our publications. We pursue an independent editorial policy, which allows an opportunity to the healthcare professionals to express their views without any fear or favour. That is why many opinion makers among the medical and pharmaceutical profession use this publication to communicate their viewpoint.
期刊最新文献
Enhancing the antibacterial and surface hardness of glass ionomer cement modified with Salvadora persica and Chlorhexidine: An in vitro study. Genetic Variants in Vitamin-D Metabolism Genes (rs1155563, rs12785878 and rs10500804) among Females with Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus in Saudi Arabia. Genotypes analysis and antifungal susceptibility of Candida albicans strains isolated from women with vaginal candidiasis in Jordan using PCR targeting 25SrDNA and ALT repeat sequences of the RPS. Impact of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy on survival outcomes in patients with unilateral breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Impact of Flood on Breastfeeding Practices at Flood Relief Camps of Pakistan.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1