Split versus living-related adult liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Deceased donor
Live donor liver transplant
Split liver transplant
Journal
Langenbeck's archives of surgery
ISSN: 1435-2451
Titre abrégé: Langenbecks Arch Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9808285
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
received:
26
11
2018
accepted:
25
02
2019
pubmed:
9
3
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
entrez:
9
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The outcomes of split liver transplantation between recipients of deceased donor split liver transplant (SLT) or live donor liver transplants (LDLT) have never been compared in meta-analysis. It is important to understand graft and recipient survival between recipients of these grafts. Databases were searched for relevant articles over the previous 20 years (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar). Meta-analyses were performed using both fixed- and random-effects models. Patient survival and graft survival were obtained using the inverse variance hazard ratio method. There were differences in the characteristics of the donors and recipients. Donors of the SLT were younger compared to LDLT cohort [mean difference (MD) = - 11.12 years (- 15.41 to - 6.84), p < 0.001] whilst recipients of LDLT were younger [MD = - 2.06 years (- 1.12 to - 3.01), p < 0.001]. Significantly fewer men received grafts after SLT, 45%, compared to those receiving LDLT, 55%, [OR = 0.66 (0.55 to 0.80), p < 0.001]. There were no significant differences detected in postoperative complications, graft and patient 1-, 3- and 5-year survival between the SLT and LDLT cohorts. There is no apparent difference in overall survival, graft survival or complications between recipients of SLT or LDLT. However, characteristics of the donor and recipients differed suggesting the need for adequate risk-adjusted assessment of outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND-OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The outcomes of split liver transplantation between recipients of deceased donor split liver transplant (SLT) or live donor liver transplants (LDLT) have never been compared in meta-analysis. It is important to understand graft and recipient survival between recipients of these grafts.
METHODS
METHODS
Databases were searched for relevant articles over the previous 20 years (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar). Meta-analyses were performed using both fixed- and random-effects models. Patient survival and graft survival were obtained using the inverse variance hazard ratio method.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There were differences in the characteristics of the donors and recipients. Donors of the SLT were younger compared to LDLT cohort [mean difference (MD) = - 11.12 years (- 15.41 to - 6.84), p < 0.001] whilst recipients of LDLT were younger [MD = - 2.06 years (- 1.12 to - 3.01), p < 0.001]. Significantly fewer men received grafts after SLT, 45%, compared to those receiving LDLT, 55%, [OR = 0.66 (0.55 to 0.80), p < 0.001]. There were no significant differences detected in postoperative complications, graft and patient 1-, 3- and 5-year survival between the SLT and LDLT cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There is no apparent difference in overall survival, graft survival or complications between recipients of SLT or LDLT. However, characteristics of the donor and recipients differed suggesting the need for adequate risk-adjusted assessment of outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30847599
doi: 10.1007/s00423-019-01771-4
pii: 10.1007/s00423-019-01771-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM