Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Comparison of the results of conventional, crossclamp and piggyback technique in liver transplantation].

Authors: Balázs, Nemes; Lászlo, Kóbori; Imre, Fehérvári; János, Fazakas; Zsuzsa, Gerlei; Gábor, Ther; Dénes, Görög; +4 Authors

[Comparison of the results of conventional, crossclamp and piggyback technique in liver transplantation].

Abstract

The authors evaluate the results of the technical variants of liver transplantion in the first 10 years. They present the technique of conventional and piggyback liver transplantation. Their aim is to compare the outcome of the two surgical implantation techniques. Using the piggyback technique, the need for intraoperative blood transfusion was less (10U) compared to conventional transplantion (15U). Vascular complication rate was lower with conventional, compared to piggy back technique. Hepatic artery thrombosis rate was higher (14% vs. 5%) while venous outflow occlusion rate was lower (0% vs. 8%) in conventional technique compared to piggyback. Postoperative kidney failure was more frequent after conventional and crossclamp technique (45%). The 1, 3, and 5 year cumulative patient survival rates were 62%, 55% and 52% in the conventional group, and 79%, 71% is 63% after piggyback. The 1, 3 and 5 years graft survival were 60%, 53% and 50% after conventional and 74%, 66% and 60% after piggyback implantation. The piggyback technique became routine standard procedure in Hungary, with lower transfusion need, less kidney failure and very good results.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Male, Hungary, Intraoperative Care, Graft Survival, Middle Aged, Liver Transplantation, Survival Rate, Treatment Outcome, Humans, Blood Transfusion, Female, Renal Insufficiency, Retrospective Studies

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    7
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
7
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!