Influencing factors of liver regeneration and their prognostic impact after split liver transplantation
10.3760/cma.j.cn113884-20220121-00036
- VernacularTitle:劈离式肝移植术后肝再生的影响因素及其对预后的影响
- Author:
Lianghao ZHANG
1
;
Qingguo XU
;
Xin WANG
;
Yong ZHANG
;
Feng WANG
;
Peng LIU
;
Deshu DAI
;
Bingni LI
;
Xianjun ZHOU
;
Jinzhen CAI
Author Information
1. 青岛大学附属医院器官移植中心，青岛 266035
- Keywords:
Liver transplantation;
Liver regeneration;
Portal vein;
Liver function
- From:
Chinese Journal of Hepatobiliary Surgery
2022;28(6):413-418
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To study the influencing factors of liver regeneration and their prognostic impact after split liver transplantation.Methods:The clinical data of 44 patients who underwent split liver transplantation at the Organ Transplant Center of Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from January 2015 to July 2021 were analysed. There were 19 males and 25 females, aged (49±12) years old. Based on whether the liver regeneration rate (LRR) was greater than 100%, these patients were divided into the good regeneration group (LRR≥100%, n=24) and the poor regeneration group (LRR<100%, n=20). The differences in the perioperative data and postoperative survival rates between the two groups were compared. The patients were followed up by outpatient reexamination or telephone. Results:On days 15, 30, 90, and 180 after operation, the volume change rates in the transplanted liver were (117.04±7.00)%, (164.03±16.72)%, (180.98±26.30)%, (159.40±26.28)%, respectively. The body mass index, anhepatic period, intraoperative bleeding, intraoperative blood transfusion, hospitalization time, recovery time of liver function, fatty degeneration of donor liver and type of donor liver were the influencing factors of liver regenera-tion after split liver transplantation. The levels of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase on the days 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 after operation in the group of patient with good regeneration were significantly lower than those in the group of patient with poor regeneration ( P<0.05). The levels of total bilirubin in the group of patient with good regeneration was significantly lower than those in the group of patient with poor regeneration on days 5, 6 and 7 after operation ( P<0.05). The portal vein flow per 100 g of liver mass in the good regeneration group was significantly better than the poor regeneration group on day 1 and 30 after operation. The 6-month cumulative survival rates of the good regeneration group and the poor regeneration group were 95.8% and 70.0% respectively, and the difference was significant ( P=0.017). Conclusions:Body mass index, anhepatic period, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative blood transfusion, hospitalization time, recovery time of liver function, fatty degeneration of donor liver and type of donor liver were the influencing factors of liver regeneration after split liver transplantation. The prognosis of recipients with poor liver regeneration was significantly worse than recipients with good liver regeneration.
