Purpose: This study aimed to describe adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for acute liver failure and evaluate its clinical significance by comparing its surgical and survival outcomes with those of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 267 consecutive patients (161 LDLT recipients and 106 DDLT recipients) aged 18 years or older who underwent liver transplantation between January 2006 and December 2020. Results: The mean periods from hepatic encephalopathy to liver transplantation were 5.85 days and 8.35 days for LDLT and DDLT, respectively (P = 0.091). Among these patients, 121 (45.3%) had grade III or IV hepatic encephalopathy (living, 34.8% vs. deceased, 61.3%; P < 0.001), and 38 (14.2%) had brain edema (living, 16.1% vs. deceased, 11.3%; P = 0.269) before liver transplantation. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality (living, 11.8% vs. deceased, 15.1%; P = 0.435), 10-year overall survival (living, 90.8% vs. deceased, 84.0%; P = 0.096), and graft survival (living, 83.5% vs. deceased, 71.3%;P = 0.051). However, postoperatively, the mean intensive care unit stay was shorter in the LDLT group (5.0 days vs. 9.5 days, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was associated with vasopressor use (odds ratio [OR], 3.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45–7.96; P = 0.005) and brain edema (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.16–6.52; P = 0.022) of recipient at the time of transplantation. However, LDLT (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.59–2.66; P = 0.553) was not independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Conclusion LDLT is feasible for acute liver failure when organs from deceased donors are not available.

Purpose: This study aimed to describe adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for acute liver failure and evaluate its clinical significance by comparing its surgical and survival outcomes with those of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 267 consecutive patients (161 LDLT recipients and 106 DDLT recipients) aged 18 years or older who underwent liver transplantation between January 2006 and December 2020. Results: The mean periods from hepatic encephalopathy to liver transplantation were 5.85 days and 8.35 days for LDLT and DDLT, respectively (P = 0.091). Among these patients, 121 (45.3%) had grade III or IV hepatic encephalopathy (living, 34.8% vs. deceased, 61.3%; P < 0.001), and 38 (14.2%) had brain edema (living, 16.1% vs. deceased, 11.3%; P = 0.269) before liver transplantation. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality (living, 11.8% vs. deceased, 15.1%; P = 0.435), 10-year overall survival (living, 90.8% vs. deceased, 84.0%; P = 0.096), and graft survival (living, 83.5% vs. deceased, 71.3%;P = 0.051). However, postoperatively, the mean intensive care unit stay was shorter in the LDLT group (5.0 days vs. 9.5 days, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was associated with vasopressor use (odds ratio [OR], 3.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45–7.96; P = 0.005) and brain edema (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.16–6.52; P = 0.022) of recipient at the time of transplantation. However, LDLT (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.59–2.66; P = 0.553) was not independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Conclusion LDLT is feasible for acute liver failure when organs from deceased donors are not available.

Purpose: This study aimed to describe adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for acute liver failure and evaluate its clinical significance by comparing its surgical and survival outcomes with those of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 267 consecutive patients (161 LDLT recipients and 106 DDLT recipients) aged 18 years or older who underwent liver transplantation between January 2006 and December 2020. Results: The mean periods from hepatic encephalopathy to liver transplantation were 5.85 days and 8.35 days for LDLT and DDLT, respectively (P = 0.091). Among these patients, 121 (45.3%) had grade III or IV hepatic encephalopathy (living, 34.8% vs. deceased, 61.3%; P < 0.001), and 38 (14.2%) had brain edema (living, 16.1% vs. deceased, 11.3%; P = 0.269) before liver transplantation. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality (living, 11.8% vs. deceased, 15.1%; P = 0.435), 10-year overall survival (living, 90.8% vs. deceased, 84.0%; P = 0.096), and graft survival (living, 83.5% vs. deceased, 71.3%;P = 0.051). However, postoperatively, the mean intensive care unit stay was shorter in the LDLT group (5.0 days vs. 9.5 days, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was associated with vasopressor use (odds ratio [OR], 3.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45–7.96; P = 0.005) and brain edema (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.16–6.52; P = 0.022) of recipient at the time of transplantation. However, LDLT (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.59–2.66; P = 0.553) was not independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Conclusion LDLT is feasible for acute liver failure when organs from deceased donors are not available.

Purpose: This study aimed to describe adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for acute liver failure and evaluate its clinical significance by comparing its surgical and survival outcomes with those of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 267 consecutive patients (161 LDLT recipients and 106 DDLT recipients) aged 18 years or older who underwent liver transplantation between January 2006 and December 2020. Results: The mean periods from hepatic encephalopathy to liver transplantation were 5.85 days and 8.35 days for LDLT and DDLT, respectively (P = 0.091). Among these patients, 121 (45.3%) had grade III or IV hepatic encephalopathy (living, 34.8% vs. deceased, 61.3%; P < 0.001), and 38 (14.2%) had brain edema (living, 16.1% vs. deceased, 11.3%; P = 0.269) before liver transplantation. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality (living, 11.8% vs. deceased, 15.1%; P = 0.435), 10-year overall survival (living, 90.8% vs. deceased, 84.0%; P = 0.096), and graft survival (living, 83.5% vs. deceased, 71.3%;P = 0.051). However, postoperatively, the mean intensive care unit stay was shorter in the LDLT group (5.0 days vs. 9.5 days, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was associated with vasopressor use (odds ratio [OR], 3.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45–7.96; P = 0.005) and brain edema (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.16–6.52; P = 0.022) of recipient at the time of transplantation. However, LDLT (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.59–2.66; P = 0.553) was not independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Conclusion LDLT is feasible for acute liver failure when organs from deceased donors are not available.

“Clinical Practice Guideline for Stroke Rehabilitation in Korea 2016” is the 3rd edition of clinical practice guideline (CPG) for stroke rehabilitation in Korea, which updates the 2nd edition published in 2014. Forty-two specialists in stroke rehabilitation from 21 universities and 4 rehabilitation hospitals and 4 consultants participated in this update. The purpose of this CPG is to provide optimum practical guidelines for stroke rehabilitation teams to make a decision when they manage stroke patients and ultimately, to help stroke patients obtain maximal functional recovery and return to the society. The recent two CPGs from Canada (2015) and USA (2016) and articles that were published following the 2nd edition were used to develop this 3rd edition of CPG for stroke rehabilitation in Korea. The chosen articles' level of evidence and grade of recommendation were decided by the criteria of Scotland (2010) and the formal consensus was derived by the nominal group technique. The levels of evidence range from 1++ to 4 and the grades of recommendation range from A to D. Good Practice Point was recommended as best practice based on the clinical experience of the guideline developmental group. The draft of the developed CPG was reviewed by the experts group in the public hearings and then revised. “Clinical Practice Guideline for Stroke Rehabilitation in Korea 2016” consists of ‘Chapter 1; Introduction of Stroke Rehabilitation’, ‘Chapter 2; Rehabilitation for Stroke Syndrome, ‘Chapter 3; Rehabilitation for Returning to the Society’, and ‘Chapter 4; Advanced Technique for Stroke Rehabilitation’. “Clinical Practice Guideline for Stroke Rehabilitation in Korea 2016” will provide direction and standardization for acute, subacute and chronic stroke rehabilitation in Korea.
Canada ; Consensus ; Consultants ; Humans ; Korea* ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Rehabilitation* ; Scotland ; Specialization ; Stroke*