Hest risk potential of postoperative liver failure.Radtke A, Sgourakis G

Congestive volume-index: percentage of volume with venous congestion. Donor RV/TLV: Remnant volume percentage of total liver volume considering the remnant volume with intact bi-sectorial venous outflow via the middle (MHV)and LHV tributaries. Donor RVBWR: (Safely drained by MHV and LHV) vs non-congestive RVBWR (safely drained by LHV) were [9] calculated according to the Heinemann formula .Nd no interventions can avoid or cut down the transmission threat, with Number 71 43 28 5 4 7 8 10 7 6 2 2 7 4 63-D virtual liver partitionNeuroendocrine lever metastases (n = 2), liver metastases from insulinoma.five-step protocol evaluation scan/nst010 containing a preoperative [14,17] protocol liver biopsy as previously described . Biopsy results in all resected donors showed less than 10 steatosis and no evidence of hepatopathologic changes.The "carving" transection plane followed the course of the MHV, exposing it on the resection surface of either graft (MHV-procurement) or remnant (MHV-retention) [21] livers . The MHV trunk served as a reproducible surgical landmark for the exact extrapolation (by means of color doppler scanning, IOUS) of the 3-D liver model onto the operative field.SFS vs non-SFS remnantsRecipient indications for liver transplantationSixty eight out of 71 right graft recipients (28 females and 43 males, mean age 50 ?11.0 years) suffered from liver D a wider comparable analysis. The IL-17 187G>A polymorphism is cirrhosis classified for Child-A score; n = 22, Child-B score; n = 33, Child-C score; n = 13, while in the remaining n = 3 cases with no cirrhosis the indication for liver transplantation were neuroendocrine liver metastases (n = 2) as well as liver metastases from insulinoma (n = 1, Table 1). The overall "Model of End-Stage Liver Diesease"-score (MELD) was of mean of 14 ?8 (range: 11-40).We evaluated the correlation between RVBWR and RV/TLV as a way to distinguish between SFS- and non-SFS remnant status based on the following cut off values: SFS-remnant: RVBWR 1479-5868-9-35 in live donors of extended right liver graft. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21(19): 6008-6017 Available from: URL: http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/ v21/i19/6008.htm DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21. i19.MATERIALS AND METHODSStudy populationFrom January 2003 to October 2007, 71 consecutive live donors (36 females and 35 males, mean age 37 ?10.1 years) underwent right graft hepatectomy at the University Hospital Essen, Germany. There were 59 grafts with and 12 grafts without MHV (including 4 with MHV-5/8 reconstructions). All donors underwent ourWJG|www.wjgnet.comMay 21, 2015|Volume 21|Issue 19|Radtke A et al . Liver failure in live donors of right graftsTable 1 Etiology of liver disease among right graft recipients (n = 71)Parameter Total Male Female Autoimmune hepatitis Hepatitis B Hepatitis B associated with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) Hepatitis C Hepatitis C associated with HCC Alcoholic Alcoholic + associated with HCC Morbus Wilson Primary biliary sclerosis (PBC) Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) HCC Cryptogenic OthersNon-congestive volume: Volume safely drained by the left hepatic vein (LHV) tributaries.