A Graft to Body Weight Ratio Less Than 0.8 Does Not Exclude Adult-to-Adult Right-Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many centers require a minimal graft to body weight ratio (GBWR) >or= 0.8 as an arbitrary threshold to proceed with right-lobe living donor liver transplantation (RL-LDLT), and there is often hesitancy about transplanting lower volume living donor (LD) liver grafts into sicker patients. The data supporting this dogma, based on the early experience with RL-LDLT at Asian centers, are weak. To determine the effect of LD liver volume in the modern era, we investigated the impact of GBWR on the outcome of RL-LDLT with a GBWR as low as 0.6 at the University of Toronto. Between April 2000 and September 2008, 271 adult-to-adult RL-LDLT procedures and 614 deceased donor liver transplants were performed. Twenty-two living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) cases with a GBWR of 0.59 to 0.79 (group A) were compared with 249 LDLT cases with a GBWR >or= 0.8 (group B) and with 66 full-graft deceased donor liver transplants (group C), who were matched 3:1 according to donor and recipient age, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and presence of hepatitis C and hepatocellular carcinoma with the low-GBWR group. Portal vein shunts were not used. Markers of reperfusion injury [aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT)], graft function (international normalized ratio and bilirubin), complications graded by the Clavien score, and graft and patient survival were compared. As expected, LD recipients had a significantly shorter cold ischemia time (94 +/- 43 minutes for A, 96 +/- 57 minutes for B, and 453 +/- 152 minutes for C, P = 0.0001). However, the peak AST, peak ALT, absolute decrease in the international normalized ratio, day 7 bilirubin level, postoperative creatinine clearance, complication rate graded by the Clavien score, and median hospital stay were similar in all groups. The rate of biliary complications was higher with LD grafts than deceased donor grafts (19% for A versus 10% for B and 0% for C, P = 0.2). Patient survival was similar in all groups at 1, 3, and 5 years (91% for A versus 89% for B and 93% for C at 1 year, 87% for A versus 81% for B and 89% for C at 3 years, and 83% for A versus 81% for B and 87% for C at 5 years, P = 0.63). A Cox proportional regression analysis revealed only hepatitis C virus as a risk factor for poorer graft survival and not GBWR as a continuous or categorical variable. In conclusion, we found no evidence of inferior outcomes with smaller size grafts versus larger size LD grafts or full-size deceased donor grafts. Further studies are warranted to examine the factors affecting the function of smaller grafts for living liver donation and thereby define the safe lower limits for transplantation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".