Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of aorto-hepatic conduits in liver transplant: Known knowns and known unknowns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Aorto-hepatic conduits (AHCs) are an effective revascularization method for liver allografts when the native hepatic artery is unusable. Various studies have confirmed that outcomes with AHCs are inferior to those with native hepatic artery inflow. AIM To investigate the published evidence on the outcomes according to different inflow site for AHCs. METHODS A systematic search was conducted for studies reporting on AHCs in liver transplantation over the last 10 years (January 2014 onwards). Two independent reviewers selected articles, assessed quality, and evaluated bias in the included systematic reviews. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024545810). Review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement standards. RESULTS Fourteen studies identified a total of 32486 deceased donor liver transplants, of which 1136 (3.5%) required AHCs. The most frequent indications for AHC use included poor arterial flow, intimal dissections, and hepatic artery thrombosis. Among all AHCs, 207 (18.2%) were supra-coeliac (SC) AHCs, 738 (65.0%) infra-renal (IR) AHCs, 25 (2.2%) iliac artery conduits, and 166 (14.6%) had unspecified origins. Pooled analysis revealed comparable demographic characteristics. The median follow-up duration ranged from 18 to 52 months. There were no significant differences in early occlusions of AHCs [odds ratio (OR) = 0.94 (0.48, 1.84); P = 0.86], late occlusions of AHCs [OR = 0.46 (0.16, 1.32); P = 0.15], early allograft dysfunction [OR = 0.82 (0.46, 1.47); P = 0.51], biliary complications [OR = 1.10 (0.69, 1.76); P = 0.68], post-transplant renal replacement therapy (RRT) requirement [OR = 1.12 (0.72, 1.72); P = 0.62], and major surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo > 3b) [OR = 1.06 (0.70, 1.61); P = 0.79]. The median duration for graft occlusion was approximately 142 days, ranging from 13 to 3313 days. One-year graft and patient survival rates for SC conduits were 77% to 81.1% and 80% to 85.1%, respectively. For IR conduits, one-year graft and patient survival rates were 66% to 79.1% and 73% to 88.3%, respectively. Five-year graft and patient survival rates for SC conduits were 53.9% to 67% and 67.8% to 74%, respectively. For IR conduits, five-year graft and patient survival rates were 50% to 56% and 56% to 64.9%, respectively. CONCLUSION Considering these findings, there is no significant difference in early and late outcomes between SC and IR AHCs, although there is a discernible tendency towards higher late occlusion rates in the IR group.
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 | 0.020 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".