SynthesisPloS one2015
Outcomes of Technical Variant Liver Transplantation versus Whole Liver Transplantation for Pediatric Patients: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Morbidity and Survival After Left Lateral Segment Versus Whole Liver Graft Transplantation in Children.Pediatric transplantation · 2026Article
- Donor size and early vascular complications in children receiving a whole liver transplant.World journal of transplantation · 2026Article
- An appraisal of technical variant grafts compared to whole liver grafts in pediatric liver transplant recipients: Multicenter analysis from the SPLIT registry.Pediatric transplantation · 2023Article
- Whole liver deceased donor liver transplantation for pediatric recipients: single-center experience for 20 years.Korean journal of transplantation · 2020Article
- Adherence to medical regimen after pediatric liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Article
- Predicting early outcomes of liver transplantation in young children: The EARLY study.World journal of hepatology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo overcome the shortage of appropriate-sized whole liver grafts for children, technical variant liver transplantation has been practiced for decades. We perform a meta-analysis to compare the survival rates and incidence of surgical complications between pediatric whole liver transplantation and technical variant liver transplantation.
methodsTo identify relevant studies up to January 2014, we searched PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases. The primary outcomes measured were patient and graft survival rates, and the secondary outcomes were the incidence of surgical complications. The outcomes were pooled using a fixed-effects model or random-effects model.
resultsThe one-year, three-year, five-year patient survival rates and one-year, three-year graft survival rates were significantly higher in whole liver transplantation than technical variant liver transplantation (OR = 1.62, 1.90, 1.65, 1.78, and 1.62, respectively, p<0.05). There was no significant difference in five-year graft survival rate between the two groups (OR = 1.47, p = 0.10). The incidence of portal vein thrombosis and biliary complications were significantly lower in the whole liver transplantation group (OR = 0.45 and 0.42, both p<0.05). The incidence of hepatic artery thrombosis was comparable between the two groups (OR = 1.21, p = 0.61).
conclusionsPediatric whole liver transplantation is associated with better outcomes than technical variant liver transplantation. Continuing efforts should be made to minimize surgical complications to improve the outcomes of technical variant liver transplantation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.