ArticleAnnals of transplantation2020
Clinical Outcome of Residual Liver Volume and Hepatic Steatosis After Right-Lobe Living-Donor Hepatectomy.
Article in Annals of transplantation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Factors Affecting the Rate of Liver Regeneration in Living Donors after Right Hepatectomy.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Mesenchymal stem cells ameliorate lipid metabolism through reducing mitochondrial damage of hepatocytes in the treatment of post-hepatectomy liver failure.Cell death & disease · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND We examine how residual liver volume (RLV) and hepatic steatosis (HS) of living liver donors affect the regeneration process and clinical outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS We longitudinally studied 58 donors who underwent right-lobe hepatectomy during the period February 2014 to February 2015 at a single medical institution. The patients were classified based on RLV (30-35%, 35-40%, 40-50%) subgroups and HS (<10%, 10-30%, 30-50%) subgroups. Clinical parameters such as clinical outcome, liver volumetric recovery (LVR,%) rate and remnant left-liver (RLL,%) growth rate were collected for analysis. RESULTS The clinical features of postoperative peak total bilirubin (p=.024) were significant in the 3 RLV subgroups. Body mass index (p=.017), preoperative alanine transaminase (p<.001), and pleural effusion (p=.038) were significant in the 3 HS subgroups. The LVR rate and RLL growth rate equations showed significant variation in regeneration among the 3 RLV subgroups. The LVR rate and RLL growth rate equations did not show significant variation in regeneration among the 3 HS subgroups. CONCLUSIONS Hyperbilirubinemia was a risk factor in the small-RLV group, and a large amount of pleural effusion was a risk factor in the steatosis 30-50% group. Hepatic steatosis subgroups did not show significantly different degrees of regeneration. The safety of living donors was a major concern while we compiled the extended living-donor criteria presented in this paper.
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.