ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2024
Comparison of modified extended right lobe graft versus modified right lobe graft in adult living donor liver transplantation: Experience from Pakistan.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multidrug resistant bacterial infection in liver transplant recipients: A Deterrent and obstacle.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the outcomes of modified extended right lobe graft (MERLG) and modified right lobe graft (MRLG) in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Methods: This retrospective study was performed at the Liver transplant department of the Pir Abdul Qadir Shah Jeelani Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Gambat, Pakistan, from March 2019 to September 2020. The outcomes of 20 MERLG donors and recipients were compared to those of 74 MRLG donors and recipients. Demographics, operative parameters, complications, hospital stay, and one-year survival were compared between the two groups. Results: The mean graft volume of the MERLG group was more (637.10 ± 71.35 g) than in the MRLG group (562.27 ± 57.77 g), (p= 0.001). Donor blood loss was higher in the MERLG group (680.10±170.60 ml) compared to the MRLG group (650.23±190.65 ml), p=0.527. In addition, the operative time was longer in the MERLG group (345.80±76.90 min) than in the MRLG group (318.12±100.80 min) (p= 0.257). The MERLG recipients were sicker (mean MELD score of 22.54±3.67) than the MRLG (18.86±4.37) (p=0.001). The drain output was higher in the MRLG group (1340 ± 470.32 ml) than in the MERLG group (1110 ± 450.60 ml) (P =0.045). No significant difference was found when comparing postoperative laboratory results and complications between the donor and recipient groups (p >0.05). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a 95% one-year survival in MERLG group compared to 90.7% in the MRLG group (p=0.549). Conclusion: With appropriate technical expertise, MERLGs are technically safe and feasible in LDLT donors without any added risks. MERLGs also yielded better outcomes in sick recipients.
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.