Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39660425›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of surgery2025

Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial of Single Versus Double Venous Outflow Reconstruction in Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Venous Outflow in Liver Transplantation Trial.

Mettu Srinivas Reddy, Akshadhar J Koneti, Abhideep Chaudhary, Ashwin Rammohan, Raghavendra Babu Yalakanti, Shweta Mallick, Rajanikanth Patcha, Vipin Pal Singh, Satish Kumar Krishnan, Niteen Kumar and 3 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Safety and feasibility of robot-assisted remote radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer based on 5G communication technology (FUTURE-04): a prospective, single-arm clinical trial.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Telesurgery across continents: a scoping review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Minimally Invasive Liver Transplantation: The Recipient Operation.Journal of clinical and experimental hepatology
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Mettu Srinivas ReddyDepartment of Liver Transplantation and HPB Surgery, Gleneagles Health City, Chennai, TN, India.ORCID 0000-0001-7152-0546
Akshadhar J KonetiDepartment of Liver Transplantation and GI Surgery, Amritha Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Center, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, KL, India.ORCID 0000-0003-2088-5726
Abhideep ChaudharyDepartment of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, BLK-Max Super specialty Hospital, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0003-4817-4336
Ashwin RammohanDepartment of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Dr Rela Institute of Medical Sciences, Chennai, TN, India.
Raghavendra Babu YalakantiDepartment of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Gleneagles Hospital, Hyderabad, TG, India.ORCID 0009-0007-7845-4765
Shweta MallickDepartment of Liver Transplantation and GI Surgery, Amritha Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Center, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, KL, India.ORCID 0000-0001-5666-2239
Rajanikanth PatchaDepartment of Liver Transplantation and HPB Surgery, Gleneagles Health City, Chennai, TN, India.ORCID 0009-0002-1544-0423
Vipin Pal SinghDepartment of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, BLK-Max Super specialty Hospital, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0002-9405-1321
Satish Kumar KrishnanDepartment of Liver Transplantation and HPB Surgery, Gleneagles Health City, Chennai, TN, India.ORCID 0000-0002-5538-4764
Niteen KumarDepartment of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, BLK-Max Super specialty Hospital, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1780-6241
Prasanna GopalDepartment of Liver Transplantation and HPB Surgery, Gleneagles Health City, Chennai, TN, India.ORCID 0000-0001-5787-214
Mohamed RelaDepartment of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Dr Rela Institute of Medical Sciences, Chennai, TN, India.ORCID 0000-0003-4282-4676
Surendran SudhindranDepartment of Liver Transplantation and GI Surgery, Amritha Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Center, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, KL, India.ORCID 0000-0002-3973-7697

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare early patency and outcomes of single outflow [single outflow technique (SOT)] and double outflow [double outflow technique (DOT)] reconstruction in right lobe living donor liver transplantation (RtLDLT) in a multicenter open-labeled randomized controlled trial.

backgroundOptimum graft venous outflow is a key factor in determining outcomes of RtLDLT. There are no data directly comparing SOT and DOT techniques of graft outflow reconstruction.

methodsAdult patients undergoing RtLDLT needing anterior sector vein reconstruction were enrolled. A prosthetic graft was used to create a neo-middle hepatic vein (neoMHV). Web-based permuted block randomization was used to allocate patients to SOT or DOT (1:1) before graft implantation. The primary endpoint was neoMHV patency for up to 6 weeks. Secondary endpoints were postoperative morbidity and survival. Intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses are reported.

resultsFive centers randomized 219 patients to SOT (n = 110) or DOT (n = 109). Both groups were similar in baseline characteristics. SOT had better neoMHV patency at 2 weeks (92.5% vs 82.9%, P = 0.032), 4 weeks (84% vs 69%, P = 0.011) but not at 6 weeks (69.5% vs 59.2%, P = 0.124). Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed DOT [hazard ratio: 1.56 (95% CI = 1.02, 2.4); P = 0.041] and use of Dacron graft [hazard ratio: 2.83 (95% CI = 1.16, 6.94), P = 0.023] as independent risk factors for neoMHV thrombosis. SOT was associated with better in-hospital survival (97.3% vs 90.8%; P = 0.044) but similar 1-year survival (89% vs 85%, P = 0.340). SOT was associated with improved survival in patients who developed early allograft dysfunction or needed reoperation.

conclusionsSOT has better early neoMHV patency than DOT and may be associated with better early survival.

Indexed as

Hepatic VeinsLiver TransplantationLiving DonorsAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeVascular Patencyanterior sectorDacrongraft thrombosishepatic veinpatencyPTFEsurvival

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.