ArticleHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition2025
Anatomical study of the paracaval branch of the caudate lobe: implications of paracaval portion-preserving right hepatectomy for donors with marginal remnant liver volume.
Article in Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: In living donor liver transplantation, the remnant liver volume (RLV) is important when selecting a donor, and it should usually exceed 35%. However, there have been no studies on the preservation of the caudate lobe in donors with marginal RLV. This study aimed to analyze and preserve the paracaval branch by using donor right hepatectomy (DRH). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data from liver donors who underwent DRH between August 2022 and July 2023. The paracaval branch was classified based on its origin [right, left, or bifurcation of main portal vein (MPV)]. For the left or bifurcation types, the paracaval branch was categorized by size and the paracaval portion volume was measured. The expected preserved area after paracaval portion-preserving DRH was estimated. Results: Among the 87 donors, the paracaval branch originated from the right portal vein (RPV) in 41 (47.1%), left portal vein (LPV) in 37 (42.5%), and bifurcation in 9 (10.3%). Of 46 donors with LPV or bifurcation type, 21 (45.7%) had a large size, 13 (28.3%) had a medium size, and 12 (26.1%) had a small size. Excluding two donors with poor image quality, the liver volume of the paracaval portion averaged 38.0 mL [2.9% of the total liver volume (TLV)]. The mean expected preserved area was 27.3 mL (2.1% of the TLV). Four donors in our center underwent paracaval portion-preserving DRH, with an expected preserved area of 35.6 mL (2.7%), 164.7 mL (12.3%), and 70.2 mL (4.6%), 20.3 mL (2.0%) in each case. Conclusions: Our paracaval branch classification suggests that more than half of the donors could potentially benefit from paracaval portion-preserving DRH, particularly for large LPV or bifurcation types reaching the liver surface, thus enhancing donor safety for marginal donors with a small RLV.
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.