ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Liver regeneration after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose We aim to identify possible factors affecting liver regeneration in donors, liver graft hypertrophy and spleen shrinkage in recipients. We aim also to assess the differences between donors and recipients.Methods and methodsTwenty-seven donors and 27 recipients were included. We collected anthropometric and bio-humoral parameters considered in the preoperative setting, just after the surgery, after 7 days, and after 30 days from the surgery. We calculated liver regeneration rates (RR%), regeneration velocities (RV) and spleen reduction rates (SRR%) at 2-3 months, 12 months, and 24 months. Body composition parameters were calculated.ResultsIn right lobe donors we found a mean RR of 118,70%, 146,33% and 154,88%. The mean RV was 7,94 cc/s, 0,61 cc/s, and 0,24 cc/s.For right lobe recipients the mean RR was 72,61%, 68,31%, and 79,69%. The mean RV was 9,74 cc/s, 0,19 cc/s, and 0,16 cc/s. The mean spleen reduction rate was 1,38%, 11,36%, and 10,80%.The regeneration rates were higher in donors with statistically significant differences. The recipients have a growth peak within 2-3 months, while donors at 12 months.In donors, the residual liver volume after transplantation and pre-transplant liver function are negatively correlated with regeneration. In recipients, we observed negative correlations with hematological and nutritional parameters. Liver regeneration goes parallel with the volumetric reduction of the spleen. A greater muscle mass and improved muscle quality are major stimuli to the regeneration process.ConclusionThis study emphasizes how sophisticated and versatile liver regeneration is, influenced not only by the remaining liver or graft, but also by the metabolic environment of the host.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42249073What 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.