Search

Introduction: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a surgical technique developed with the aim of addressing the low donation rate. Living donor selection is crucial to minimize donor risks and maximize recipient outcomes. Computer tomographic right liver volumetry (CTRLV) is one of the most important steps when planning a living donor right hepatectomy. Methods: Retrospective study of all patients who underwent right lobectomy for living donor liver transplantation at Red de Salud UC-CHRISTUS, between January 2016 and December 2021. CTRLV and corrected CTRLV (CTRLVc) were compared with graft weight by calculating the mean difference, using Paired sample t-test, the calculation of the Pearson’s correlation coefficient to evaluate its linear correlation and the performance of the Bland-Altman (BA) test and the calculation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to evaluate The concordance. Objectives: The principal aim is to determine the correlation and concordance between a semiautomatic method for estimating CTRLV and the weight of the liver graft in adult-to-adult living donor hepatectomy. As a secondary objective, we aimed to assess the concordance and correlation of a semiautomatic method for estimating CTRLV between two independent observers. Results: 41 patients underwent right lobectomy for living donor liver transplantation, among these, 36 had preoperative CT right liver volumetry. The mean CTRLV and CTRLVc were 902.7 ± 162 cc and 739.9 ± 132.8 cc, respectively. The graft weight (GW) average was 773.8 ± 126.9 cc. The average of the CTRLV was significantly higher than the GW (16.7% overestimation. The mean CTRLVc was still different than mean graft weight (4.4% underestimation). There was a direct linear correlation between the computer tomographic volumetry (CTV) and the GW when calculating Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r = 0.796; p < 0.001). When calculating average GBWR with the estimated graft weight according to CT volumetry, it was 1.27. When recalculating this value, but with the actual graft weight (measured during surgery), the average GBWR was 1.05, considered safe in LDLT. Conclusions: The calculation of the CTRLV with a correction factor has a good correlation and concordance with the graft weight obtained after a right lobectomy for living donor liver transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resumen: Esta guía de recomendaciones para el TR de donante vivo (TRDV) es un documento elaborado con el patrocinio de la Sociedad Española de Nefrología, la Sociedad Española de Trasplantes y la Organización Nacional de Trasplantes que actualiza la calidad de la evidencia disponible para ofrecer el mejor tratamiento de la insuficiencia renal crónica cuando se disponga de un donante vivo potencial. El objetivo principal de esta guía es proporcionar a los profesionales con responsabilidad en los estudios previos del donante vivo y del receptor trasplantado, las mejores herramientas para tomar decisiones en beneficio del donante vivo y del receptor del trasplante.Además, en el contexto actual del TR, el donante vivo debe recuperar el protagonismo que alcanzó en un pasado reciente. Para ello, las nuevas modalidades de donación HLA y/o ABO incompatible, así como la donación cruzada disponibles en diversos centros con experiencia en TRDV, son oportunidades adicionales para el tratamiento de enfermos renales que tienen un donante incompatible.Los buenos resultados en supervivencia del paciente y del injerto están ampliando las circunstancias de aceptación de donantes vivos de riñón, incluyendo donantes de mayor edad y otros con algunos condicionantes que incluyen antecedentes o alteraciones límite que, cuando son evaluados con criterios objetivos, pueden aportar un numero adicional de trasplantes.No se ha obviado en esta guía que el TRDV puede representar algún riesgo para el que dona. Estos problemas que pueden aparecer a corto o largo plazo tienen que ser objeto principal de valoración previa a la donación y presentados al potencial donante para que en ejercicio de su autonomía los asuma o rechace. La experiencia acumulada en los últimos años ha permitido avanzar en el análisis de riesgos para preservar la salud de los donantes, aspecto que debe estar siempre presente en los responsables de programas de TRDV cuando se procede al estudio de idoneidad de un potencial donante.Finalmente, esta guía ha sido estructurada para facilitar la toma de decisiones con recomendaciones y sugerencias ante incertidumbres derivadas de los resultados en los exhaustivos estudios predonación. Y todo ello, con el objetivo de que el consentimiento informado que debe certificar la calidad de los estudios y la información proporcionada a donante y receptor, alcancen las mayores garantías posibles. Abstract: This guide for living donor renal transplantation (LDRT) has been prepared with the sponsorship of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN), the Spanish Transplant Society (SET), and the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). It updates evidence to offer the best chronic renal failure treatment when a potential living donor is available. The core aim of this guide is to supply clinicians who evaluate living donors and transplant recipients with the best decision-making tools, to optimise their outcomes.Moreover, the role of living donors in the current RT context should recover the level of importance it had until recently. To this end the new forms of incompatible HLA and/or ABO donation, as well as the paired donation which is possible in several hospitals with experience in LDRT, offer additional ways to treat renal patients with an incompatible donor.Good results in terms of patient and graft survival have expanded the range of circumstances under which living renal donors are accepted. Older donors are now accepted, as are others with factors that affect the decision, such as a borderline clinical history or alterations, which when evaluated may lead to an additional number of transplantations.This guide does not forget that LDRT may lead to risk for the donor. Pre-donation evaluation has to centre on the problems which may arise over the short or long-term, and these have to be described to the potential donor so that they are able to take them into account. Experience over recent years has led to progress in risk analysis, to protect donors’ health. This aspect always has to be taken into account by LDRT programmes when evaluating potential donors.Finally, this guide has been designed to aid decision-making, with recommendations and suggestions when uncertainties arise in pre-donation studies. Its overarching aim is to ensure that informed consent is based on high quality studies and information supplied to donors and recipients, offering the strongest possible guarantees.

Background and Aims: Preservation solutions used as kidney washing solutions in transplantation are necessary for the longer preservation of the kidney. The study aims to compare different kidney-washing solutions used in living renal transplantation. Methods and Results: Fortynine patients who underwent renal transplantation from live donors were included in the retrospective study. The Ringer's solution flushed the renal graft in 37 patients (Group 1), and the preservation solution was in 12 patients (Group 2). Group 1, and Group 2 patients were included in the study. There were 22 (59.5%) males in Group 1 and 9 (75%) males in Group 2. Twenty-seven (73%) patients using Ringer's and 7 (58.3%) patients on preservation solution had comorbidities. There was no significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 in warm ischemia time, cold ischemia time, and HLA mismatch levels (p> 0.05). The preoperative creatinine value was significantly higher in the preservation solution group (p = 0.003). There was no significant difference between the two groups in values of creatinine levels on the postoperative (p> 0.05). Conclusion: In living renal transplantation, an inexpensive Ringer's solution, may be used instead of the expensive preservation solution to wash the graft. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Preservation solutions used as kidney washing solutions in transplantation are necessary for the longer preservation of the kidney. The study aims to compare different kidney-washing solutions used in living renal transplantation. Methods and Results: Fortynine patients who underwent renal transplantation from live donors were included in the retrospective study. The Ringer's solution flushed the renal graft in 37 patients (Group 1), and the preservation solution was in 12 patients (Group 2). Group 1, and Group 2 patients were included in the study. There were 22 (59.5%) males in Group 1 and 9 (75%) males in Group 2. Twenty-seven (73%) patients using Ringer's and 7 (58.3%) patients on preservation solution had comorbidities. There was no significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 in warm ischemia time, cold ischemia time, and HLA mismatch levels (p> 0.05). The preoperative creatinine value was significantly higher in the preservation solution group (p = 0.003). There was no significant difference between the two groups in values of creatinine levels on the postoperative (p> 0.05). Conclusion: In living renal transplantation, an inexpensive Ringer's solution, may be used instead of the expensive preservation solution to wash the graft. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objetivos: Describir las necesidades asistenciales del candidato a donante de riñón; sus características sociodemográficas y clínicas; y analizar los resultados desde una perspectiva de género. Material y Método: Estudio observacional descriptivo transversal. Se recogieron datos clínicos; sociodemográficos; y el número y tipo de visitas y pruebas realizadas durante el año 2020. Resultados: Se incluyeron 60 candidatos a donantes de riñón (n=37 mujeres; 61,67%) con una media de 51,98±14,50 años y una mediana de 2,5 [RIQ (0,69-5,29)] meses de estudio. 16 (26,67%) fueron aptos para la donación, correspondiendo al 14,16% de la actividad en Trasplante Renal (TR) del centro de referencia. Se requirieron 757 visitas (20,60% de la actividad) de las que 341 (45,05%) fueron visitas con la enfermera. Se requirieron 423 pruebas (19,60% de la actividad) durante el estudio. Se identificó una media de 1,87±1,35 factores de riesgo cardiovascular en la muestra analizada, siendo de 1,56±0,81 en los que finalmente fueron donantes. Más mujeres (n=12; 75%) que hombres (n=4; 25%) fueron finalmente donantes renales. Conclusiones: El estudio del candidato a donante de riñón es complejo e implica el doble de actividad que en el de los candidatos a receptores de trasplante renal. El proceso finaliza en donación en el 27% de los candidatos estudiados. La enfermera concentra el 45% de las visitas que se requieren. Es necesario explorar estrategias para optimizar el proceso de estudio. Hay diferencias de género en cuanto a la predisposición para estudiarse voluntariamente como candidata a donante renal.

Introduction. Laparoscopic graft removal for pediatric living donor liver transplantation (PLDLT) reduces morbidity and surgical aggressiveness for the donor. It is important to assess whether the approach used for removal purposes compromises implantation. The objective of this study was to analyze PLDLT progression in children according to whether the graft had been removed laparoscopically or through open surgery. Materials and methods. A retrospective, analytical cohort study of PLDLTs carried out in our institution from 2009 to 2020 was carried out. Results. Transplantation was performed in 14 patients, with a median age of 34.5 (R: 6-187) months. In 6 donors (42%), graft removal was conducted laparoscopically. In 1 donor (7%), removal was initiated laparoscopically, but conversion was required. This patient was included within the open surgery group, which consisted of 8 (58%) donors. No differences were found in terms of operating times, ICU stay, hospital stay, complications during admission, or complications post-admission in the recipient. The surgical approach did not compromise the length of the vessels to be anastomosed in any graft, and it added no extra difficulty to implantation. No differences were found in terms of removal times or hospital stay for the donor. Only 1 donor from the laparoscopy group required re-intervention due to bleeding following port insertion. Conclusion. PLDLT patients had similar results regardless of the removal approach used, which did not compromise the structures of the graft to be anastomosed, or add any extra difficulty to implantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Enfermería Nefrológica is the property of Sociedad Espanola de Enfermeria Nefrologica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The last ten years, thanks to the great advances in technology, three-dimensional (3D) printing has become an accessible, useful, and innovative tool for different areas of medicine. These include surgical planning, implant and prosthetic creation, medical education, and even doctor-patient communication. Regarding surgical planning, 3D printing takes on special relevance in highly complex surgeries. In the case of living donor liver transplantation where it is a priority to guarantee maximum safety for the donor, as well as the best quality of the graft for the recipient, surgical planning is mandatory. Regarding this, 3D printing of an anatomically comparable liver model of the donor, gives the surgeon the possibility of obtaining a clearer, more direct, and tangible image, from any angle of the organ, than a traditional virtual image. In this manner, the surgeon has an additional tool to plan the best surgical approach, anticipate anatomical variations and even, when the impression material allows it, to practice the procedure. Transplant center of Clinica las Condes, together with Innovation laboratory worked together on the 3D printing process liver models used for surgical planning of the first two liver transplants with an adult-adult laparoscopic living donor. The objective of this work is to describe the 3D printing process and analyze the difficulties and benefits of the process and its results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Living donor left lateral sectionectomy is a well-established alternative in cadaveric donor pediatric liver transplantation. This procedure has proven to be safe and reproducible. However, laparoscopic approach is still under development and evidence of its feasibility is limited. Aim: The aim of this article is to present the surgical technique and postoperative outcomes of the cases of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy performed in this center. Materials and Method: A retrospective, observational, single center study was conducted in Hospital del Salvador. From 04/2015 - 01/2021 laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy was offered for donor surgery. We present the surgical technique, perioperative care, and early postoperative outcomes in donors. Results: This series includes 36 patients, 25 (69%) of them were males. A total of 31 (86%) donors were mother or father of the recipient. Median age of donors was 30 years (19-45), median operative time was 360 min (240-480). All the patients underwent laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy. Conversion was necessary in one case due to difficult management of a venous bleeding. Clavien-Dindo Morbidity III, in one patient who required endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography due to an early bile leak. Median hospitalization was 4 days (3-14). There was no mortality. Conclusion: Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy has proven to be safe and reproducible. This technique has evolved from an innovative procedure to become the current standard of practice in our center, with excellent results in terms of morbidity and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho Privado (00347922) is the property of Editorial Reus and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)