25 research outputs found

    Comparisons of Complications between the Two Groups.

    No full text
    <p>Others: voice change, lymph leakage, hepatic encephalopathy.</p

    Health-Related Quality of Life and Psychological Symptoms after Donation.

    No full text
    <p>Health-Related Quality of Life and Psychological Symptoms after Donation.</p

    Changes in the platelet count (×10<sup>9</sup>/L) after donation at each follow-up time point.

    No full text
    <p>Changes in the platelet count (×10<sup>9</sup>/L) after donation at each follow-up time point.</p

    Changes in liver function (total bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase) after donation.

    No full text
    <p>Changes in liver function (total bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase) after donation.</p

    Donor Characteristics, Operative Data and Outcomes of Donors: Comparisons between Our Two Stages of Experience (Pre-January 2008 and Post- January 2008).

    No full text
    <p>MHV: middle hepatic vein; SD: standard deviation; HBsAb: hepatitis B surface antibody; HBcAb: hepatitis B core antibody; BMI: body mass index; NS: not significant.</p

    Comparison of ROC curves at 1-, 3-, 6-month and 1-year.

    No full text
    <p>Abbreviations: ROC, receiver operating characteristic curve; MELD, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease; D-MELD, the product of donor age and MELD; SOFT, Survival Outcome Following Liver Transplantation; BAR, Balance of Risk; TRI, Transplant Risk Index.</p

    Clinical features of the study patients.

    No full text
    <p>NOTE: Values are expressed as number (%) or mean±SD. Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; MHV, middle hepatic vein; ICU, intensive care unit; MELD, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease; D-MELD, the product of donor age and MELD; SOFT, Survival Outcome Following Liver Transplantation; BAR, Balance of Risk; TRI, Transplant Risk Index.</p><p>*Only 150 cases have the information of relationship</p><p>Clinical features of the study patients.</p

    Efficacy and safety of anatomic resection versus nonanatomic resection in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A systemic review and meta-analysis

    No full text
    <div><p>Background</p><p>The surgical decision of performing anatomic resection (AR) or nonanatomic resection (NAR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma remains controversial. The aim of the current study is to conduct a meta-analysis on published results to compare surgical outcomes after AR and NAR.</p><p>Methods</p><p>A comprehensive search of the Pubmed, Ovid-Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, and Science Citation indexes was performed. Overall and disease free survival (DFS), perioperative mortality and morbidity were the main outcomes. The meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 statistical software, and the results are expressed as the relative risk (RR) or weighted mean differences with 95% of confidence intervals.</p><p>Results</p><p>After application of the exclusion and inclusion criteria, 25 studies published between 1996~2015 that compared outcomes after AR and NAR in patients with HCC were identified. A total of 10216 patients were included in the meta-analysis, 4576 in the AR group and 5640 in the NAR group. Liver cirrhosis was found in 54.8% (range from 18.8% to 100%) of patients in the AR group and 67.8% (range from 34.3% to 100%) of patients in the NAR group, resulting in a RR of 0.45 (I2 = 18%, fixed model, 95% CI 0.39–0.52; Z = 10.31; P = <0.00001). The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant 5-year survival (RR of 1.10, 95% CI 1.03–1.17; Z = 2.92, P = 0.004) and DFS (RR: 1.33, 95% CI 1.18–1.51; Z = 4.46, P <0.00001) advantage for patients undergoing AR resection compared to NAR. In regards to safety, no statistical significance was found in mortality and morbidity between the two groups. Eight studies including 1812 patients with small (<5 cm) solitary HCC indicated a better 5-year DFS in the AR group (41.4%) than in the NAR group (28.6%), with a RR of 1.32 (I2 = 42, fixed model, 95%CI: 1.15–1.52, Z = 3.86, P = 0.0001).</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>The current study demonstrates better surgical outcomes after AR than NAR in patients with HCC. Therefore, AR is recommended in resectable HCC, especially with small (<5 cm) solitary tumours.</p></div

    Preoperative Characteristics of Patients who underwent Hepatectomy.

    No full text
    <p><sup>*</sup>P<0.05 compared with the normal-weight BMI group. BMI:body mass index; HBsAg: hepatitis B surface antigen; HBeAg: hepatitis B e antigen; SD: standard deviation; ULN, upper limit of normal. ALT,alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase. ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists category. IQR: interquartile range.</p

    Preoperative characteristic of patients.

    No full text
    <p><b>IQR:</b> interquartile range; <b>ALT:</b> alanine aminotransferase; <b>AST:</b> aspartate aminotransferase;</p><p><b>HBsAg:</b> antigen of hepatitis B.</p><p>Preoperative characteristic of patients.</p
    corecore