The Art and Science of Immunosuppression: The Fifth Annual American Society of Transplant Surgeon's State-of-the-Art Winter Symposium

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72057/1/j.1600-6143.2005.01187.x.pd

Liver and Intestine Transplantation in the United States, 1996–2005

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72937/1/j.1600-6143.2007.01782.x.pd

Survival Benefit-Based Deceased-Donor Liver Allocation

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74806/1/j.1600-6143.2009.02571.x.pd

Immunophenotyping and Efficacy of Low Dose ATG in Non-Sensitized Kidney Recipients Undergoing Early Steroid Withdrawal: A Randomized Pilot Study

Rabbit antithymocyte globulin (ATG) is commonly used as an induction therapy in renal transplant recipients, but the ideal dosage in tacrolimus-based early steroid withdrawal protocols has not been established. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the immunophenotyping and efficacy of lower dose ATG in low immunological-risk kidney transplant recipients. In this prospective study, 45 patients were randomized (1∶1) to our standard dose ATG (total dose 3.75 mg/kg)(sATG) vs. lower dose 2.25 mg/kg (lowATG). All patients underwent early steroid withdrawal within 7 days. The primary end point was biopsy-proven acute rejection at 12 months. Prospective immunophenotyping of freshly isolated PBMCs was performed at baseline, 3, 6, 12 months post-transplant. The rate of acute rejection was 17% and 10% in the sATG and lowATG, respectively. Effector memory T cells, Tregs and recent thymic emigrants T cells had similar kinetics post-transplant in both groups. No statistically significant differences were found in graft survival, patient survival or infections between the two groups, though there was a non-significant increase in leukopenia (43%v s. 30%), CMV (8% vs. 0) and BK (4% vs. 0) infections in sATG group vs. lowATG. In sum, in low immunological risk kidney recipients undergoing steroid withdrawal, low dose ATG seems to be efficacious in preventing acute rejection and depleting T cells with potentially lower infectious complications. A larger study is warranted to confirm these findings. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0054840

Biliary reconstructive techniques and associated anatomic variants in adult living donor liver transplantations: The adult‐to‐adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study experience

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140020/1/lt24872.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140020/2/lt24872_am.pd

Transplant surgery: Do the training wheels ever come off?

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/170965/1/ajt16793.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/170965/2/ajt16793_am.pd

Assessment of long-term outcomes post living liver donation highlights the importance of scientific integrity when presenting transplant registry data.

Living donor liver transplantation has expanded in recent years, particularly in North America. As experience with this procedure has matured over the last 25 years, centers are increasingly faced with potential living donors who are more medically complex. As donors move through the evaluation process, completing the informed consent process continues to be challenged by a paucity of granular data demonstrating long-term outcomes and overall safety specifically in the otherwise "healthy" living liver donor population. Two recently published studies examined long-term outcomes post-living liver donation using Korean registry data and reported similar results, with excellent overall survival when compared to appropriately matched controls. However, the authors of these studies were presented differently, with one reporting an alarmist view based on one aspect of a suboptimal analysis approach using an inappropriate comparator group. Herein, the North American Living Liver Donor Innovation Group (NALLDIG) consortium discusses these two studies and their potential impact on living liver donation in North America, ultimately highlighting the importance of scientific integrity in data presentation and dissemination when using transplant registry data

Left hepatectomy versus right hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation: shifting the risk from the donor to the recipient.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), originally used in children with left lateral segment grafts, has been expanded to adults who require larger grafts to support liver function. Most adult LDLT procedures have been performed with right lobe grafts, and this means a significant risk of morbidity for the donors. To minimize the donor risk for adults, there is renewed interest in smaller left lobe grafts. The smaller graft size increases the recipient risk in the form of small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) and essentially transfers the risk from the donor to the recipient. We review the donor and recipient risks of LDLT and pay particular attention to the different types of liver grafts and the use of graft inflow modification to ameliorate the risk of SFSS. Finally, a new metric is proposed for quantifying the recipient benefit in exchange for a specific donor risk

Left hepatectomy versus right hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation: shifting the risk from the donor to the recipient.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), originally used in children with left lateral segment grafts, has been expanded to adults who require larger grafts to support liver function. Most adult LDLT procedures have been performed with right lobe grafts, and this means a significant risk of morbidity for the donors. To minimize the donor risk for adults, there is renewed interest in smaller left lobe grafts. The smaller graft size increases the recipient risk in the form of small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) and essentially transfers the risk from the donor to the recipient. We review the donor and recipient risks of LDLT and pay particular attention to the different types of liver grafts and the use of graft inflow modification to ameliorate the risk of SFSS. Finally, a new metric is proposed for quantifying the recipient benefit in exchange for a specific donor risk