Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastroenterol. Mar 7, 2016; 22(9): 2749-2759
Published online Mar 7, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i9.2749
Published online Mar 7, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i9.2749
Table 2 Disadvantages and rates of tumor recurrence after living donor liver transplantation and piggyback liver transplantation compared to deceased donor liver transplantation and conventional orthotropic liver transplantation, respectively
Transplant type | Disadvantages | Rate of tumor recurrence |
LDLT vs DDLT | The small-sized graft, the “fast-tracking effect”, the sparing of the inferior vena cava, and more extensive manipulation | 28.6% vs 12.1%, P < 0.05[34]; 19.3% vs 6%, P < 0.05 (cumulative 5-yr)[32] |
PB-LT vs CON-LT | The positive vena cava margin and greater manipulation of the diseased liver | 6.3% vs 10.1%, P > 0.05[48] |
- Citation: Gu XQ, Zheng WP, Teng DH, Sun JS, Zheng H. Impact of non-oncological factors on tumor recurrence after liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22(9): 2749-2759
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v22/i9/2749.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i9.2749