We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
One surgeon's experience with the piggyback versus the standard technique in orthotopic liver transplantation: is one better than the other?
Hepato-gastroenterology 1995 July
BACKGROUND/AIM: Traditionally, orthotopic liver transplantation has consisted of a total native hepatectomy that included retrohepatic inferior vena cava. The so-called "piggyback" technique was described by Tzakis et al. (2). It consists of a recipient hepatectomy with preservation of the native retrohepatic IVC and subsequent anastomosis of the homograft suprahepatic IVC to a cuff fashioned from the recipient's suprahepatic veins. In this study, a single surgeon's experience with both techniques during the same period of time is discussed to analyze any significant differences in survival, intraoperative blood loss, length of stay in the ICU, and total length of stay in the hospital.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a three year period, 128 patients were transplanted at the University of Pittsburgh. Of these, 66 patients (51.6%) had a piggyback (PB) operation while the remaining 62 (48.4%) had a "standard" (ST) operation.
RESULTS: The actual 6 month survival was 81.8% in the PB group (54/66) and 74.2% in the ST group (46/62), with no statistical difference between the two. The median intraoperative blood usage was 6 units for the PB group versus 10 units for the ST group (p > 0.02). The median ICU length of stay was the same at 4 days, as was the total hospitalization duration, 21 days. The in-hospital deaths were included in the analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: The piggyback technique has some advantages, including less bleeding and absence of brachial plexus or phrenic nerve injury. Several other important considerations are discussed. In conclusion, the results with the piggyback technique are equivalent to those obtained with the standard approach.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a three year period, 128 patients were transplanted at the University of Pittsburgh. Of these, 66 patients (51.6%) had a piggyback (PB) operation while the remaining 62 (48.4%) had a "standard" (ST) operation.
RESULTS: The actual 6 month survival was 81.8% in the PB group (54/66) and 74.2% in the ST group (46/62), with no statistical difference between the two. The median intraoperative blood usage was 6 units for the PB group versus 10 units for the ST group (p > 0.02). The median ICU length of stay was the same at 4 days, as was the total hospitalization duration, 21 days. The in-hospital deaths were included in the analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: The piggyback technique has some advantages, including less bleeding and absence of brachial plexus or phrenic nerve injury. Several other important considerations are discussed. In conclusion, the results with the piggyback technique are equivalent to those obtained with the standard approach.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app