Liver transplantation in children
- 48 Downloads
The results of liver transplantation has improved significantly in the last decade with one year survival figures close to 90% for children with chronic liver disease. This can be attributed to improvement in surgical techniques, better postoperative care and newer immunosuppresive drugs. As a result of this, increasing number of children are referred for transplantation with no significant increase in the number of solid organ donors. The earliest transplants in children were performed using organs from size matched pediatric donors. However, as the pediatric donor numbers were limited, liver reduction techniques were developed to transplant small children before deterioration. Increasing experience with reduced livers led to the development of split liver, living donor and auxiliary liver transplantation. Better management of immunosuppressive drugs and newer agents such as Mycophenolate Mofetil have reduced the incidence of graft loss due to chronic rejection and long-term renal toxicity. The goal for the future will remain to be transplantation without the use of longterm immunosuppression.
Key wordsLiver Transplantation Children Techniques Immunosuppression
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Deshpande RR, Matthew JB, Hector Vilca-Melendez, Parthi Srinivasan, Raffaele Girlanda, Anil Dhawanet al. Results of Split Liver Transplantation In Children.Ann of Surg 2002 (in press)Google Scholar
- 14.Busuttil RW, Seu P, Millis JM, Olthoff KM, Hiatt JR, Milewicz Aet al. Liver transplantation in children.Ann Surg 199; 213 : 48–57.Google Scholar
- 15.Shaw BW Jr, Wood RP, Stratta RJ, Pillen TJ, Langnas AN. Stratifying the causes of death in liver transplant recipients. An approach to improving survival.Arch Surg 1989; 24: 895–900.Google Scholar
- 27.Marion MA, Beatrice Samaroo, Alastair Baker, Anita Verma, Mohamed Rela, Nigel Heatonet al. Calcineurin-Inhibitor related nephrotoxicity — Reversibility in paediatric liver transplant recipients.Transplantation 2000; 72: 746–749.Google Scholar