{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Application of various surgical techniques in liver transplantation: a retrospective study.
{Author}: Chen Z;Ju W;Chen C;Wang T;Yu J;Hong X;Dong Y;Chen M;He X;
{Journal}: Ann Transl Med
{Volume}: 9
{Issue}: 17
{Year}: Sep 2021
{Factor}: 3.616
{DOI}: 10.21037/atm-21-1945
{Abstract}: <B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Surgical techniques of liver transplantation have continually evolved and have been modified. We retrospectively analyzed a single-center case series and compared the advantages and disadvantages of each method.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Six-hundred and seventy-four recipients' perioperative data were assessed and analyzed stratified by different surgical technics [modified classic (MC), modified piggyback (MPB) and classic piggyback (CPB)].<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>MELD score and Child-Pugh scores was significantly higher in CPB groups (P=0.008 and 0.003, respectively). Anhepatic time in MPB group was longer than those in CPB group (P<0.05). The operation duration in MPB group was significantly longer than those in MC group and CPB group (P=0.003). Three patients had outflow obstruction (P=0.035). The overall survival in MPB group were better than those in MC group and CPB group in general comparison (P<0.001). In patients with preoperative creatine >120 µmol/L, the overall survival in MC group was worst (P<0.001). In patients with a high MELD score (>24), the overall survival in MPB group tended to be the best (P<0.001).<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>The advantages and disadvantages are different for these three surgical techniques. A reasonable operation technique should be adopted considering the patient's unique condition to ensure the stability of hemodynamics.