Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

["Piggyback" method in hepatic transplantation]

B Meunier1, E Bardaxoglou, B Chareton

  • 1Centre de Chirurgie digestive et Unité de transplantation, Hôpital Pontchaillou, CHU de Rennes.

Chirurgie; Memoires De L'Academie De Chirurgie
|January 1, 1993
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Should Systematic HSV Serological Screening of Donors Be Implemented to Manage Mismatched HSV D+/R- Liver Transplants?

Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation·2025
Same author

[Emergency room visits for asthma and the reported outcomes: The PASS survey by the CRISALIS network].

Revue des maladies respiratoires·2025
Same author

Suprapubic versus transurethral catheterization for bladder drainage in male rectal cancer surgery (GRECCAR10), a randomized clinical trial.

Techniques in coloproctology·2024
Same author

Prognosis of poorly cohesive gastric cancer after complete cytoreductive surgery with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CYTO-CHIP study).

The British journal of surgery·2021
Same author

Early and late morbidity of local excision after chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer.

BJS open·2021
Same author

Impact of early biochemical diagnosis of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery: long-term results from GRECCAR 5 trial.

The British journal of surgery·2021

The piggy-back liver transplant method showed no significant difference in outcomes compared to the traditional technique, except for a shorter anhepatic phase. This finding suggests comparable safety and efficacy between the two liver transplantation approaches.

Area of Science:

  • Hepatobiliary Surgery
  • Transplant Surgery
  • Vascular Anastomosis Techniques

Background:

  • Traditional liver transplantation involves two vena cava anastomoses.
  • The piggy-back method involves a single terminolateral anastomosis of the donor inferior vena cava to the recipient inferior vena cava.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the outcomes of the piggy-back liver transplantation technique with the traditional method.
  • To evaluate patient safety and surgical efficiency between the two liver transplant approaches.

Main Methods:

  • A retrospective analysis of 13 piggy-back liver transplantations (group 1) and 14 traditional liver transplantations (group 2).
  • Matched groups were compared for age, sex, indications, rejections, retransplantations, and perioperative outcomes.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • No significant differences were observed in cold ischemia time, blood transfusions, operative duration, anastomosis time, or day 30 creatinine levels.
  • Mortality within 30 days was zero in the piggy-back group versus two deaths in the traditional group.
  • A significant difference was found in the duration of the anhepatic phase, which was shorter in the piggy-back group.

Conclusions:

  • The piggy-back liver transplantation technique is comparable to the traditional method in terms of major outcomes.
  • The reduced anhepatic phase in the piggy-back technique may offer a procedural advantage.
  • Both techniques demonstrate similar efficacy and safety profiles in this patient cohort.