• Home
  • Browse
    • Current Issue
    • By Issue
    • By Author
    • By Subject
    • Author Index
    • Keyword Index
  • Journal Info
    • About Journal
    • Aims and Scope
    • Editorial Board
    • Publication Ethics
    • Peer Review Process
  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Contact Us
 
  • Login
  • Register
Home Articles List Article Information
  • Save Records
  • |
  • Printable Version
  • |
  • Recommend
  • |
  • How to cite Export to
    RIS EndNote BibTeX APA MLA Harvard Vancouver
  • |
  • Share Share
    CiteULike Mendeley Facebook Google LinkedIn Twitter
The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine
arrow Articles in Press
arrow Current Issue
Journal Archive
Volume Volume 99 (2025)
Volume Volume 98 (2025)
Volume Volume 97 (2024)
Volume Volume 96 (2024)
Volume Volume 95 (2024)
Volume Volume 94 (2024)
Volume Volume 93 (2023)
Volume Volume 92 (2023)
Volume Volume 91 (2023)
Volume Volume 90 (2023)
Volume Volume 89 (2022)
Volume Volume 88 (2022)
Volume Volume 87 (2022)
Volume Volume 86 (2022)
Volume Volume 85 (2021)
Volume Volume 84 (2021)
Volume Volume 83 (2021)
Volume Volume 82 (2021)
Volume Volume 81 (2020)
Volume Volume 80 (2020)
Volume Volume 79 (2020)
Volume Volume 78 (2020)
Volume Volume 77 (2019)
Volume Volume 76 (2019)
Volume Volume 75 (2019)
Volume Volume 74 (2019)
Volume Volume 73 (2018)
Volume Volume 72 (2018)
Volume Volume 71 (2018)
Issue Issue 1
Issue Issue 2
Issue Issue 3
Issue Issue 4
Issue Issue 5
Issue Issue 6
Issue Issue 7
Volume Volume 70 (2018)
Volume Volume 69 (2017)
Volume Volume 68 (2017)
Volume Volume 67 (2017)
Volume Volume 66 (2017)
Volume Volume 65 (2016)
Volume Volume 64 (2016)
Volume Volume 63 (2016)
Volume Volume 62 (2016)
Volume Volume 61 (2015)
Volume Volume 60 (2015)
Volume Volume 59 (2015)
Volume Volume 58 (2015)
Volume Volume 57 (2014)
Volume Volume 56 (2014)
Volume Volume 55 (2014)
Volume Volume 54 (2014)
Volume Volume 53 (2013)
Volume Volume 52 (2013)
Volume Volume 51 (2013)
Volume Volume 50 (2013)
Volume Volume 49 (2012)
Volume Volume 48 (2012)
Volume Volume 47 (2012)
Volume Volume 46 (2012)
Volume Volume 45 (2011)
Volume Volume 44 (2011)
Volume Volume 43 (2011)
Volume Volume 42 (2011)
Volume Volume 41 (2010)
Volume Volume 40 (2010)
Volume Volume 39 (2010)
Volume Volume 38 (2010)
Volume Volume 37 (2009)
Volume Volume 36 (2009)
Volume Volume 35 (2009)
Volume Volume 34 (2009)
Volume Volume 33 (2008)
Volume Volume 32 (2008)
Volume Volume 31 (2008)
Volume Volume 30 (2008)
Volume Volume 29 (2007)
Volume Volume 28 (2007)
Volume Volume 27 (2007)
Volume Volume 26 (2007)
Volume Volume 25 (2006)
Volume Volume 24 (2006)
Volume Volume 23 (2006)
Volume Volume 22 (2006)
Volume Volume 21 (2005)
Volume Volume 20 (2005)
Volume Volume 19 (2005)
Volume Volume 18 (2005)
Volume Volume 17 (2004)
Volume Volume 16 (2004)
Volume Volume 15 (2004)
Volume Volume 14 (2004)
Volume Volume 13 (2003)
Volume Volume 12 (2003)
Volume Volume 11 (2003)
Volume Volume 10 (2003)
Volume Volume 9 (2002)
Volume Volume 8 (2002)
Volume Volume 7 (2002)
Volume Volume 6 (2002)
Volume Volume 5 (2001)
Volume Volume 4 (2001)
Volume Volume 3 (2001)
Volume Volume 2 (2001)
Volume Volume 1 (2000)
Mohamed Mohamed Bahaa El-Din, M. (2018). Factors Affecting Difference between EGW and AGW in Liver Transplantation. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 71(5), 3109-3115.
Mohamed Kamel Sobhi, Ahmed Gamal El-Din Othman, Hany Saeid Abdel-Baset, Mohamed Mohamed Bahaa El-Din. "Factors Affecting Difference between EGW and AGW in Liver Transplantation". The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 71, 5, 2018, 3109-3115.
Mohamed Mohamed Bahaa El-Din, M. (2018). 'Factors Affecting Difference between EGW and AGW in Liver Transplantation', The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 71(5), pp. 3109-3115.
Mohamed Mohamed Bahaa El-Din, M. Factors Affecting Difference between EGW and AGW in Liver Transplantation. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 2018; 71(5): 3109-3115.

Factors Affecting Difference between EGW and AGW in Liver Transplantation

Article 5, Volume 71, Issue 5, April 2018, Page 3109-3115  XML PDF (390.2 K)
Document Type: Original Article
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Author
Mohamed Kamel Sobhi, Ahmed Gamal El-Din Othman, Hany Saeid Abdel-Baset, Mohamed Mohamed Bahaa El-Din
Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University
Abstract
Background: An accurate preoperative estimate of the graft weight and remnant liver volume is vital to avoid small-for-size syndrome(SFSS) in the recipient and ensure donor safety after Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). CT has been widely used as a method for the preoperative volumetric assessment of the liver transplantation.The graft size as measured from preoperative imaging which is often different from the actual weight of the liver graft as obtained by the donor hepatectomy.
The difference between preoperative volumetry and Actual graft weight (AGW) was graded into minimal difference (≤15%) and big difference (>15%).
Aim of The Work: This study was conducted to assess different preoperative factors that might affect the difference between estimated graft weight and actual graft weight in liver transplantation.
Patients And Methods: This single center retrospective study was conducted on 86 cases who have been subjected to donation for liver transplantation in Ain Shams Center of organ transplantation.Donors were divided into two groups:
Group (A): formed of 33 donors who showed minimal difference (≤15 %) between  EGV and AGW.
Group (B): formed of 53 donors who showed big difference (>15 %) between  EGV and AGW.
Each donor data was examined for: Age, Sex: male or female, Body mass index (BMI), Lipid profile (positive / negative) Type of hepatectomy (Rt lobe / Lt lobe), AGW.Estimated graft weight (EGW), Total liver volume, Liver biopsy: Fibrosis (positive/ negative), Steatosis: Negative:  (0%) and Positive: (5% or 10%).
Results: EGW of 903 gm was identified as cutoff point of the best specificity with the best sensitivity showing 60.4 % and 60.6% for sensitivity and specificity, respectively. At this cutoff point, 47.7% of cases (n=41) showed EGW < 903 gm, while 52.3% of cases (n=45) showed EGW ≥ 903 gm. Thus, it can be said that cases showed EGW ≥ 903 gm have a probability of 71.1% to have big difference between EGW and AGW (≥15%).
EGW of 1069 gm was identified as another cutoff point of a better specificity on ROC curve showing 32.1% and 93.9% for sensitivity and specificity, respectively, on ROC curve. At this cutoff point, 77.9% of cases (n=67) showed EGW < 1069 gm, while 22.1% of cases (n=19) showed EGW ≥ 1069 gm. Thus, it can be said that cases showed EGW ≥1069 gm have a probability of 89.5% to have big difference between EGW and AGW (≥15%).
TLW of 1587 gm was identified as cutoff point of the best specificity with the best sensitivity and specificity on ROC curve showing 56.6% and 60.6% for sensitivity and specificity, respectively, on ROC curve. At this cutoff point, 50% of cases (n=43) showed  TLW < 1587 gm, while 50% of cases (n=43) showed  TLW ≥ 1587 gm.
Thus, it can be said that cases showed  TLW ≥1587 gm have a probability of 69.8% to have big difference between EGW and AGW (≥15%).
TLW of 1807 gm was identified as another cutoff point of better specificity on ROC curve showing 18.9% and 93.9% for sensitivity and specificity, respectively, on ROC curve. At this cutoff point, 86% of cases (n=74) showed TLW < 1807 gm, while 14% of cases (n=12) showed  TLW ≥ 1807 gm. Thus, it can be said that cases showed TLW ≥1807 gm have a probability of 83.3% to have big difference between EGW and AGW (≥15%).
Conclusion: TLV and  EGV in CT volumetry are most reliable preoperative factors that can predict big difference between EGW and AGW. Re-evaluation of CT volumetry protocol is recommended for better prediction.
Keywords
AGW: EGW. EGW: EGW. LDLT: Living donor liver transplantation. SLV: standard liver volume. TLV: total liver volume
Statistics
Article View: 232
PDF Download: 298
Home | Glossary | News | Aims and Scope | Sitemap
Top Top

Journal Management System. Designed by NotionWave.