Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 268

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Modulation of Portal Graft Inflow: A Necessity in Adult Living-Donor Liver Transplantation?

Open access
Troisi, Roberto, Cammu, Guy, Militerno, Giuseppe, De Baerdemaeker, Luc, Decruyenaere, Johan, Hoste, Eric, Smeets, Peter, Colle, Isabelle, Van Vlierberghe, Hans, Petrovic, Mirko, Voet, Dirk, Mortier, Eric, Hesse, Uwe J., de Hemptinne, Bernard·2003·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical significance of modulating the recipient portal inflow (rPVF) through perioperative ligation of the splenic artery in adult living-donor liver transplantation (ALDLTx) by focusing on vascular complications, intractable ascites production, and the prevention of small-for-size syndrome (SFSS). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: In ALDLTx, portal graft flow is enhanced to at least twice the donor value, raising the total liver inflow. Recipient hepatic arterial flow (rHAF) is lower than expected. Portal hyperperfusion of small grafts in larger recipients is thought to be one of the main causes of posttransplant graft dysfunction/SFSS. METHODS: Seventeen ALDLTx were reviewed for a minimum of 2 months. Patients were divided retrospectively into two groups: G1 (n = 7), without modulation of rPVF, and G2 (n = 10), with splenic artery ligation to decrease rPVF perioperatively. Donor and recipient hepatic hemodynamics were evaluated against graft function and outcome, including correlations between rPVF, graft weight, graft:recipient body weight ratio, and recipient weight. RESULTS: Following portal and arterial reperfusion, mean rPVF and rPVF/graft weight were much higher than in the donors, whereas mean rHAF and rHAF/graft weight were much lower. No differences were found between groups, except for rPVF and rHAF, which were much more higher and lower, respectively, before splenic artery ligation. In G1 patients, SFSS was seen in two patients and vascular complications occurred in two others. In G2 patients, splenic artery ligation permitted a significant decrease in rPVF, an improvement in rHAF, and the resolution of refractory ascites. Neither SFSS nor vascular complications were seen in G2 patients. CONCLUSIONS: When a suboptimal graft:recipient body weight ratio is accompanied by high rPVF in ALDLTx, the portal flow should be modulated perioperatively; splenic artery ligation is a simple and safe method that is sufficient to allow this modulation in most patients.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.sla.0000055277.78876.b7

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 268

Metadata

Authors
Troisi, R., Cammu, G., Militerno, G., De Baerdemaeker, L., Decruyenaere, J., Hoste, E., Smeets, P., Colle, I., Van Vlierberghe, H., Petrovic, M., Voet, D., Mortier, E., Hesse, U. J., & de Hemptinne, B.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2003-03
Volume
237
Issue
3
Pages
429-436
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2058654679
Cited by
268
References
0
FWCI
13.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Modulation of Portal Graft Inflow: A Necessity in Adult Living-Donor Liver Transplantation? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.sla.0000055277.78876.b7
The paper
Troisi, R., Cammu, G., Militerno, G., De Baerdemaeker, L., Decruyenaere, J., Hoste, E., Smeets, P., Colle, I., Van Vlierberghe, H., Petrovic, M., Voet, D., Mortier, E., Hesse, U. J., & de Hemptinne, B. (2003). Modulation of Portal Graft Inflow: A Necessity in Adult Living-Donor Liver Transplantation? Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000055277.78876.b7

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.