DSpace Repository

Chylous ascites after liver transplantation Incidence and risk factors

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Yılmaz, Mehmet
dc.contributor.author Akbulut, Ahmet Sami
dc.contributor.author Işık, Burak
dc.contributor.author Ara, Cengiz
dc.contributor.author Özdemir, Fatih
dc.contributor.author Aydın, Cemalettin
dc.contributor.author Kayaalp, Cüneyt
dc.contributor.author Yılmaz, Sezai
dc.date.accessioned 2017-08-08T10:36:39Z
dc.date.available 2017-08-08T10:36:39Z
dc.date.issued 2012
dc.identifier.citation Yılmaz, M. Akbulut, A. S. Işık, B. Ara, C. Özdemir, F. Aydın, C. Kayaalp, C. Yılmaz, S. (2012). Chylous ascites after liver transplantation Incidence and risk factors. Liver Transplantation, 18(9), 1046–1052. tr_TR
dc.identifier.issn 15276465
dc.identifier.uri http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/lt.23476
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/11616/7489
dc.description.abstract In this study, we evaluated the diagnosis, epidemiology, risk factors, and treatment of chylous ascites developing after liver transplantation (LT). Between 2002 and 2011, LT was performed 693 times in 631 patients at our clinic. One-hundred fifteen of these patients were excluded for reasons such as retransplantation, early postoperative mortality, and insufficient data. Chylous ascites developed after LT (mean 6 SD ¼ 8.0 6 3.2 days, range ¼ 5-17 days) in 24 of the 516 patients included in this study. Using univariate and multivariate analyses, we examined whether the following were risk factors for developing chylous ascites: age, sex, body mass index, graft-to-recipient weight ratio, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, vena cava cross-clamping time, total operation time, Child-Pugh classification, sodium level, portal vein thrombosis or ascites before transplantation, donor type, albumin level, and perihepatic dissection technique [LigaSure vessel sealing system (LVSS) versus conventional suture ligation]. According to a univariate analysis, a low albumin level (P ¼ 0.04), the presence of ascites before transplantation (P ¼ 0.03), and the use of LVSS for perihepatic dissection (P < 0.01) were risk factors for developing chylous ascites. According to a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, the presence of pretransplant ascites [P ¼ 0.04, hazard ratio (HR) ¼ 2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) ¼ 1.1-13.5] and the use of LVSS for perihepatic dissection (P ¼ 0.01, HR ¼ 5.4, 95% CI ¼ 1.5-34.4) were independent risk factors. In conclusion, the presence of preoperative ascites and the use of LVSS for perihepatic dissection are independent risk factors for the formation of chylous ascites. To our knowledge, this study is the most extensive examination of the development of chylous ascites. Nevertheless, our results should be supported by new prospective trials. tr_TR
dc.language.iso eng tr_TR
dc.publisher Liver Transplantation tr_TR
dc.relation.isversionof 10.1002/lt.23476 tr_TR
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess tr_TR
dc.title Chylous ascites after liver transplantation Incidence and risk factors tr_TR
dc.type article tr_TR
dc.relation.journal Liver Transplantation tr_TR
dc.contributor.department İnönü Üniversitesi tr_TR
dc.contributor.authorID 110105 tr_TR
dc.identifier.volume 18 tr_TR
dc.identifier.issue 9 tr_TR
dc.identifier.startpage 1046 tr_TR
dc.identifier.endpage 1052 tr_TR


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record