Hepatic steatosis assessment: a comparative study between surgeon evaluation and forward histopathologic findings

• Autor(a) principal: Martins, Aline M. A.
• Data de Publicação: 2013
• Outros Autores: Coelho, Gustavo R., Marques, Geraldo A., Moraes Filho, Manoel Odorico de, Valença Júnior, José Telmo, Garcia, José Huygens P.
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)
• Texto Completo: http://www.repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/7275
• topic: Fígado Gorduroso; Transplante de Fígado

Context - Liver transplantation is one of the last viable resources for patients with end-stage liver disease. Many strategies are been used to improve the number of available organs and overcome waiting list delay. However, hepatic steatosis is one of the mainly concerns when organs are consider to transplantation due to it is importance as a risk factor for primary dysfunction. Surgeons play an important role to decide each organ will be accept or decline and its righteous allocation. Objective - Retrospectively evaluate the surgeon assessment of steatosis degree and its confrontation with further histopathologic findings. Methods - We analyzed 117 patients underwent deceased liver transplantation for end-stage liver disease in University Hospital Walter Cantideo, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil. A matrix table was organized to estimate the categorical data observed. We clustered the subjects into mild (0%–30%) and moderate (30%-60%) steatosis degree under the clinical criteria of organ suitability for transplantation. We categorized the organs as suitable organ for transplant and as non-suitable organ for transplant. Evaluations between the two first assessments, before perfusion (pre-perfusion) vs biopsy findings and after perfusion vs biopsy findings observations were analyzed and also a comparison between pre-perfusion and after perfusion data was performed. Results - On the first assessment, we obtained a 93% of agreement (n = 109) between the two evaluations. On the second assessment, we had an 8% (n = 9) of mistaken allocation. Comparing the observation before (pre-perfusion) and after (after perfusion), we obtained a strong agreement between the surgeons. Conclusions - Although our experienced surgeon team, we have wrongly evaluated feasible organs for transplantation. Nonetheless, our faulty percentage is low comparing to worldwide percentage.