Review
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Surg Proced. Mar 28, 2015; 5(1): 41-57
Published online Mar 28, 2015. doi: 10.5412/wjsp.v5.i1.41
Table 8 Comparison of piggyback and conventional in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
ConventionalPiggybackP-value
n19, 14%119, 86%
Age (yr) (mean, median, range)52, 52, 41-6657, 57, 21-730.09
MELD at transplant (mean, median, range)21, 22, 8-3020, 22, 6-360.02
Total cold ischemia time (h) (mean, median, range)8, 8, 4-137, 7, 3-170.03
Total warm ischemia time (min) (mean, median, range)56, 59, 29-7838, 29, 18-103< 0.001
Outside milan criteria15.80%33.60%0.18
Tumor number (mean, median, range)2, 1, 1-4+2, 1, 1-4+0.6
Maximum tumor size (mean, median, range)2.6, 2.7, 0.4-8.03.2, 3.0, 0.4-8.20.09
Tumor location bilateral15.80%24.40%0.41
Lymphovascular invasion21.10%14.30%0.49
Chemoembolization10.50%37.80%0.02
1-yr overall survival89.50%83.20%0.49
2-yr overall survival84.20%75.90%0.55
Any HCC recurrence5.30%14.30%0.47