9 mg/dL) on postoperative day five.4 This score was further validated prospectively in a series of patients after liver resection, by showing that 70% of patients who died postoperatively selleck fulfilled the “fifty-fifty criteria”.5 This score was a strong predictor of death on multivariate analysis (odds ratio = 29.4; 95% confidence interval = 4.9-167). An important limitation of this system is its availability for prediction at the earliest 5 days after surgery. A third definition predicting the degree of postoperative hepatic dysfunction6 was based on selective parameters including bilirubin,

prothrombin time, serum lactate levels, and the degree of encephalopathy. Each of these parameters was given 0-2 points, when changes were observed for at least 2 consecutive days. An appealing aspect of

this approach is that the degree of liver failure can be calculated at any time during the postoperative course. The grouping of the score into none, mild, moderate, or severe hepatic dysfunction was shown to correlate with the size of the remnant liver (Fig. 2). The size of the remnant liver is a major determinant of postoperative liver failure, and logically depends on the quality of the liver parenchyma, or in other words, the presence of underlying liver diseases. The impact of Selleck Adriamycin underlying liver conditions will be discussed below, and we will focus here on the ideal scenario of patients presenting without significant risk factors. We tried to determine the minimal amount of remnant liver mass compatible with acceptable postoperative function and Thalidomide survival through a survey including 100 international well-established liver centers

identified through the memberships to two specialized societies in the field: the IHPBA (International Hepato-Pancreatico-Biliary Association) and EHPBA (European Hepato-Pancreatico-Biliary Association).7 The results indicated that most experienced liver surgeons consider 25% (range: 15%-40%) of the remnant liver mass (RLBW: 0.5) as their limit for liver resections. Transplant surgeons, on the other hand, use significantly higher figures, with a GRWR of at least 0.8% (range: 0.6-1.2) which corresponds to 40% of the transplanted total liver volume. The lowest figure of 0.6% should be used only when the graft is implanted in a recipient without cirrhosis or with cirrhosis, but well-preserved liver function (Child A and low MELD score).8 This discrepancy between the critical liver mass needed after liver resection (∼25%) and partial OLT (∼40%) remains unclear. Part of the explanation may include exposure to cold ischemia, immunosuppressants, denervation of the graft, as well as host factors such as changes in vascular flow due to preexisting portal hypertension.