HEPATIC STEATOSIS ASSESSMENT: a comparative study between surgeon evaluation and forward histopathologic findings

• Main Authors: Aline M. A. MARTINS, Gustavo R. COELHO, Geraldo A. MARQUES, Manoel O. MORAES, Jose Telmo VALENCA Jr., Jose Huygens P. GARCIA
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Instituto Brasileiro de Estudos e Pesquisas de Gastroenterologia (IBEPEGE) 2013-03-01
• Series: Arquivos de Gastroenterologia
• Subjects: Figado gorduroso; Transplante de figado; Obtencao de tecidos e orgaos; Coleta de tecidos e orgaos
• Online Access: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-28032013000100015&lng=en&tlng=en

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.