ライフサイエンスコーパス: living-related donor

1 tioning at 5 years as that of a graft from a living related donor.

2 ted, or nonhuman leukocyte antigen identical living-related donor.

3 fts were from a cadaver, and 14% were from a living-related donor.

4 nt of both transplant patients and potential living related donors.

5 similar concerns are important to potential living related donors.

6 We performed six SPKs from living-related donors.

7 d in recipients of 50% segmental grafts from living, related donors?

8 leukocyte antigen-mismatched, haploidentical living-related donors after modified nonmyeloablative co

9 most to the variation in willingness to be a living related donor, although race contributed most to

10 recipients of first kidney transplants (six living related donors and eight cadavers).

11 rgans, 29 were ex vivo reduced size, 33 were living-related donor, and 36 were in situ split-liver al

12 ence up to 50%, an increased recurrence with living-related donors, and the rarity of graft loss due

13 higher (P < 0.01) for cadaveric donor versus living related donor, blacks versus whites, age >12 vers

14 Intestinal transplants from living-related donors can be lifesaving for selected pat

15 The first graft from a living-related donor failed and was followed by a second

16 nsplantation, the vast majority (81%) prefer living related donors for pediatric recipients.

17 frican American living kidney donors and for living-related donors for African American recipients.

18 We report here on two cases in which the living-related donors for children with Alagille's syndr

19 y system of family members who are potential living-related donors for patients with this condition.

20 the first report of the successful use of a living-related donor graft for an orthotopic liver trans

21 The use of living-related donor grafts has produced excellent resul

22 wn "reduced" livers, split liver grafts, and living-related donors has provided more organs for pedia

23 Intestinal transplants using living-related donors have rarely been attempted, and th

24 We present a case of living, related-donor kidney transplantation during the

25 Living-related donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an

26 In contrast, for living related donor (LRD) grafts there was no significa

27 ently, we make thorough attempts to locate a living related donor (LRD) or a living unrelated donor (

28 sies were obtained from cadaveric (n=23) and living-related donor (LRD) (n=10) liver transplants befo

29 , we embarked on a study of DBMC infusion in living-related donor (LRD) kidney transplant recipients.

30 ith concomitantly transplanted recipients of living-related donor (LRD) kidneys and donor marrow infu

31 A successful kidney transplant from a living-related donor (LRD) remains the most effective re

32 usion after transplantation of 13 CAD and 12 living-related donor (LRD) renal allografts were examine

33 ent of CAN in recipients of cadaveric (CAD), living-related donor (LRD), and living-unrelated donor (

34 ymphocytes and iliac crest bone marrow of 11 living-related-donor (LRD) renal transplant recipients,

35 ectal surgery, splenectomy for splenomegaly, living-related donor nephrectomy, and procedures conside

36 on rectopexy), splenectomy for splenomegaly, living-related donor nephrectomy, gastric banding for mo

37 Living related donor organs had a significantly better 5

38 Five consecutive living related donor pediatric renal transplants were re

39 living unrelated and two HLA haploidentical living-related donor recipient pairs, whereas unidirecti

40 ratios were higher in cadaveric donor versus living related donor recipients (15.7 + 2.8 vs. 8.8 + 1.

41 Whereas none of the HAT-treated living related donor recipients had a rejection episode,

42 ients of one haplotype matched recipients of living, related donor renal allografts selected to contr

43 These data suggest that living-related donor renal transplantation with steroid-

44 was conducted in recipients of cadaveric or living-related donor renal transplants.

45 ents received whole livers, and two received living-related donor right liver lobes.

46 erance in clinical islet transplantation and living-related donor solid organ transplantation.

47 vo disease according to the transplant type (living related donor vs. cadaver, P=NS).

48 one haplotype-matched renal transplants from living related donors were studied to determine the asso

49 educed-size grafts, of which three were from living-related donors, were used.

50 splants from HLA single-haplotype mismatched living related donors, with the use of a nonmyeloablativ