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 similar concerns are important to potential living related donors.

5 We performed six SPKs from living-related donors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36 Living related donor organs had a significantly better 5

37 Five consecutive living related donor pediatric renal transplants were re

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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