margie

[Guest guest]

Maureen said, " we're needing to research more with regard to the risks of

" bloodless " LDLT surgery performed at USC in california. . . "

Maureen, I did not know you were going to pursue bloodless surgery. Is

bloodless surgery necessary for religious or other reasons?

Margie in MO

margie, no, jim and i are NOT jehovah's witnesses, but i can see where some

might assume that -- 29 of the 30 LDLTs at USC WERE jehovah's witnesses.

actually, jim was transfused just before we went to ireland a short time

ago, remember? we have no qualms about transfusion, if it's been deemed a

medical necessity -- it's just that USC does their LDLTs bloodlessly, and no

other way. they would " build up " jim's blood prior to surgery (ditto the

donor), and then any blood lost during the surgery would be cleansed and

recycled back into each respective body. of course, if our son jason

becomes his dad's donor, jason MIGHT have the option of putting up his own

blood for himself, prior to the surgery. we'll find out more about that

possibility later... one step at a time!

mind you, we haven't yet made the decision that we ARE going with USC for

anything beyond an evaluation... but we do see the sense in going there and

checking them out (and having them check jim out). in fact, even if we

stick to our original plan (to fight for the right to go to denver), our

insurance would mandate that we first get jim evaluated by at least two

places in california, first. to recap, our reasons for considering USC:

1. our insurance won't put up a huge, disgusting stink like they are doing

re: denver;

2. of all the many places we've checked on, here in california, USC has

performed far more LDLTs than other places in california have (30);

3. USC has also been doing LDLTs longer than other places in california...

about twice as long (about 2 years as opposed to just around one year.

remember, folks, adult-to-adult LDLT is a very very NEW surgery, once

considered an impossibility. i believe, though, due to the horrible waits

for cadaverous, you're going to be hearing more and more about this!);

4. USC would be a 3 hour drive for our away-at-college daughter and a 2-hour

drive from family, jim's mom and other, relatives and friends. this

reasonable distance from home would also mean less disruption for our high

school senior daughter (our youngest).

5. significantly, an LDLT without transfusion (if you believe what you read)

tends to result in quicker recovery, lesser post-op infections,

complications, etc etc. at least that's the gist of what i read:

" ...Many people facing surgery don’t have the time or money for

self-donation or bloodless surgery. But doctors say both techniques can

reduce infections and healing time. “There are studies that show that the

avoidance of blood transfusion will decrease the hospital stay, decrease the

[overall cost of hospitalization as well as the] risk of infectious

complication,” says Jabbour.

The doctor notes that viruses may be discovered in the future that haven’t

yet been determined to be harmful.

“People should NOT take blood transfusion lightly,” he says. “If they have a

chance to have an alternative way of doing surgery without blood or at least

minimize the blood transfusion, they should do it.”

anyway, you may wish to read the whole article at

http://www.healthsurfing.com/health/2001/03/28/

http://www.surgery.usc.edu/divisions/hep/bloodlesssurgery.html <-- or you

can just generally read about USC's bloodless liver tx surgery

http://www.surgery.usc.edu/divisions/hep/index.html <-- a second link, USC

liver transplant program and center for liver disease, USC department of

surgery

margie (and anyone else wondering the same things), i hope this helps answer

your questions. and let me say again, no, no, no, NO, we are NOT jehovah's

witnesses!

time for me to cook dinner and get off this computer!

maureen (and jim)