• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Evaluation outcomes of donors in living donor liver transplantation: a single-center analysis of 132 donors

    2011-07-03 12:45:49DingYuanYongGangWeiBoLiLuNanYanTianFuWenJiChunZhaoYongZengandKeFeiChen

    Ding Yuan, Yong-Gang Wei, Bo Li, Lu-Nan Yan, Tian-Fu Wen, Ji-Chun Zhao, Yong Zeng and Ke-Fei Chen

    Chengdu, China

    Evaluation outcomes of donors in living donor liver transplantation: a single-center analysis of 132 donors

    Ding Yuan, Yong-Gang Wei, Bo Li, Lu-Nan Yan, Tian-Fu Wen, Ji-Chun Zhao, Yong Zeng and Ke-Fei Chen

    Chengdu, China

    BACKGROUND:Donor safety has always been a major concern, and potential risk to the donor must be balanced against recipient benefit. However, lack of a standardized and uniform evaluation of perioperative complications is a serious limitation of the evaluation of donor morbidity. This study was designed to evaluate the outcomes of donors in adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using the newer Clavien classification system in a single center in China.

    METHODS:We prospectively analyzed the outcomes of 132 consecutive living liver donors from 2005 to 2008 using the newer Clavien classification system. The preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative data of the donors were collected and analyzed. Ordinal regression was used to analyze the ordered grades of complications.

    RESULTS:Ninety-four (71.2%) of the donors developed postoperative complications of gradei(n=45, 34.1%), grade II (n=39, 29.5%) and grade III (n=10, 7.6%). There was no death or grade IV morbidity. Hepatic functional impairment and pleural effusion were the most frequent morbidities for living donors. Fifty-three donors (40.1%) developed hepatic functional impairment of gradei(n=40, 31.1%) and grade II (n=13, 10.0%). The ICU stay (7.8±1.8 days) and length of hospital stay (17.7±4.6 days) were significantly longer in donors with grade III than others. Furthermore, ordinal logistic regression revealed that donor's older age (>40 years) and right hepatectomy were associated with morbidity. In addition, only preoperative total bilirubin (within the normal range) and postoperative nadir serum phosphorus were independently associated with hepatic functional impairment. The receiveroperator characteristic curve revealed that preoperative total bilirubin >18.0 μmol/L and postoperative nadir of serum phosphorus <1 mg/dL may lead to more severe hepatic functional impairment.

    CONCLUSIONS:Despite the fact that donors are relatively safe to undergo hepatectomy, many living donors still experience postoperative morbidity. Meticulous technical and preoperative donor evaluation and treatment are sure to reduce the incidence of complications.

    (Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2011; 10: 480-488)

    liver transplantation; living donor; risk factors; safety

    Introduction

    Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers a solution to the donor shortage and has several benefits including reduction of pretransplantation waiting time, no warm ischemia time and a shortened cold ischemia time. However, this procedure exposes the donor, a perfectly healthy individual, to the risk of morbidity and even mortality. To date, at least 15 living donors have died from the procedure and 2 have undergone liver transplantation secondary to operative complications.[1,2]Hence, donor safety has always been a major concern and a potential risk to the donor must be balanced against recipient benefit.

    In the reports of LDLT before 2004, donor morbidity rates ranged from 0 to 67%, depending on the individual definition and recognition of morbidity.[3-6]Lack of a standardized and uniform evaluation of postoperative complications is a limitation in analysis of donor morbidity. In fact, the classifications of surgical complications and liver transplant recipients were respectively introduced by Clavien et al in 1992[7]and 1994.[8]For healthy donors,however, these classifications were the basis to evaluate donor outcome[9]and likely underestimated the grade of complications.[10]In 2004, Broering et al[10]therefore modified the morbidity classification introduced by Clavien et al for liver transplantation recipients to adapt it to the living donor situation. Meanwhile, Dindo et al[11]further modified the complications system of the "Clavien classification" to minimize confusion among the various types of complications.

    The modified Clavien classification system was recommended to evaluate living liver donor outcome because its objectivity was evaluated with a large cohort of patients, and its acceptability and reproducibility were validated by an international survey conducted in centers from each continent.[12-14]In addition, the newer Clavien classification system was also supported for assessing living liver donors at the Vancouver International Forum in 2006.[1]Therefore, the newer Clavien classification system is regarded as the uniform evaluation for living liver donors.

    Some studies have reported the outcome of living liver donors and risk factors of living donor morbidity, without using the newer Clavien classification system.[13-17]In addition, some centers have evaluated living donor outcome by the uniform system, but seldom revealed the risk factors of living donor morbidity after 2004.[18-20]It is necessary to analyze the risk factors of living donor morbidity using the newer Clavien classification system for evaluating donor outcome in LDLT.

    In the present study, we described the morbidity of 132 living donors using the newer Clavien classification system and further revealed the risk factors for the severity of donor complications.

    Methods

    Donors

    A total of 132 consecutive donors for LDLT undergoing hepatectomy between 2005 and 2008 at the Liver Transplantation Center of West China Hospital were analyzed. LDLT data were collected from patient records and the China Liver Transplant Registry (www.cltr. org), which is a database that facilitates the storage and management of patient information. All data from our center, including in-hospital and follow-up data, were uploaded to this database.

    Classification of donor morbidity after LDLT

    The living donor morbidity was graded according to the newer Clavien classification system.[11]Broering et al[10]adapted the original Clavien classification system for liver transplantation recipients to the living donor situation. Yi et al[21]provided detailed examples of living donor complications according to the newer classification system. The postoperative complications are classified from gradesito V.[11,21]Postoperative hepatic functional impairment, including hyperbilirubinemia and/or prothrombin time (PT) prolongation, is regarded as a complication for healthy donors. Postoperative hepatic function is graded using total bilirubin (TB) and PT prolongation, and is defined as the corresponding complication grade. Examples of living donor complications using the newer Clavien classification system are shown in Table 1.[10,11,21]

    Donor evaluation

    The primary selection criterion for a living liver donor is voluntary and informed consent clearly stating that living liver donation can lead to donor risk. Every donation was approved by the Ethics Committee of West China Hospital of Sichuan University. The first essential of donor medical evaluation included ABO blood type identity or compatibility and age <65 or >18 years. No donor had a known medical disorder that significantly increased perioperative risk or contraindicated donation. In our center, obese potential donors with BMI >28 were noted and further evaluated by computed tomography (CT) to assess potentially serious hepatic steatosis.[22,23]Liver biochemistry tests, hepatitis serological tests, and blood tests to exclude chronic liver disease were performed routinely as parts of most protocols. CT scan for volumetric measurement was performed to evaluate graft size and the size of future remnant donor liver. Donors whose remnant liver volume was <30% of the whole liver volume by CT volumetry were excluded from potential donation. Dual graft liver transplantation was considered if the ratio of graft volume to recipient standard liver volume (GV/SLV) was less than 40%. A total of 112 potential donors were excluded according to the mentioned selection criteria: age (27%), obesity (21%), potential hepatobiliary disease (33%) and graft volume mismatch (19%).

    To minimize the risk and complications for definitive donors, the typical preoperative invasive diagnostic procedures, hepatic angiography, liver biopsy, and cholangiography were abolished and the following measures were taken: 1) hepatic angiography was replaced by CT arteriography (CTA) to study the track and variations of the hepatic artery, but hepatic angiography was performed if the hepatic artery was not visualized by CTA; and 2) preoperative endoscopic retrograde choledochopancreatography was routinely substituted by intraoperative cholangiography.[24]

    Table 1. Classification of common complications of the donor after LDLT using the newer Clavien classification

    Operative techniques

    Operation was performed according to the reported techniques.[24]Intraoperative liver biopsy was done to exclude donors with severe hepatic steatosis. The hepatic incision line was identified with intraoperative ultrasonography, hepatectomy was done with an ultrasonic dissector without inflow vascular occlusion, the biliary duct was identified by operative cholangiography and the middle hepatic vein (MHV) was left on the donor side. The recipient great saphenous vein or preserved cadaveric iliac blood vessels were anastomosed to the heavy-gauge MHV tributaries (>5 mm in diameter) of grafts. The weight and volume of the graft were measured with a balance and the water replacement method at the back table, and graft-torecipient weight ratio (GRWR) and the GV/SLV ratio were calculated. In addition, the ratio of graft volume to donor standard liver volume (GV/DSLV) was also calculated because the actual graft volume is more precise than the graft volume evaluated by CT.[25-27]

    Graft biopsy was performed in all donors before implantation for semiquantitative histologicevaluation of donor hepatic steatosis. Macrosteatosis was individually assessed using a 4-grade scale: grade 1, no steatosis; grade 2, mild steatosis (<30%); grade 3, moderate steatosis (30%-60%); and grade 4, severe steatosis (>60%).[28]Biopsy specimens were reviewed independently by two liver pathologists.

    Postoperative treatment and follow-up

    Every donor was cared for in the ICU for liver transplantation after the operation, and transferred to the regular ward when stable. No donor received total parenteral nutrition unless there was abnormal bowel activity. And oral nutrition was encouraged once bowel activity recovered. Discharged donors were followed up regularly and the follow-up endpoint of this study was defined as December 20, 2009. Liver biochemistry tests, routine blood examination, hepatic vascular status and remnant liver volume regeneration were monitored during hospital stay and follow-up. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative data were collected and analyzed.

    Statistical analysis

    Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows 13.0. Data were expressed as mean and standard deviation or as median and range according to their distribution. Continuous variables of several groups were compared by ANOVA or the Kruskal-Wallis H test as appropriate. The chi-square test was used to determine categorical variables. Ordinal regression was used to analyze the ordered grades of complications. Subgroups of grade III (IIIa and IIIb) served as one group for ordinal regression. Preoperative and intraoperative variables which were found to be univariately significant at P<0.1 entered ordinal regression to determine the independent risk factors for postoperative complications. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was undertaken to identify the threshold of potential risk factors.P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

    Results

    Preoperative and operative characteristics of living donors

    There were 70 men and 62 women, with a mean age of 36.1±10.1 (19-61) years. The mean duration of follow-up was 33.2±12.6 months. Preoperative and operative donor variables are summarized in Table 2. The preoperative values of liver and renal function and serum phosphorus were within normal limits. Over 90% of the donors donated the right liver without the MHV. Two left livers were donated to children. Four adult recipients underwent dual graft liver transplantation: right liver+left liver (n=2), right liver+left lateral lobe (n=1) and left liver+left liver without MHV (n=1). Resection volume of donor hepatectomy ranged from 15.1% to 60.9% with a mean of 43.0±7.9%. Most (82.6%) of the donors underwent autotransfusion and only 9 (6.8%) received allotransfusion. Severe steatosis of grafts was not found, and biopsy showed that most grafts (n=107, 81.1%) were not steatotic. Preoperative liver biopsy wasdone in two donors, who had a long history of alcohol and HBsAb (+) and HBeAb (+).

    Table 2. Preoperative and operative characteristics of 132 living liver donors

    Postoperative hepatic functional change

    The peak postoperative values of liver function were: TB, 58.3±23.3 μmol/L; ALT, 238 IU/L, range 85-1616 IU/L; AST, 245 IU/L, range 91-1756 IU/L; PT, 19.53± 2.7 seconds; and INR, 1.74±0.32. In all donors, these variables peaked on postoperative days (PODs) 2-3. TB and PT on POD 5 were 33.3 (range 12.1-102.2) μmol/L and 14.8 (range 13.1-24.8) seconds, respectively. The values for TB, PT and INR returned to normal at the end of the first week after operation, but the recovery of ALT and AST was longer than one week (Fig.).

    Postoperative complications

    Fig. Postoperative kinetics of hepatic function tests in living donors undergoing hepatectomy. Because of these data with skewness distribution, values were transformed to the common logarithm of own variables for normal distribution, then transformed values were expressed as mean±SD.

    Table 3. Complications in 132 living liver donors according to the newer Clavien classification system

    Postoperative complications and grades according to the newer Clavien classification are summarized in Table 3. Surgical morbidity was recognized in 94 patients (71.2%) in this series. There was no death orgrade IV morbidity. In brief, the overall morbidity was gradei(n=45, 34.1%), grade II (n=39, 29.5%), grade IIIa (n=7, 5.3%) and grade IIIb (n=3, 2.3%). Hepatic functional impairment and pleural effusion occurred frequently from gradesito III.

    Hepatic functional impairment following hepatectomy was the most common morbidity for the donors (40.2%; Table 4). Mild (n=40, 30.30%) and moderate impairment (n=13, 9.84%) occurred in 43 donors with hyperbilirubinemia and/or 19 with PT prolongation. Hepatic function spontaneously recovered in about one week in most donors, but three donors with moderate impairment had TB >85 μmol/L and PT >20 seconds lasting for one week and required hepatoprotective therapy. However, no donor developed hepatic functional failure requiring liver transplantation. Pleural effusion was the second most frequent morbidity for the donors. It occurred in 46 donors (34.8%), of whom 6 required pleurocentesis and one needed ventilatory support and all were classified as grade IIIa.

    Bile leakage was diagnosed with drainage in 2 donors (1.5%), of whom one underwent re-surgical repair and was classified as grade IIIb and the other with drainage left in situ was classified as grade II. Another grade II complication was a biloma at the cut liver surface in a 46-year-old female donor. She only showed mild hepatic functional impairment and localized hydrops at the cut surface in hospital. However, the localized hydrops persisted for about one year and was accurately diagnosed as a biloma by ultrasound-guided percutaneous puncture drainage. In addition, a grade IIIb donor with portal vein thrombosis was determined by ultrasound. The donor underwent thrombectomy and the cut right branch of the portal vein was repairedwith a great saphenous vein patch on POD 3. Another grade IIIb donor with intestinal obstruction required a surgical lytic procedure under general anesthesia on POD 5.

    Table 4. Hepatic functional impairment of 132 living liver donors

    Among the donors with grade II, a 53-year-old male developed prolonged thrombocytopenia after donation and was diagnosed with myelosuppression on POD13 by a bone marrow test, and cured by symptomatic treatment at 7 days after diagnosis. The donor with chyle leakage was cured by leaving the intraoperatively placed drainage in situ. Another donor with fever was diagnosed with pneumonia and cured by Tienam.

    The length of ICU stay was 5.8±1.9 days and the length of hospital stay was 15.2±4.2 days. ANOVA analysis showed that severe complications led to longer stay at ICU and hospital (P=0.003 and P=0.042). The ICU and hospital stay of donors with grade III was longer than that of those without complications (7.8±1.8 vs 5.4±1.4 days, P<0.001 and 17.7±4.6 vs 13.9±3.3 days, P=0.011, respectively). All donors resumed their work during the follow-up.

    Risk factors for postoperative complications in living donors

    The multicollinearity of preoperative and intraoperative variables was not shown by correlation analysis and factor analysis (minimum eigenvalue=0.251 and maximum condition indices=2.96).

    Variables were analyzed for correlation with postoperative complications following donation by ordinal logistic regression. With P<0.1 defined as significantly different, 6 variables were correlated with postoperative complications: age (P=0.091), BMI (P=0.092), preoperative creatinine value (P=0.025), graft type (P=0.005), operative time (P=0.031) and ratio of actual graft volume to donor standard liver volume (P=0.033). In addition, hepatic steatosis grade and GV/DSLV were not correlated with morbidity (allP>0.3).

    Multivariate ordinal logistic regression identified three independent predictive factors of postoperative donor complications: donor age (P=0.038), preoperative creatinine value (P=0.040), and graft type (P=0.005).In brief, right-liver donation, older age (≥40 years) and preoperatively higher serum creatinine (within the normal range) resulted in more severe complications in donors (Table 5). We did not see significant differences in ICU and hospital stay with regard to right and left hepatectomy donors (15.2±4.3 vs 15.1±2.7 days, 5.8±1.9 vs 5.5±1.5 days), but there was a higher peak TB and PT in right hepatectomy than in left hepatectomy donors (63.0±26.3 vs 44.4±21.3 μmol/L,P=0.047 and 19.5±2.6 vs 17.4±1.6 seconds, P=0.032). The older donors only showed a longer hospital stay than the younger donors (17.0±4.4 vs 14.2±3.8 days, P<0.001).

    Table 5. Independent risk factors for postoperative complications and hepatic function impairment in living liver donors

    We further analyzed the potential risk factors for hepatic functional impairment, which was the most frequent complication. Patients with mild impairment but normal hepatic function were merged into one group because of the spontaneous recovery from mild impairment. Multivariate binary logistic regression only revealed that preoperative total bilirubin (within the normal range, P=0.009) and postoperative nadir serum phosphorus (P=0.01) were independently related to hepatic functional impairment (Table 5). Furthermore, the ROC curve revealed that preoperative TB >18.0 μmol/L (P=0.025, AUC=0.70) and postoperative nadir of serum phosphorus <1 mg/dL (P=0.006, AUC=0.731) led to more severe hepatic dysfunction. In addition, the risk factors were not found to be associated with pleural effusion.

    Discussion

    Even a mild complication is of concern to a perfectly healthy individual, thus careful donor selection and precise operative technique are crucial for improving donor outcome in LDLT. To avoid differences in evaluation of outcomes of different centers, a uniform reliable assessment of morbidity is crucial to the safety of donors. In 2004, the newer Clavien classification system[11]was modified to evaluate living liver donor morbidity based on the early Clavien classification[7]and the Broering classification.[10]

    At least four studies have assessed living donor morbidity using this newer classification system, but the disparity in morbidity ranges from 8.3% to 78.3%.[18-21]One possible factor in this disparity might be associated with the grades of hepatic functional impairment. In our study, progressive impairment led to hepatic failure, requiring plasma exchange or liver transplantation (grade III or IV in the modified Clavien classification), but mild or moderate hepatic functional impairment was not identified. Broering et al[10]and Yi et al[21]reported hyperbilirubinemia and/or PT prolongation as hepatic functional impairment in living liver donors. Therefore, the classification of complications in donors was adapted and tuned up in our study based on the modified Clavien classification (Table 1).

    Although the incidence of postoperative complications in our center was high (71.2%), the rate of major complications, grade III or higher, was only 7.5%. The common complications were mainly hepatic functional impairment and pleural effusion. Progressive hepatic functional impairment was not found in our center, but mild or moderate impairment should not be neglected. In our study, hepatic functional impairment was graded by hyperbilirubinemia and/or PT prolongation[10,21,29,30](Table 1). Since persistent hyperbilirubinemia results from biliary complications, the abnormal postoperative recovery of hepatic function should be recorded. Moreover, pleural effusion occurs following hepatectomy, and it significantly disturbs the healthy donor. In our series, moderate and severe pleural effusion showed a difference in grade of atelectasis. Specially, donors with severe pleural effusion (grade III) must be treated by invasive procedures for the improvement of respiratory function.

    Bile leakage is one of the major concerns in living liver donors. Broering et al[10]defined bile leakage as TB in drainage which doubles that in serum. Bile leakage originates from the surface of the liver transected and is easily diagnosed by drainage. However, the individual sign of bile leakage, namely biloma, is only determined by percutaneous puncture. In our center, one donor showed persistent localized hydrops shown by CT, and was diagnosed with a biloma by percutaneous puncture after one year. Despite an invasive procedure, this donor was still identified as grade II because the biloma did not induce any symptoms such as dilatation or rupture as well as resultant bile peritonitis or abdominal infection.

    The current study identified the potential risk factors associated with postoperative complications after living liver donation. Removal of a left lobe for donation is a more conservative surgical procedure than right lobe removal. Although no significant differences were observed in ICU and hospital stay between right and left donor hepatectomy, the overall morbidity and the severity of complications were higher in donors with right hepatectomy than those with left hepatectomy. The surgical technique for right lobe removal is more difficult than the left one so that more blood loss and bile leak from the cut liver might occur in right lobe resection. Thus meticulous surgical technique is needed to reduce the morbidity following donation. This reemphasizes that living right liver donation must be performed more carefully than other methods. Inour study, age was independently associated with postoperative morbidity, and older donors had more severe complications and a longer hospital stay than other age groups of donors. Kuramitsu et al[31]reported that individuals of less than 60 years old had a longer hospital stay. Olthoff[32]suggested that older donors had a decreased or delayed capacity for hepatic regeneration. Remnant hepatic regeneration might be associated with donor morbidity, although this relationship has not been confirmed. Thus, older donors should be considered cautiously for LDLT. Donors aged from 40 to 60 years are acceptable in most centers, hut younger donors have better outcomes. However, it is difficult to reject older donors in a situation of lack of organs. Thus preoperative evaluation including graft size and graft steatosis as well as exquisite operative technique can decrease donor morbidity. Because grafts from the elderly or those with steatosis are susceptible to acute liver injury (e.g. hepatectomy or ischemia-reperfusion), older obese donors should be rejected (Table 5).

    It is important to identify the risk factors for hepatic functional impairment in donors. In our study preoperative TB was an independent risk factor for this complication, and donors with TB >18 μmol/L had a higher rate of impairment than others. The preoperative TB of all donors was less than 34 μmol/L. Clearly, high TB indeed aggravates patient outcome following hepatectomy, but this association is obscure when TB is within the normal range. The Barcelona clinic liver cancer (BCLC) group reported that the TB value (cutoff value 17 μmol/L) is an important preoperative prognostic factor for outcome of cirrhotic patients other than healthy donors after hepatectomy.[33]It is difficult to determine the implications of our results, but we consider that a higher preoperative TB within the normal range might increase the morbidity of donors after hepatectomy. Potential donors with normal hepatic function are not usually rejected, thus every step taken in the perioperative period should be monitored for donors with normal hepatic function and a relatively high TB level. In our study moreover, the postoperative nadir of serum phosphorus was independently associated with hepatic functional impairment, and severe hypophosphatemia (<1 mg/L) after hepatectomy induced functional impairment. Increased metabolic demands of the regenerating liver are considered to be the underlying mechanism of hypophosphatemia.[34-37]Therefore, the rapid liver regeneration after hepatectomy may use large amounts of phosphorus to maintain ATP synthesis, and serum phosphorus replenishes the low intracellular phosphorus level and induces a fall in circulating phosphorus. Therefore, postoperative serum phosphorus should be considered as an important index of hepatic function, and phosphorus replacement should be recommended for the recovery of hepatic function in living liver donors.

    One limitation of this study is the small sample of left lobe donation (n=8). Thus, data from more donors with left lobe removal should be collected and further analyzed to identify the correlation between graft type and donor morbidity. Another limitation is that the long-term complications after donation are difficult to know because some donors might be lost to follow-up or be difficult to contact years later. Therefore, doctors should emphatically inform donors of the importance of long-term follow-up.

    In conclusion, although life-threatening complications seldom develop in living liver donors, most donors may experience postoperative morbidity so that donor safety must be emphasized. Meticulous technical and preoperative donor evaluation and treatment will be sure to reduce the incidence of complications.

    Funding:This study was supported by the Planned Science and Technology Project of Sichuan Province, China (2009SZ0133).

    Ethical approval:Not needed.

    Contributors:YD and WYG designed the research and wrote the paper. LB, YLN, WTF, ZJC and ZY performed the operations. YD collected all of the data and performed the analysis. All authors contributed to the design and interpretation of the study and to further drafts. LB is the guarantor.

    Competing interest:No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

    1 Barr ML, Belghiti J, Villamil FG, Pomfret EA, Sutherland DS, Gruessner RW, et al. A report of the Vancouver Forum on the care of the live organ donor: lung, liver, pancreas, and intestine data and medical guidelines. Transplantation 2006; 81:1373-1385.

    2 Coelho JC, de Freitas AC, Matias JE, de Godoy JL, Zeni Neto C, Parolin MB, et al. Donor complications including the report of one death in right-lobe living-donor liver transplantation. Dig Surg 2007;24:191-196.

    3 Grewal HP, Thistlewaite JR Jr, Loss GE, Fisher JS, Cronin DC, Siegel CT, et al. Complications in 100 living-liver donors. Ann Surg 1998;228:214-219.

    4 Umeshita K, Fujiwara K, Kiyosawa K, Makuuchi M, Satomi S, Sugimachi K, et al. Operative morbidity of living liver donors in Japan. Lancet 2003;362:687-690.

    5 Brown RS Jr, Russo MW, Lai M, Shiffman ML, Richardson MC, Everhart JE, et al. A survey of liver transplantation from living adult donors in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003;348:818-825.

    6 Liu CL, Fan ST, Lo CM, Chan SC, Yong BH, Wong J. Safety of donor right hepatectomy without abdominal drainage: aprospective evaluation in 100 consecutive liver donors. Liver Transpl 2005;11:314-319.

    7 Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM. Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 1992;111:518-526.

    8 Clavien PA, Camargo CA Jr, Croxford R, Langer B, Levy GA, Greig PD. Definition and classification of negative outcomes in solid organ transplantation. Application in liver transplantation. Ann Surg 1994;220:109-120.

    9 Ghobrial RM, Saab S, Lassman C, Lu DS, Raman S, Limanond P, et al. Donor and recipient outcomes in right lobe adult living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2002;8:901-909.

    10 Broering DC, Wilms C, Bok P, Fischer L, Mueller L, Hillert C, et al. Evolution of donor morbidity in living related liver transplantation: a single-center analysis of 165 cases. Ann Surg 2004;240:1013-1026.

    11 Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213.

    12 Sugawara Y, Tamura S, Makuuchi M. Systematic grading of surgical complications in live liver donors. Liver Transpl 2007;13:781-782.

    13 Freise C, Ghobrial M; A2ALL Study Group. Response to letter "Systematic grading of morbidity after living donation for liver transplantation". Gastroenterology 2009;137:1855-1857.

    14 Tamura S, Sugawara Y, Kukudo N, Makuuchi M. Systematic grading of morbidity after living donation for liver transplantation. Gastroenterology 2008;135:1804.

    15 Morioka D, Egawa H, Kasahara M, Ito T, Haga H, Takada Y, et al. Outcomes of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: a single institution's experience with 335 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 2007;245:315-325.

    16 Ghobrial RM, Freise CE, Trotter JF, Tong L, Ojo AO, Fair JH, et al. Donor morbidity after living donation for liver transplantation. Gastroenterology 2008;135:468-476.

    17 Salvalaggio PR, Baker TB, Koffron AJ, Fryer JP, Clark L, Superina RA, et al. Comparative analysis of live liver donation risk using a comprehensive grading system for severity. Transplantation 2004;77:1765-1767.

    18 Tamura S, Sugawara Y, Kaneko J, Yamashiki N, Kishi Y, Matsui Y, et al. Systematic grading of surgical complications in live liver donors according to Clavien's system. Transpl Int 2006;19:982-987.

    19 Hashikura Y, Ichida T, Umeshita K, Kawasaki S, Mizokami M, Mochida S, et al. Donor complications associated with living donor liver transplantation in Japan. Transplantation 2009;88:110-114.

    20 Patel S, Orloff M, Tsoulfas G, Kashyap R, Jain A, Bozorgzadeh A, et al. Living-donor liver transplantation in the United States: identifying donors at risk for perioperative complications. Am J Transplant 2007;7:2344-2349.

    21 Yi NJ, Suh KS, Cho JY, Lee HW, Cho EH, Yang SH, et al. Three-quarters of right liver donors experienced postoperative complications. Liver Transpl 2007;13:797-806.

    22 Peng CJ, Yuan D, Li B, Wei YG, Yan LN, Wen TF, et al. Body mass index evaluating donor hepatic steatosis in living donor liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 2009;41:3556-3559.

    23 Liu ZJ, Gong JP, Yan LN. Quantitative estimation of the degree of hepatic macrovesicular steatosis in a disease-free population: a single-center experience in mainland China. Liver Transpl 2009;15:1605-1612.

    24 Yan LN, Li B, Zeng Y, Wen TF, Wang WT, Yang JY, et al. Analysis of fifty adult to adult living donor liver transplantation. Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 2007; 38:513-517.

    25 Schiano TD, Bodian C, Schwartz ME, Glajchen N, Min AD. Accuracy and significance of computed tomographic scan assessment of hepatic volume in patients undergoing liver transplantation. Transplantation 2000;69:545-550.

    26 Salvalaggio PR, Baker TB, Koffron AJ, Fryer JP, Clark L, Superina RA, et al. Liver graft volume estimation in 100 living donors: measure twice, cut once. Transplantation 2005;80:1181-1185.

    27 Yuan D, Chen K, Li B, Yan L, Wei Y. Accurate and reasonable method for estimation of graft volume in living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 2008;86:1011-1012.

    28 Ploeg RJ, D'Alessandro AM, Knechtle SJ, Stegall MD, Pirsch JD, Hoffmann RM, et al. Risk factors for primary dysfunction after liver transplantation--a multivariate analysis. Transplantation 1993;55:807-813.

    29 Cho JY, Suh KS, Kwon CH, Yi NJ, Lee KU. Mild hepatic steatosis is not a major risk factor for hepatectomy and regenerative power is not impaired. Surgery 2006;139:508-515.

    30 Cho JY, Suh KS, Kwon CH, Yi NJ, Lee HH, Park JW, et al. Outcome of donors with a remnant liver volume of less than 35% after right hepatectomy. Liver Transpl 2006;12:201-206.

    31 Kuramitsu K, Egawa H, Keeffe EB, Kasahara M, Ito T, Sakamoto S, et al. Impact of age older than 60 years in living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 2007;84:166-172.

    32 Olthoff KM. Hepatic regeneration in living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2003;9:S35-41.

    33 Llovet JM, Brú C, Bruix J. Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: the BCLC staging classification. Semin Liver Dis 1999;19:329-338.

    34 Lee HW, Suh KS, Kim J, Shin WY, Cho EH, Yi NJ, et al. Hypophosphatemia after live donor right hepatectomy. Surgery 2008;144:448-453.

    35 Chung PY, Sitrin MD, Te HS. Serum phosphorus levels predict clinical outcome in fulminant hepatic failure. Liver Transpl 2003;9:248-253.

    36 Baquerizo A, Anselmo D, Shackleton C, Chen TW, Cao C, Weaver M, et al. Phosphorus ans an early predictive factor in patients with acute liver failure. Transplantation 2003;75:2007-2014.

    37 Mann DV, Lam WW, Hjelm NM, So NM, Yeung DK, Metreweli C, et al. Human liver regeneration: hepatic energy economy is less efficient when the organ is diseased. Hepatology 2001;34:557-565.

    Received January 17, 2011

    Accepted after revision May 3, 2011

    Author Affiliations: Department of Liver and Vascular Surgery, Liver Transplantation Center (Yuan D, Wei YG, Li B, Yan LN, Wen TF, Zhao JC and Chen KF); Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery (Zeng Y), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China

    Bo Li, MD, Department of Liver and Vascular Surgery, Liver Transplantation Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, 37 Guoxue Street, Chengdu 610041, China (Tel: 86-28-85422476; Fax: 86-28-85423724; Email: doclibo@gmail.com)

    ? 2011, Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. All rights reserved.

    10.1016/S1499-3872(11)60082-9

    国产精品二区激情视频| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| 国产一卡二卡三卡精品| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| av视频免费观看在线观看| a 毛片基地| 黄色a级毛片大全视频| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 亚洲九九香蕉| 岛国毛片在线播放| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 亚洲人成电影观看| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 深夜精品福利| 久久久精品区二区三区| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 午夜免费观看性视频| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 91成人精品电影| 999精品在线视频| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| svipshipincom国产片| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 国产精品九九99| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 国产精品免费视频内射| 精品少妇内射三级| 免费av中文字幕在线| bbb黄色大片| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 香蕉丝袜av| 亚洲av美国av| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 亚洲精品一二三| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 深夜精品福利| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 国产1区2区3区精品| 免费观看av网站的网址| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 中文字幕色久视频| 成人手机av| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 老司机影院毛片| 国产av精品麻豆| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 国产成人精品无人区| 电影成人av| 1024视频免费在线观看| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 久久久久久亚洲精品国产蜜桃av| 国产激情久久老熟女| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 伊人亚洲综合成人网| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 欧美另类一区| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看 | 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| av线在线观看网站| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 考比视频在线观看| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 99国产精品99久久久久| 亚洲综合色网址| 91大片在线观看| 五月天丁香电影| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 香蕉丝袜av| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 国产精品 国内视频| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 国产激情久久老熟女| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| av不卡在线播放| 久久久久网色| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| av不卡在线播放| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| h视频一区二区三区| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 亚洲国产看品久久| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 国产激情久久老熟女| 精品少妇内射三级| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 大码成人一级视频| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看 | 1024视频免费在线观看| av片东京热男人的天堂| 国产一区二区 视频在线| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 日本91视频免费播放| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区 | 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 女警被强在线播放| 91大片在线观看| 老司机影院成人| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 国产精品二区激情视频| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 成人影院久久| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 国产野战对白在线观看| 深夜精品福利| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 9色porny在线观看| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| www日本在线高清视频| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 欧美另类一区| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 精品久久久久久电影网| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 黄色a级毛片大全视频| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 日本wwww免费看| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 99久久人妻综合| 日韩电影二区| 国产在线视频一区二区| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 手机成人av网站| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 午夜福利,免费看| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 丝袜喷水一区| 国产淫语在线视频| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 亚洲九九香蕉| 两性夫妻黄色片| 免费不卡黄色视频| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 老熟女久久久| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 大型av网站在线播放| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| svipshipincom国产片| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| av在线app专区| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 久久免费观看电影| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费| 成在线人永久免费视频| 91国产中文字幕| av片东京热男人的天堂| 美女福利国产在线| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 少妇 在线观看| 亚洲 国产 在线| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 亚洲精品一二三| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月 | 久久久精品免费免费高清| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 亚洲国产精品999| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 欧美精品av麻豆av| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三 | 超色免费av| 午夜久久久在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 桃花免费在线播放| 热re99久久国产66热| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 国产淫语在线视频| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女 | 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 精品福利观看| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 视频区图区小说| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 黄色视频不卡| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 午夜91福利影院| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 国产三级黄色录像| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 亚洲国产欧美网| 国产精品免费视频内射| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 岛国毛片在线播放| 国产成人精品无人区| 两性夫妻黄色片| 久久久久视频综合| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 曰老女人黄片| 乱人伦中国视频| 亚洲精品一二三| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 亚洲av男天堂| 国产一区二区 视频在线| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 午夜久久久在线观看| 丝袜美足系列| 高清欧美精品videossex| 999精品在线视频| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 电影成人av| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面 | 丝袜人妻中文字幕| av天堂久久9| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 黄色 视频免费看| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| av免费在线观看网站| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| www.自偷自拍.com| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 91麻豆av在线| 午夜激情av网站| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产 | 久久av网站| 日本a在线网址| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 考比视频在线观看| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美 | 伊人亚洲综合成人网| 午夜久久久在线观看| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 精品福利永久在线观看| 精品久久蜜臀av无| av免费在线观看网站| 久热这里只有精品99| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 99香蕉大伊视频| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 精品高清国产在线一区| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 1024香蕉在线观看| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女 | 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 久久久国产一区二区| 五月天丁香电影| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 国产一区二区激情短视频 | 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 国产又爽黄色视频| 69av精品久久久久久 | 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 老司机影院毛片| 久久这里只有精品19| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 三级毛片av免费| 午夜91福利影院| tube8黄色片| 精品福利永久在线观看| 夫妻午夜视频| 亚洲精品第二区| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区 | 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 免费观看人在逋| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 色播在线永久视频| 丁香六月天网| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av | a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 岛国在线观看网站| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 性少妇av在线| 国产精品1区2区在线观看. | 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 久久久久久人人人人人| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频 | 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 精品少妇内射三级| 免费少妇av软件| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 日本91视频免费播放| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 免费观看人在逋| 成人三级做爰电影| 黄色 视频免费看| 国产av精品麻豆| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 999久久久国产精品视频| cao死你这个sao货| 久久久久久久精品精品| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 久久免费观看电影| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 亚洲精品一二三| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 在线观看人妻少妇| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 成年动漫av网址| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 黄频高清免费视频| 一级毛片电影观看| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 国产淫语在线视频| 18在线观看网站| 成人影院久久| 午夜两性在线视频| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 三级毛片av免费| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 久久人人爽人人片av| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 两性夫妻黄色片| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| av欧美777| tocl精华| 高清欧美精品videossex| 国产一卡二卡三卡精品| av片东京热男人的天堂| 悠悠久久av| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| 搡老乐熟女国产| 18禁观看日本| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 高清在线国产一区| 老熟女久久久| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 窝窝影院91人妻| 美女午夜性视频免费| 久久久国产成人免费| 高清欧美精品videossex| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 成人国语在线视频| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 婷婷成人精品国产| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸 | 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 桃花免费在线播放| 成人av一区二区三区在线看 | 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 十八禁网站免费在线| 多毛熟女@视频| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 制服诱惑二区| 精品福利观看| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲 | 国产又爽黄色视频| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看 | 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 青草久久国产| a 毛片基地| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 午夜免费鲁丝| 久久狼人影院| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区 | 国产成人影院久久av| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 免费少妇av软件| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 精品第一国产精品| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 中文字幕色久视频| www.自偷自拍.com| 99香蕉大伊视频| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 大香蕉久久成人网| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 五月开心婷婷网| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 国产一区二区 视频在线| av在线app专区| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 老司机影院成人| 91精品三级在线观看| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区 | 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 人妻一区二区av| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 天天影视国产精品| 久久久久视频综合| 一个人免费看片子| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 一级黄色大片毛片| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 丁香六月欧美| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 国产一区二区 视频在线| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 操美女的视频在线观看| av在线app专区| 性少妇av在线| 亚洲伊人色综图| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| a级毛片在线看网站| av不卡在线播放| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 美女午夜性视频免费| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 999久久久国产精品视频| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| a级毛片在线看网站| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 久久女婷五月综合色啪小说| 国产1区2区3区精品| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 久久久久久久精品精品| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 制服人妻中文乱码| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三 | 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 高清在线国产一区| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| avwww免费| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 在线av久久热| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 国产在线观看jvid| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 日本欧美视频一区| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| av在线老鸭窝| 国产男女内射视频| 久久久欧美国产精品| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区|