Letter

Graft rejection

WC xrad with surprise and Dr.

Lautenscblager

1990, Vol.

II,

tbc lcttcr from Dr. (Joamn,

to the Editor

following

Htickerstedt

of Heparology.

July

p. 130). They seem to have misunderstood

liver transplantation

only fine needle aspiration biochemixl

cytology, but also the different

and immunological

at present no universally

the purpose of the review which was to discuss the various

nosing rejection.

patterns of graft rejection following

an impressive technique it requires a degree of cytological

liver transplantation.

Whilst

approaches since there is

agreed ‘best method’ for diagfine needle aspiration

biopsy is

We did not arrempt to descnbe how the diagnosis of rejec-

expertise which is not available to all units and histology

tion should be made since this was beyond the scope of the

remains

rcvicw.

must be measured.

Any such discussion would need to consider not

the ‘gold standard’

by which other

approaches