Donor morbidity associated with right lobectomy for living donor liver transplantation to adult recipients: a systematic review

The first two cases of living donor liver transplantation using dual grafts in Europe

The major limitation in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an adequate graft size with special regard to the safety of the donor. Only 20% of the evaluated donors are suitable to donate the right liver, depending mainly on the critical remnant liver volume. We report 2 cases of adult-to-adult LDLT using dual grafts. In the first case we implanted a left lateral lobe together with a left lobe; in the second case we used a left lateral and a right lobe. Dual graft LDLT solves the problem of graft-size insufficiency and avoids critical right lobectomy in the donor. This procedure can be safely performed and opens up the possibility of LDLT to even more families in the Western world.

Systematic grading of surgical complications in live liver donors according to Clavien's system

The lack of consensus on how to evaluate surgical complications of donors in live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and incoherence of cumulative data hampers efficient comparison of the outcome worldwide. We considered that the application of the internationally validated classification system introduced by Clavien in 2004 might be beneficial. Operative complications of 243 patients who underwent live donor hepatectomy for adult LDLT between January 1996 and October 2005 at the University of Tokyo were analyzed according to the system. Definitions for each grade in the system are: grade I, deviation from the normal postoperative course but without the need for therapy; grade II, complication requiring pharmacologic treatment; grade III, complication with the need for surgical, endoscopic or radiological intervention (IIIa/b: without/with the need for general anesthesia); grade IV, life-threatening complication requiring intensive care; grade V, death. Surgical morbidity was recognized in 67 donors (28%). No deaths occurred. The numbers of patients with complications were: grade I, 36 (15%); II, 10 (4%); IIIa, 12 (5%); IIIb, 9 (4%); IV, 0; V, 0. Six in IIIb underwent surgical repair for bile leakage. Clavien's system is simple and informative. It may serve as a common tool for the quality assessment in live liver donor surgery worldwide, and we propose its application whenever surgical complication of live donor is discussed.

Donation after cardiac death as a strategy to increase deceased donor liver availability

OBJECTIVE

This study examines donation after cardiac death (DCD) practices and outcomes in liver transplantation.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Livers procured from DCD donors have recently been used to increase the number of deceased donors and bridge the gap between limited organ supply and the pool of waiting list candidates. Comprehensive evaluation of this practice and its outcomes has not been previously reported.

METHODS

A national cohort of all DCD and donation after brain-death (DBD) liver transplants between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2004 was identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Time to graft failure (including death) was modeled by Cox regression, adjusted for relevant donor and recipient characteristics.

RESULTS

DCD livers were used for 472 (2%) of 24,070 transplants. Annual DCD liver activity increased from 39 in 2000 to 176 in 2004. The adjusted relative risk of DCD graft failure was 85% higher than for DBD grafts (relative risk, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-2.26; P < 0.001), corresponding to 3-month, 1-year, and 3-year graft survival rates of 83.0%, 70.1%, and 60.5%, respectively (vs. 89.2%, 83.0%, and 75.0% for DBD recipients). There was no significant association between transplant program DCD liver transplant volume and graft outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The annual number of DCD livers used for transplant has increased rapidly. However, DCD livers are associated with a significantly increased risk of graft failure unrelated to modifiable donor or recipient factors. Appropriate recipients for DCD livers have not been fully characterized and recipient informed consent should be obtained before use of these organs.

Donation after cardiac death as a strategy to increase deceased donor liver availability

OBJECTIVE

This study examines donation after cardiac death (DCD) practices and outcomes in liver transplantation.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Livers procured from DCD donors have recently been used to increase the number of deceased donors and bridge the gap between limited organ supply and the pool of waiting list candidates. Comprehensive evaluation of this practice and its outcomes has not been previously reported.

METHODS

A national cohort of all DCD and donation after brain-death (DBD) liver transplants between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2004 was identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Time to graft failure (including death) was modeled by Cox regression, adjusted for relevant donor and recipient characteristics.

RESULTS

DCD livers were used for 472 (2%) of 24,070 transplants. Annual DCD liver activity increased from 39 in 2000 to 176 in 2004. The adjusted relative risk of DCD graft failure was 85% higher than for DBD grafts (relative risk, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-2.26; P < 0.001), corresponding to 3-month, 1-year, and 3-year graft survival rates of 83.0%, 70.1%, and 60.5%, respectively (vs. 89.2%, 83.0%, and 75.0% for DBD recipients). There was no significant association between transplant program DCD liver transplant volume and graft outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The annual number of DCD livers used for transplant has increased rapidly. However, DCD livers are associated with a significantly increased risk of graft failure unrelated to modifiable donor or recipient factors. Appropriate recipients for DCD livers have not been fully characterized and recipient informed consent should be obtained before use of these organs.

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

The present review outlines the principles of living donor liver transplantation, donor workup, procedure and outcomes. Living donation offers a solution to the growing gap between the need for liver transplants and the limited availability of deceased donor organs. With a multidisciplinary team focused on donor safety and experienced surgeons capable of performing complex resection/reconstruction procedures, donor morbidity is low and recipient outcomes are comparable with results of deceased donor transplantation.

A prospective analysis of living-liver donation shows a high rate of adverse events

Donor risk is the main obstacle in the development of living-donor liver transplantation in Western countries. The knowledge of a wide and uneven range of donor morbidity has come mainly from various retrospective analyses of complications in the literature. Donor outcomes have not been prospectively analyzed. From 1995, the intra- and postoperative courses of 127 living-donor hepatectomies were prospectively analyzed and recorded. All adverse events were classified and stratified according to the extent of surgery, including 45 left-lateral sectionectomies (LLS); 25 left hepatectomies (LH), and 57 right hepatectomies (RH). There was no donor death. The overall rate of significant complications was 20%, ranging from 8% after LH to 32% after RH. The overall incidences of surgical complications, reoperations, and hospital readmissions were 8%, 3%, and 5%, respectively. However, the prospective accumulation of all adverse events revealed an overall postoperative morbidity of 51%, ranging from 32% after LH to 66% after RH. In conclusion the incidence of postoperative adverse events after living donation is nearly 50% as revealed by prospective screening. These results allow more accurate information for potential donors. This study confirms that right hepatectomy carries three times higher risk of morbidity as compared to left-sided resections, leading to reappraisal of the use of left grafts in adults.

Regeneration and function of hemiliver graft: right versus left

BACKGROUND

A right liver graft used almost routinely for adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), is associated with a higher incidence of morbidity and mortality in the donor. We compared volume regeneration and graft function between left and right liver grafts to examine the feasibility of using left liver grafts.

METHODS

The left liver was considered acceptable as a graft when it was estimated to be over 40% of the recipient standard liver volume. Otherwise, right liver harvesting was used, provided the estimated right liver volume was less than 70% of the donor's standard liver volume. Graft volume on computed tomography and the results of liver function tests 1, 3, and 12 months after LDLT were compared between recipients with left (n = 76) and right (n = 83) grafts. Possible factors influencing graft regeneration were evaluated by multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A higher regeneration rate in the left liver graft group resulted in the same ratio of graft to standard liver volume as in the right liver graft group (88% vs 87%) 1 year after LDLT. Liver function tests and 5-year survival rates were comparable between the 2 groups. An episode of acute rejection was a predictive factor for impaired graft regeneration 1 month after LDLT. The initial ratio of graft volume to standard liver volume was an independent factor for regeneration 1 year after LDLT.

CONCLUSIONS

A properly evaluated left liver graft can be used as safely as a right liver graft in adult-to-adult LDLT. The findings of the present study justify LDLT with a left liver graft under specific selection criteria and may be preferred to a right liver graft.

Infections after Living-Donor Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Despite greater awareness of organ donation among the general public, the supply of cadaveric organs has fallen short of identified needs. Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an effective means of overcoming the shortage of adult organs, as outcomes are now comparable to those of cadaveric donor liver transplantation.

METHODS

From January, 2002 through January, 2006, 40 LDLTs were performed at our center. With two exceptions, the donor was a first-degree relative of the recipient; all donors were in excellent health with good hepatic function and morphology. All but two donors contributed the right lobe. Infections in the donors and recipients were analyzed.

RESULTS

Clinically relevant infections occurred in three donors. In the recipients, the infections did not differ significantly from those experienced by recipients of cadaveric organs in terms of risk factors (e.g., poor graft function, re-transplantation, surgical complications such as bile duct stenosis, or vascular anastomotic stenosis) or type of infection. Cholangitis was the most frequent infection, leading to septic shock in five of the 14 patients with infections; intra-abdominal infections related to surgical complications led to septic shock in three additional patients. The other most commonly observed infections were urinary tract infections (n=10) and pneumonia (n=3).

CONCLUSIONS

Living-donor liver transplantation offers hope to patients with end-stage liver disease in geographic areas where the waiting time mortality is high and available organs from deceased donors fall short of the population's need.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Early Single-Center Experience

Adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT) is an accepted procedure to overcome the organ shortage. The advantages of ALDLT must be balanced against the first concern of donor safety. We analyzed the results of our early experience among a series of eight ALDLT performed between April 2001 and October 2003. All patients were listed as United Network for Organ Sharing UNOS status 2b and 3. Transplant recipients consisted of four men and four women. The living donors included four sons, three daughters, and one son-in-law (ages 20 to 45 years). One donor was anti-HBc-positive and negative for hepatitis B virus-DNA by polymerase chain reaction analysis in serum and in liver tissue. GR/WR >0.8 and fatty liver <10% were considered suitable for the hepatectomy. Residual left lobe volume was at least 33%. No exogenous blood and blood products were transfused into the donors and a cell-saver device was used in all donors (blood loss 490 +/- 160 mL). All procedures were right lobe hepatectomy; in one case the middle hepatic vein was withdrawn with the right graft. The mean ischemia time was 1.5 +/- 0.5 hours. All donors survived the procedure. Median hospital stay was 8.5 +/- 2.1 days in all donors but one who had a long stay because of drug-related hepatitis. One graft was lost and one donor aborted because of preoperative overestimated volumetry. Complications were experienced by two donors (25%). Five recipients (62.5%) experienced major complications; one patient underwent retransplantation because of donor graft loss. Two biliary and two vascular complications (33.3%) occurred in three patients. No perioperative death occurred. Two patients died at 9 and 10 months after transplant because of heart and respiratory failure in the first case and tumor recurrence in the second. One-year actuarial survival is 75%. ALDLT using right lobe has gained acceptance to overcome the organ shortage. Donor selection criteria must be stringent with respect to residual donor hepatic volume, steatosis, and liver function.

Living related liver transplantation: the ultimate technique to expand the donor pool?

Today, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is well established in many centers as a therapeutic method for end-stage liver disease. LDLT is an option for selected cases and is still under development. From the beginning of LDLT until now, many innovations have been presented and as a consequence both the surgical and medical complications in both donors and recipients reduced greatly. As a benefit, this procedure enriches the donor organ pool and reduces the imbalance between the scarcity of organ resource and organ demand; however, LDLT will not solve the problem of organ shortage. Because the modality of LDLT is still associated with morbidity and mortality of the donors, recipient's graft-size match problems and substantial surgical complications, ethical issues of live organ donation must be discussed. Nevertheless, estimates of patient survival and complications in both donors and recipients should incorporate waiting time mortality. With this background, the extended indications for LDLT compared with cadaveric liver transplantation would have to be discussed in many cases. In this brief review, we focus on potential complications for both donors and recipients after adult-to-adult LDLT, discuss ethical problems and controversies with special interest on the perspective and potentials of this surgical method.

Live donor liver transplantation

With ever-increasing demand for liver replacement, supply of organs is the limiting factor and a significant number of patients die while waiting. Live donor liver transplantation has emerged as an important option for many patients, particularly small pediatric patients and those adults that are disadvantaged by the current deceased donor allocation system. Ideally there would be no need to subject perfectly healthy people in the prime of their lives to a potentially life-threatening operation to procure transplantable organs. Donor safety is imperative and cannot be compromised regardless of the implication for the intended recipient. The evolution of split liver transplantation is the basis upon which live donor transplantation has become possible. The live donor procedures are considerably more complex than whole organ decreased donor transplantation and there are unique considerations involved in the assessment of any specific recipient and donor. Donor selection and evaluation have become highly specialized. The critical issue of size matching is determined by both the actual size of the donor graft and the recipient as well as the degree of recipient portal hypertension. The outcomes after live donor liver transplantation have been at least comparable to those of deceased donor transplantation. Nevertheless, all efforts should be made to improve deceased donor donation so as to minimize the need for live donors. Transplant physicians, particularly surgeons, must take responsibility for regulating and overseeing these procedures.

Safety of donor right hepatectomy for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

The purpose of this study was to ascertain the usefulness of preoperative evaluations of donors by computed tomography (CT) volumetry and CT cholangiography for prevention of unexpected liver failure and biliary complications after donor right hepatectomy for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. Fifty-two donors who underwent right hepatectomy without the middle hepatic vein were enrolled in this study. The values of graft weight (GW) were significantly correlated with those of estimated graft volume (GV; P < 0.0001). GW was predicted by the following formula: GW = 155.25 + 0.658 x GV; r(2) = 0.489. CT cholangiography revealed anatomical variants of biliary structure in one-third of the donors and also clearly showed one or two small biliary branches from the caudate lobe to the right hepatic ducts or the confluence in 58% of the donors. Biliary leakage, which was treated by conservative therapy, occurred in only one donor (1.9%). No donors received homologous blood transfusion. Hyperbilirubinemia (serum total bilirubin >5 mg/dl) occurred in 5.8% of the donors during their early postoperative periods. Precise evaluations of liver remnant volume by CT volumetry and biliary variation by CT cholangiography are essential for performing safe donor hepatectomy, preventing hepatic insufficiency and minimizing the risk of biliary tract complications.

Outcome of donors with a remnant liver volume of less than 35% after right hepatectomy

To overcome the barrier of size match, right lobe graft has been widely used in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We assessed donor outcome, with a focus on remnant liver volume (RLV) after right hepatectomy based on the experiences of 2 LDLT centers, as a means of guiding the establishment of safe RLV limits for donor right hepatectomy. Between January 2002 and December 2003, a consecutive 146 liver donors who underwent right hepatectomy with at least 12 months of follow-up were enrolled in this study. Donors were grouped into 2 groups according to RLV: group 1 (n = 74), <35% (range, 26.9-34.9) and group 2 (n = 72), > or = 35% (35.0-46.8). No donors died or suffered a life-threatening complication. Mean peak serum postoperative aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (IU/L) levels were 219.5 +/- 79.9 and 231.5 +/- 83.3 in group 1 and 210.3 +/- 81.6 and 225.8 +/- 93.0 in group 2 (P = 0.497 and 0.699), respectively. Mean peak serum total bilirubin (TB) (mg/dL) level in group 1 (3.4 +/- 1.6) was higher than in group 2 (2.8 +/- 1.4; P = 0.023). Overall 23 (15.8%) major morbidities, 10 in group 1 (13.5%) and 13 in group 2 (18.1%), occurred according to Clavien's system (P = 0.939). These included bleeding (n = 3 in group 1 and n = 6 in group 2; P = 0.282), ileus (n = 3 and 1; P = 0.324), biliary leakage (n = 4 and 4; P = 0.968), and pneumonia (n = 0 and 2; P = 0.149). Minor morbidities were also comparable in the 2 groups. In conclusion, the outcome of donors with an RLV of <35% was not different from that of donors with an RLV of > or = 35%, with the exception of transient cholestasis. Therefore, a remnant RLV of <35% does not appear to be a contraindication for right liver procurement in living donors.

Living donor liver transplantation--adult donor outcomes: a systematic review

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation, specifically donor outcomes. A systematic review, with searches of the literature up to January 2004, was undertaken. Two hundred and fourteen studies provided information on donor outcomes. The majority of these were case series studies, although there were also studies comparing living donor liver transplantation with deceased donor liver transplantation. Both underreporting and duplicate reporting is likely to have occurred, and so caution is required in interpretation of these results. Overall reported donor mortality was 12 to 13 in about 6,000 procedures (0.2%) (117 studies). Mortality for right lobe donors to adult recipients is estimated to be 2 to 8 out of 3,800 (0.23 to 0.5%). The donor morbidity rate ranged from 0% to 100% with a median of 16% (131 studies). Biliary complications and infections were the most commonly reported donor morbidities. Nearly all donors had returned to normal function by 3 to 6 months (18 studies). In conclusion, there are small, but real, risks for living liver donors. Due to the short history of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation, the long-term risks for donors are unknown.

Respiratory Complications: A Major Concern after Right Hepatectomy in Living Liver Donors

BACKGROUND

One of the main concerns after living donor liver transplantation is the risk of morbidity and/or mortality that it imposes on the donors. Respiratory postoperative complications in living liver donors have already been reported but their frequency seems to be underestimated. We designed a prospective study to evaluate the rate and the nature of postoperative pulmonary complications in 112 consecutive donors.

METHODS

The medical records of the 112 living liver donors operated on at our center from 1998 to 2003 were reviewed and all the cases of respiratory complications were retrieved. Moreover, since 2000, all patients had a computed tomography angiography of the thorax at day 7 on a prospective basis.

RESULTS

In all, 112 hepatectomies (44 right and 68 left) for adult-to-adult or adult-to-child liver donation were performed in our center. No postoperative mortality was recorded. Fourteen major respiratory complications developed in of 11 of 112 donors (9.8%), in all cases after right hepatectomy, and included nonsevere pulmonary embolism (n=7), right pleural empyema (n=3), and bacterial pneumonia (n=3). Minor respiratory complications (7.1% of the donors) included iatrogenic pneumothorax (n=3) and pleural effusion requiring thoracocentesis (n=5). Abdominal complications (mainly biliary leak) developed in 10 donors (8.9%), who in the vast majority remained free of pulmonary complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, pulmonary complications are frequent in living liver donors. These complications are mainly observed after right hepatectomy. The particular prevalence of pulmonary embolism should lead to focus on its early diagnosis and prevention.

Living donor liver transplantation

The introduction of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been one of the most remarkable steps in the field of liver transplantation (LT). First introduced for children in 1989, its adoption for adults has followed only 10 years later. As the demand for LT continues to increase, LDLT provides life-saving therapy for many patients who would otherwise die awaiting a cadaveric organ. In recent years, LDLT has been shown to be a clinically safe addition to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and has been able to significantly extend the scarce donor pool. As long as the donor shortage continues to increase, LDLT will play an important role in the future of LT.

Select utilization of obese donors in living donor liver transplantation: implications for the donor pool

Living donor liver transplantation evolved in response to donor shortage. Current guidelines recommend potential living donors (LD) have a body mass index (BMI) <30. With the current obesity epidemic, locating nonobese LD is difficult. From September 1999 to August 2003, 68 LD with normal liver function test (LFTs) and without significant comorbidities underwent donor hepatectomy at our center. Post-operative complications were collected, including wound infection, pneumonia, hernia, fever, ileus, biliary leak, biliary stricture, thrombosis, bleeding, hepatic dysfunction, thrombocytopenia, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, difficult to control pain, depression and anxiety. Complication rates for LD with BMI >30 (n = 16) and BMI <30 (n = 52) were compared. The incidence of wound infection increased with BMI, 4% for nonobese and 25% for obese LD (p = 0.024). There were no statistically significant differences for all other complications. No LD died. Recipient survival was 100% with obese LD and 80% with nonobese LD (p = 0.1). Select donors with a BMI >30 may undergo donor hepatectomy with acceptable morbidity and excellent recipient results. Updating current guidelines to include select LD with BMI >30 has the potential to safely increase the donor pool.

Adult live donor liver transplantation

The increasing awareness of liver diseases and their early detection have led to an increase in the number of transplant waiting list candidates over the past decade. This need has not been matched by the actual number of orthotopic liver transplantations performed. Live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an innovative surgical technique intended to expand the available organ donor pool. Although LDLT offers definite advantages to the recipient, it offers none to the donor except for the possibility of psychological well-being. Clinical research studies aimed at the prospective collection of data for donors and recipients need to be conducted.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes After Living Donor Liver Transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Living donor liver transplantation was first described as a way to alleviate the organ shortage. Extensive studies of both the prospective donor and the recipient are necessary to ensure successful outcome. In this paper we describe our results in 28 living donor liver transplantations from the perspective of the donor and the recipient.

METHODS

A prospective, longitudinal, observational, comparative study was conducted from April 1995 to October 2004, including 28 living donor liver transplantations.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up time of 25.6 +/- 20.58 months, all donors are alive, showing normal liver function tests. All of them have been reincorporated into their normal lives. At the end of the study and after a mean follow-up time of 21.2 +/- 14.3 months, 86.3% of the adult recipients are alive. Actuarial recipient survivals at 6, 12, and 36 months were 86.36%. Actuarial mean survival time was 44 months (95% CI, 37 to 51). At the end of the study, 77.3% of the grafts are functioning. Actuarial graft survivals at 6, 12, and 36 months were 77.27%. Actuarial mean graft survival time was 32 months (95% CI, 25 to 39). The main complications were hepatic artery thrombosis (n = 2) and small for-size syndrome (n = 2). At a mean follow-up of 20.33 +/- 7.74 months, all pediatric recipients are alive. Actuarial recipient survivals at 12 and 36 months were 100% and actuarial graft survivals were 80%.

CONCLUSIONS

Living donor liver transplantation may increase the liver graft pool, and therefore reduce waiting list mortality. Nevertheless caution must be deserved to avoid surgical morbidity and mortality in with the donor the recipient.

Analysis and outcomes of right lobe hepatectomy in 101 consecutive living donors

The shortage of deceased organ donors has created a need for right lobe living donor liver transplantation (RLDLT) in adults. Concerns regarding donor safety, however, necessitate continuous assessment of donor acceptance criteria and documentation of donor morbidity. We report the outcomes of our first 101 donors who underwent right lobectomy between April 2000 and November 2004. The cohort comprised 58 men and 43 women with a median age of 37.8 years (range: 18.6-55 years); median follow-up is 24 months. The middle hepatic vein (MHV) was taken with the graft in 55 donors. All complications were recorded prospectively and stratified by grade according to Clavien's classification. Overall morbidity rate was 37%; all complications were either grade 1 or 2, and the majority occurred during the first 30 days after surgery. Removal of the MHV did not affect morbidity rate. There were significantly fewer complications in the later half of our experience. All donors are well and have returned to full activities. With careful donor selection and specialized patient care, low morbidity rates can be achieved after right hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation.

Predictors of candidate maturation among potential living donors

The shortage of deceased donor allografts and improved outcomes in partial organ transplantation have led to widespread application of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. Donor selection limits overall utilization of this technique and predictors of candidate maturation have been inadequately studied to date. We therefore collected data on 237 consecutive potential donors including their age, sex, ethnicity, relationship to the recipient, education, employment and religious beliefs and practices. Of these 237 candidates, 91 (38%) were excluded for medical and psychosocial reasons, 53 (22%) withdrew from the process predonation and 93 (39%) underwent partial liver donation. In multivariate analyses, the relationship between the donor and the recipient was highly predictive of successful donation. For pediatric recipients, no parents voluntarily withdrew from the evaluation process. For adult recipients, spouses are the most likely to donate, followed by parents, children and siblings. Additional predictors for donation included self-description as religious but not regularly practicing, part-time employment and higher education. Race, ethnicity, gender and age did not predict donation in multivariate analysis. Further understanding of the complex decision to donate may improve donation rates as well as permit more efficient and cost-effective donor evaluation strategies.

Right hepatic lobe donation adversely affects donor life insurability up to one year after donation

There are no data regarding hepatic lobe donation effects on donor life insurability. Two investigators called 10 agents of 10 different large life insurance companies. One investigator gave a fictitious profile: Caucasian man, 33 years old, nonsmoker, without medical problems (control profile [CP]). The other investigator used the same profile with a history of uncomplicated right lobe donation 12 months earlier (donor profile [DP]). Investigators asked for premium quotes on a $100,000 term life policy. No medical testing or record review was allowed. Investigators were blinded to the results of each other's calls. Agents were unaware of the study. We documented underwriting decisions, premiums quoted, stipulations, number of phone calls, and phone time. All 10 companies would pursue underwriting CP at their lowest, "preferred" rate. Five would do the same for DP. Two might underwrite DP at a more expensive "standard" rate, but a "preferred" rate would be less likely. One would underwrite DP at the "standard" rate; one would not underwrite DP. One agent did not return follow-up calls (DP insurability < CP, P = 0.04). Mean quoted premiums were lower for CP vs. DP ($189/yr. vs. $202/yr., P = 0.56). Median number of phone calls required was 1 for CP and 3 for DP (P = 0.01). Mean telephone minutes were 4.2 for CP and 8.0 for DP (P = 0.004). In conclusion, right hepatic lobe donation decreases life insurability 1 year after uncomplicated donation. Donors can expect some increased difficulty obtaining life insurance, but they should find a company willing to pursue underwriting. The premium paid may be slightly higher.

Tailoring the type of donor hepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation

Donor hepatectomies for adult living donor liver transplantations were performed in 200 consecutive donors to harvest a left liver (LL) graft (n = 5), a LL plus caudate lobe (LL + CL) graft (n = 63), a right liver (RL) graft (n = 86), a RL and middle hepatic vein (RL + MHV) graft (n = 28) or a right lateral sector (RLS) graft (n = 18). The graft type was selected so that at least 40% of the recipient's standard liver volume was harvested. No donor deaths occurred, and no significant differences in the morbidity rates among either donors or recipients were observed when the outcomes were stratified according to the graft type. Donors who donated RL exhibited higher values of serum total bilirubin and prothrombin time than those who donated non-RL (LL, LL + CL, RLS) grafts. The time taken for hilar dissection and parenchymal transection increased in the following order: RLS graft, LL graft and RL graft harvesting. In conclusion, non-RL grafting was more time consuming, but the hepatic functional loss in the donors was smaller. Our graft selection criteria were useful for reducing the use of RL grafts with acceptable morbidity in both donors and recipients.

Qualidade de vida do doador após transplante hepático intervivos

RACIONAL: A qualidade de vida do doador após transplante hepático intervivos ainda não foi avaliada em nosso meio. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a qualidade de vida do doador após transplante hepático intervivos. MÉTODOS: De um total de 300 transplantes hepáticos, 51 foram de doadores vivos. Doadores com seguimento menor do que 6 meses e os que não quiseram participar do estudo foram excluídos. Os doadores responderam a um questionário de 28 perguntas abordando os vários aspectos da doação, sendo também avaliados dados demográficos e clínicos dos mesmos. RESULTADOS: Trinta e sete doadores aceitaram participar do estudo. Destes, 32 eram parentes de primeiro ou de segundo grau do receptor. O esclarecimento sobre o caráter voluntário da doação foi adequado para todos pacientes. Apenas um (2%) não doaria novamente. A dor pós-operatória foi pior do que o esperado para 22 doadores (59%). O retorno às atividades normais ocorreu em menos de 3 meses para 21 doadores (57%). Vinte e um doadores (57%) tiveram perda financeira com a doação devido a gastos com medicamentos, exames, transporte ou perda de rendimentos. Trinta e três (89%) não tiveram modificação ou limitação na sua vida após a doação. Os aspectos mais negativos da doação foram a dor pós-operatória e a presença de cicatriz cirúrgica. A maioria das complicações pós-operatória foi resolvida com o tratamento clínico, mas complicações graves ou potencialmente fatais ocorreram em dois pacientes. CONCLUSÕES: A maioria dos doadores apresentou boa recuperação e retornou completamente as suas atividades normais poucos meses após a doação. O aspecto mais negativo da doação foi a dor pós-operatória.

Living donor liver transplantation: the historical and cultural basis of policy decisions and ongoing ethical questions

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is in a state of flux. Technical innovations and demand have outpaced internal and external regulatory efforts. This has led to a wide array of centers performing LDLT for a variety of indications without clear evidence on the risks to the donor or recipient or the system as a whole. The birth from necessity of LDLT in Asia has led to the extrapolation of the technique in America and Europe that has not been sufficiently studied in the appropriate populations. While there is a clear benefit in some patients, the appropriate donors and recipients have not been defined. Regulatory and ethical consideration should be focused on minimizing acceptable risk in donors and recipients and expanding the investigation into the costs and outcomes of this challenging procedure. The recently funded adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort sponsored by the National Institutes of Health aims to answer some of these questions over the next five years.

A comparison of surgical outcomes and quality of life surveys in right lobe vs. left lateral segment liver donors

Concern remains regarding the possibly higher risk to living liver donors of the right lobe (RL), as compared with the left lateral segment (LLS). We studied outcomes and responses to quality of life (QOL) surveys in the two groups. From 1997 to 2004, we performed 49 living donor liver transplants (LDLTs): 33 RL and 16 LLS. Notable differences included a higher proportion of female and unrelated donors in the RL group. A significantly larger liver mass was resected in RL (vs. LLS) donors: 720 (vs. 310) g, p = 0.01; RL donors also had greater blood loss (398 vs. 240 mL, p = 0.04) and operative times (7.2 vs. 5.7 h, p = 0.05). However, those findings did not translate into significant differences in donor morbidity. The complication rate was 12.5% in LLS donors and 9.1% in RL donors (p = ns). Per a QOL survey at 6 months postdonation, no significant differences were noted in SF-12 scores for the two groups. Recovery times were somewhat longer for RL donors. Mean time off work was 61.0 days for RL donors and 32.4 days for LLS donors (p = 0.004). RL donation is associated with greater operative stress for donors, but not necessarily with a more complicated recovery or differences in QOL.

The current status of living donor liver transplantation

In response to the critical organ shortage, transplant professionals have utilized living donors in an attempt to decrease the mortality rate associated with waiting on the liver transplant list. Although the surgical techniques were first utilized clinically 15 years ago, application of LDLT has been somewhat limited by the steep learning curve associated with developing a program. Clinical success with LDLT in children was realized early in the experience and application of the techniques to the adult population has occurred more recently. Although transplant centers embark on LDLT with enthusiasm, the safety of the donor must always be at the forefront of the process. Potential donors must come to the decision to donate without pressure from members of the family or transplant team. He/she should also be assigned advocates who constantly promote the donor's best interest. Failure to adhere to strict donor evaluation protocols and standardized operative techniques could result in disastrous consequences.

Safety of donor right hepatectomy without abdominal drainage: a prospective evaluation in 100 consecutive liver donors

Although the role of routine abdominal drainage after liver resection for tumors has been questioned, abdominal drainage after donor right hepatectomy for live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been a routine practice in most transplant centers. The present study aimed to evaluate the safety of the procedure without abdominal drainage. A prospective study was performed on 100 consecutive liver donors who underwent right hepatectomy for LDLT from July 2000 to September 2003. Biliary anatomy was carefully studied with intraoperative cholangiography using fluoroscopy. The middle hepatic vein was included in the graft in all except 1 patient. Parenchymal transection was performed using an ultrasonic dissector. The right hepatic duct was transected at the hilum and the stump was closed with 6-O polydioxanone continuous suture. Absence of bile leakage was confirmed with methylene blue solution instilled through the cystic duct stump. The abdomen was closed after careful hemostasis without drainage in all donors. The median age of the donors was 36 years (range 18-56 years). Median operative blood loss and operating time were 350 mL (range 42-1,400 mL) and 7.5 hours (range 5.2-10.7 hours), respectively. None of the donors required any blood or blood product transfusion. There was no operative mortality. The median postoperative hospital stay was 8 days (range 5-30 days). Postoperative morbidity occurred in 19 patients (19%), most of which were minor complications. No donor experienced bile leakage, intraabdominal bleeding, or collection. None required surgical, radiologic, or endoscopic intervention for postoperative complications, except for 1 donor who developed late biliary stricture that required endoscopic dilatation. All donors were well with a median follow-up of 32 months (range 11-50 months). In conclusion, with detailed study of the biliary anatomy and meticulous surgical technique, donor right hepatectomy can be safely performed without abdominal drainage. Abdominal drainage is not a mandatory procedure after donor hepatectomy in LDLT.

Living donor liver transplantation: present status and recent advances

The first successful living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was performed in a child in 1989 in Brisbane and in an adult in 1994 by the Shinshu group. Over the past few years, LDLT has increased worldwide and is now an established alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation. The surgical procedures for LDLT are more technically challenging than those for whole liver transplantation. LDLT requires a full understanding of the hepatobiliary anatomy and continuous technical refinement of the procedure. Some of the technical highlights include selective vascular occlusion techniques for donor hepatectomy, hepatic arterial reconstruction under the microscope and the introduction of intraoperative ultrasound, graft volume estimation and hepatic venous reconstruction, all of which have improved the success rate of LDLT over the past few years. This review focuses on recent trends and surgical techniques for LDLT.

Progress in living donor liver transplantation

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has the capacity to reduce the current discrepancy between the number of patients on the transplant waiting list and the number of available organ donors. For pediatric patients, LDLT has clearly reduced the number of waiting list deaths, providing compelling evidence for an increase in LDLT programs. This review discusses many of the recent advances in LDLT.

Hepatocellular carcinoma: current surgical management

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common malignancy in the world, responsible for 500,000 deaths globally every year. Although HCC is a slow-growing tumor, it is often rapidly fatal because it is usually not discovered until the disease is advanced. HCC occurs primarily in individuals with cirrhosis, a condition that increases the risk of performing potentially curative surgical therapy. Over the last 2 decades, however, the safety of surgical resections has greatly improved because of advances in radiologic assessment, patient selection, and perioperative care. As such, the operative mortality rate for hepatectomy has decreased from the 10%-20% level seen in the 1980s to less than 5% today. The ultimate goal of treatment of HCC is to prolong the quality of life by eradicating the malignancy while preserving hepatic function. For treatment with a curative intent, the gold standard remains surgical resection, by either partial hepatectomy or total hepatectomy followed by liver transplantation. Resectability and choice of procedure depend on many factors, including baseline liver function, absence of extrahepatic metastases, size of residual liver, availability of resources including liver graft, and expertise of the surgical team. Patients without cirrhosis can tolerate extensive resections, and partial hepatectomy should be considered first. For Child class B and C patients with a small HCC, liver transplantation offers the best results, whereas partial liver resection is indicated in patients with well-compensated cirrhosis. Living donor liver transplantation should be considered using the same criteria as that used for cadaveric transplantation.

[Acute liver failure. Current aspects of diagnosis and therapy]

Disturbances of some partial liver functions, such as synthesis, excretion, or biotransformation of xenobiotics, are important for prognosis and ultimate survival in patients presenting with multiple organ dysfunction on the intesive care unit (ICU). The incidence of liver dysfunction is underestimated when traditional "static" measures such as serum-transaminases or bilirubin as opposed to "dynamic" tests, such as clearance tests, are used to diagnose liver dysfunction. Similar to the central role of the failing liver in MODS, extrahepatic complications, such as hepatorenal syndrome and brain edema develop in acute or fulminant hepatic failure and determine the prognosis of the patient. This is reflected in the required presence of hepatic encephalopathy in addition to hyperbilirubinemia and coagulopathy for the diagnosis of acute liver failure. In addition to these clinical signs, dynamic tests, such as indocyanine green clearance, which is available at the bed-side, are useful for the monitoring of perfusion and global liver function. In addition to specific and causal therapeutic interventions, e.g. N-acetylcysteine for paracetamol poisoning or termination of pregnancy for the HELLP-syndrome, new therapeutic measures, e.g. terlipressin/albumin or albumin dialysis are likely to improve the poor prognosis of acute-on-chronic liver failure. Nevertheless, liver transplantation remains the treatment of choice for fulminant hepatic failure when the expected survival is <20%.

Allograft survival following adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (AALDLT) is emerging as a method to treat patients with end-stage liver disease. The aims of this study were to identify donor and recipient characteristics of AALDLT, to determine variables that affect allograft survival, and to examine outcomes compared with those achieved following cadaveric transplantation. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to examine characteristics associated with the survival of AALDLT. Survival of AALDLT was then compared with cadaveric allografts in multivariable Cox models. Older donor age (>44 years), female-to-male donor to recipient relationship, recipient race, and the recipient medical condition before transplant were factors related to allograft failure among 731 AALDLT. Despite favorable donor and recipient characteristics, the rate of allograft failure, specifically the need for retransplantation, was increased among AALDLT (hazard ratio 1.66, 95% C.I. = 1.30-2.11) compared with cadaveric recipients. In conclusion, among AALDLT recipients, selecting younger donors, placing the allografts in recipients who have not had a prior transplant and are not in the ICU, may enhance allograft survival. Analysis of this early experience with AALDLT suggests that allograft failure may be higher than among recipients of a cadaveric liver.

Volumetric and functional recovery of the liver after right hepatectomy for living donation

Our objective was to study the kinetics of recovery of the liver volume and liver function after right hepatectomy (RH) for living donation, comparing conventional and quantitative liver function tests, i.e., galactose elimination capacity (GEC). A total of 27 donors underwent RH averaging 61% of the whole liver volume. The conventional and quantitative liver function tests, as well as magnetic resonance imaging volumetric studies, were performed preoperatively at postoperative day (POD) 10, 90, 180, and 360. Mean residual volume increased by 88% within 10 days from RH and thereafter did not show any significant variation. After 1 year, only 83% of the original volume was reached. GEC per milliliter of liver volume expressed in percent of initial value (GEC/mL) showed a decrease of 25% at POD10, an increase up to 125% at POD 180, and returned to normal values at POD 360. Liver biochemistries, International Normalized Ratio (INR), and bilirubin returned to normal in 10 days. Cholinesterase showed a similar course like GEC. In conclusion, within 10 days of 61% loss of its initial volume, the liver is capable of regenerating a volume necessary to its function, although it corresponds to only 74% of the initial one. It takes only 10 days to normalize liver biochemistries, while cholinesterase and albumin recover over 90 days. However, a direct measure of the cytosolic liver function obtained by GEC shows that functional recovery occurs much more gradually than the recovery of volume and liver biochemistries.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LIVE LIVER DONATION RISK USING A COMPREHENSIVE GRADING SYSTEM FOR SEVERITY

We investigated whether right lobe (RL) liver donation is associated with a higher incidence or severity of donor complications than left lobe (LL) liver and left lateral segment (LLS) liver donations. We studied 80 living donors: 35 RL liver donors and 45 LL/LLS liver donors. A modification of the Clavien classification was used to grade the severity of complications. RL and LL/LLS liver donations had equivalent blood loss, readmission and reoperation rates, use of blood products, and lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital. RL liver donors underwent longer surgeries and experienced more postoperative pain than LL/LLS liver donors. The overall rate of complications was 33%. There was a higher rate of complications in RL liver donors (51%) than LL/LLS liver donors (20%). When graded by severity, there were more grade 2 complications in RL liver donors than in LL/LLS liver donors. Our report confirms that RL liver donation is associated with higher morbidity than LL/LLS liver donation. When the complications are systematically graded by severity, there is a significant difference in Clavien grade 2 complications in RL liver donors.

A SIMPLE AND ACCURATE FORMULA TO ESTIMATE LEFT HEPATIC GRAFT VOLUME IN LIVING-DONOR ADULT LIVER TRANSPLANTATION

BACKGROUND

In the field of living-donor adult liver transplantation, a small-for-size graft often occurs, particularly when using left-lobe grafts. This is because of the limited volumes associated with left-lobe grafts. The accurate preoperative evaluation of graft volumes is crucial to avoid this complication. The aim of this study is to clarify the usefulness of a new formula to estimate the left-lobe graft volume.

METHOD

In 61 left-lobe grafts, a new formula was created with stepwise regression analysis using the following variables: height, weight, the thoracic and abdominal distance from anterior to posterior side (A-P), and distance from left to right side (L-R) of the initial 20 donors. With another 41 donors, the difference between the actual and estimated graft volume using the formula and two- and three-dimensional computed tomography was prospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

On the basis of the results of the stepwise regression analysis, a new formula was created as follows: graft volume (ml) = 313.4 + 7.7 x weight (kg)-12.6 x thoracic L-R (cm). The difference between the actual and estimated graft volumes using the formula was significantly better (10.8 +/- 9.5%) than that of the volumetry using two-dimensional computed tomography (16.3 +/- 10.1%) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the new formula can estimate the actual graft volume more accurately than conventional volumetry with two-dimensional computed tomography. The formula is useful to estimate the volume of left-lobe graft in living-donor adult liver transplantation.

Long-term quality of life issues among adult-to-pediatric living liver donors: a qualitative exploration

Use of live donors as a source of transplantable livers has expanded to include adult recipients. Follow-up reports concerning living donor experiences are short-term and primarily focus on medical outcomes. We present our quality of life findings from a purposive sampling of a cohort of adult-to-pediatric live liver donors, 3-10 years after donation. In-depth interviews conducted among 15 live donors revealed the spectrum of complexity and impact that donation had on the donors. Virtually all donors (14/15) reported that they never really made a decision to donate; rather, agreeing to donate was an automatic leap. Overall, 10 out of the 15 donors related a sense that they were considered nonpatients by the medical team and family members in two primary areas: post operative treatment of pain (6/15) and long-term follow-up care (9/15) with five donors reporting concerns in both areas. Overall, family relationships were believed to have been strengthened by the donation process. Most donors experienced some degree of financial strain with three donors maintaining unrewarding employment to continue healthcare insurance. The majority of donors reported that return to normalcy took a significant amount of time even though no serious medical consequences were experienced. These observations serve to highlight some of the long-term quality of life issues that persist beyond the medical consequences of live donation.

Donor quality of life after living donor liver transplantation

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for children and adults has gained widespread acceptance due to the severe organ shortage. LDLT provides potential recipients with timely transplantation, but this procedure engenders a potentially significant risk to the donor. This study analyzed medical, functional, and psychological donor outcomes after LDLT. Nineteen donors (mean age 33.9 +/- 12 years), who underwent hepatectomy for LDLT (13 right lobectomy for adult LDLT) from March 1998 to November 2002, were interviewed at a median of 13 months after donation (range, 2 to 58 months). According to the Clavien System classification, major complications occurred in three donors (16%), and minor in four (21%). The mean length of hospital stay was 5.7 +/- 1.6 days. Five patients (27%) needed rehospitalization. Complete recovery was achieved at a mean time of 8.5 +/- 3.5 weeks. All 19 donors were able to return to predonation activities. The donor's relationship to the recipient and to their families was improved after donation in all cases; 12 (63%) cited a positive psychological impact on their lives. About 90% would donate again and 84% would recommend donation to someone contemplating it. In conclusion, all donors are alive and well after donation and were able to return to their predonation occupation. Most of them felt that this experience changed their lives for the better and would donate again. Donor safety and quality of life should remain the priority in all donation processes.