Cryopreserved arterial grafts as a conduit in outflow reconstruction in living donor liver transplantation

Hepatic vein in living donor liver transplantation

Right lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a major development in adult LDLT that has significantly increased the donor pool by providing larger graft size and by decreasing risk of small-for-size graft syndrome. However, right lobe anatomy is complex, not only from the inflow but also from the outflow perspective. Outflow reconstruction is one of the key requirements of a successful LDLT and venous drainage of the liver graft is just as important as hepatic inflow for the integrity of graft function. Outflow complications may cause acute graft failure which is not always easy to diagnose. The right lobe graft consists of two sections and three hepatic venous routes for drainage that require reconstruction. In order to obtain a congestion free graft, several types of vascular conduits and postoperative interventions are needed to assure an adequate venous allograft drainage. This review described the anatomy, functional basis and the evolution of outflow reconstruction in right lobe LDLT.

Is right lobe liver graft without main right hepatic vein suitable for living donor liver transplantation?

BACKGROUND

Since the first living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was performed by Raia and colleagues in December 1988, LDLT has become the gold standard treatment in countries where cadaveric organ donation is not sufficient. Adequate hepatic venous outflow reconstruction in LDLT is essential to prevent graft congestion and its complications including graft loss. However, this can be complex and technically demanding especially in the presence of complex variations and congenital anomalies in the graft hepatic veins.

CASE SUMMARY

Herein, we aimed to present two cases who underwent successful right lobe LDLT using a right lobe liver graft with rudimentary or congenital absence of the right hepatic vein and describe the utility of a common large opening drainage model in such complex cases.

CONCLUSION

Thanks to this venous reconstruction model, none of the patients developed postoperative complications related to venous drainage. Our experience with venous drainage reconstruction models shows that congenital variations in the hepatic venous structure of living liver donors are not absolute contraindications for LDLT.

Comparison of Patients With and Without Anterior Sector Venous Drainage in Right Lobe Liver Transplantation From Live Donors in Terms of Complications, Rejections, and Graft Survival: Single-Center Experience

AIM

The issue of performing an anastomosis of the anterior sector veins to the vena cava in living donor liver transplantation is still controversial. We aimed to research whether there was any difference in terms of complications, rejections, and graft survival between patients with and without anterior sector venous drainage to the vena cava.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were retrospectively investigated for demographic data and ratio of graft needed to available graft weight. Donors had volumetric calculations and middle hepatic vein anterior sector drainage documented in detail.

RESULTS

Seventy-three donors with middle hepatic vein drainage were included. Thirty-five had anterior sector venous drainage performed and 38 patients did not have drainage procedures performed. The incidence of general complications was higher in the group without anterior sector drainage (78.3% and P = .002). Biloma linked to bile leaks were observed in 8 patients without drainage (72.8%) and 3 patients with drainage (27.2%). Late acute rejection occurring during follow up after transplantation was identified in 28 patients (11.6%). Of these, 1 (14.3%) had anterior sector drainage and 6 (85.7%) were in the patient group without drainage (P = .067).

CONCLUSION

As a result of this study, for patients with grafts at the volume limit (graft weight to receiver weight ratio <0.8) and with congestion observed in the anterior sector after liver implantation and for patients with outflow problems identified on Doppler ultrasonography, anterior sector veins >5 mm should definitely be drained into the vena cava. Hence, both complication and rejection rates will reduce, and we can lengthen the graft, and thus patient, survival.

Liver transplantation in the treatment of severe iatrogenic liver injuries

The place of liver transplantation in the treatment of severe iatrogenic liver injuries has not yet been widely discussed in the literature. Bile duct injuries during cholecystectomy represent the leading cause of liver transplantation in this setting, while other indications after abdominal surgery are less common. Urgent liver transplantation for the treatment of severe iatrogenic liver injury may-represent a surgical challenge requiring technically difficult and time consuming procedures. A debate is ongoing on the need for centralization of complex surgery in tertiary referral centers. The early referral of patients with severe iatrogenic liver injuries to a tertiary center with experienced hepato-pancreato-biliary and transplant surgery has emerged as the best treatment of care. Despite widespread interest in the use of liver transplantation as a treatment option for severe iatrogenic injuries, reported experiences indicate few liver transplants are performed. This review analyzes the literature on liver transplantation after hepatic injury and discusses our own experience along with surgical advances and future prospects in this uncommon transplant setting.

Outflow reconstruction for right liver allograft with multiple hepatic veins: "V-plasty" of hepatic veins to form a common outflow channel versus 2 or more hepatic vein-to-inferior vena cava anastomoses in limited retrohepatic space

Outflow reconstruction in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is certainly difficult in limited retrohepatic space with using right liver grafts with venous anomalies. Venoplasty of the inferior right hepatic veins (IRHVs) and middle hepatic vein (MHV) reconstruction using synthetic grafts to form a common outflow channel or a second venocaval anastomosis are available options. We aim to compare outcomes of LDLT recipients who underwent outflow reconstruction with a "V-Plasty" technique and outcomes of patients who underwent a second venocaval anastomosis. Out of 325 recipients who underwent LDLT from March 2011 to September 2014, 45 received right liver allografts that were devoid of MHV with multiple draining IRHVs (2 or more). Group A (n = 16) comprised the recipients with outflow reconstruction with a V-Plasty, and group B (n = 29) included the recipients with a second venocaval anastomosis. Group A recipients (male:female, 10:6; median age, 50.5 years) had a mean Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 14.7, whereas for group B recipients (male:female, 20:9; median age, 52.0 years) it was 17.2. The mean IRHV diameter for group A and B grafts was 8.3 mm each. Mean warm ischemia time for group A was significantly lower (25.2 minutes) as compared to group B recipients (34.6 minutes) with P < 0.001. The 2-month patency rates of vascular grafts were 100% for group A recipients with no evidence of thrombosis. In conclusion, the V-Plasty technique of MHV and IRHV reconstruction to form a common outflow is a new concept that proves to be a safe and feasible alternative for second venocaval anastomosis.