Portal vein arterialization using an accessory right hepatic artery in liver transplantation

Postoperative Management of Portal Vein Arterialization: An Interdisciplinary Institutional Approach

Portal vein arterialization (PVA) is a surgical procedure that plays a crucial role in hepatic vascular salvage when hepatic artery flow restoration remains elusive. Dedicated diagnostic vascular imaging and the timely management of PVA shunts are paramount to preventing complications, such as portal hypertension and thrombosis. Regrettably, a lack of standardized postoperative management protocols for PVA has increased morbidity and mortality rates post-procedure. In response to this challenge, we developed a PVA standard operating procedure (SOP) tailored to the needs of interventional radiologists. This SOP is designed to harmonize postoperative care, fostering scientific comparability across cases. This concise brief report aims to offer radiologists valuable insights into the PVA technique and considerations for post-PVA care and foster effective interdisciplinary collaboration.

Portal vein arterialization in 25 liver transplant recipients: A Latin American single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Portal vein arterialization (PVA) has been used in liver transplantation (LT) to maximize oxygen delivery when arterial circulation is compromised or has been used as an alternative reperfusion technique for complex portal vein thrombosis (PVT). The effect of PVA on portal perfusion and primary graft dysfunction (PGD) has not been assessed.

AIM

To examine the outcomes of patients who required PVA in correlation with their LT procedure.

METHODS

All patients receiving PVA and LT at the Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogota between 2011 and 2022 were analyzed. To account for the time-sensitive effects of graft perfusion, patients were classified into two groups: prereperfusion (pre-PVA), if the arterioportal anastomosis was performed before graft revascularization, and postreperfusion (post-PVA), if PVA was performed afterward. The pre-PVA rationale contemplated poor portal hemodynamics, severe vascular steal, or PVT. Post-PVA was considered if graft hypoperfusion became evident. Conservative interventions were attempted before PVA.

RESULTS

A total of 25 cases were identified: 15 before and 10 after graft reperfusion. Pre-PVA patients were more affected by diabetes, decompensated cirrhosis, impaired portal vein (PV) hemodynamics, and PVT. PGD was less common after pre-PVA (20.0% vs 60.0%) (P = 0.041). Those who developed PGD had a smaller increase in PV velocity (25.00 cm/s vs 73.42 cm/s) (P = 0.036) and flow (1.31 L/min vs 3.34 L/min) (P = 0.136) after arterialization. Nine patients required PVA closure (median time: 62 d). Pre-PVA and non-PGD cases had better survival rates than their counterparts (56.09 months vs 22.77 months and 54.15 months vs 31.91 months, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest report presenting PVA in LT. Results suggest that pre-PVA provides better graft perfusion than post-PVA. Graft hyperperfusion could play a protective role against PGD.

Concomitant Hepatic Artery Resection for Advanced Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Narrative Review

Simple Summary

In the eighth edition of their cancer classification system, the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) defines contralateral hepatic artery invasion as T4, which is considered unresectable as it is a “locally advanced” tumour. However, in the last decade, several reports on hepatic artery resection (HAR) for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHCC) have been published. The reported five-year survival rate after HAR is 16–38.5%. Alternative procedures for the treatment of HAR have also been reported. In this paper, we review HAR for PHCC, focusing on its history, diagnosis, procedures, and alternative procedures.

Abstract

Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHCC) is one of the most intractable gastrointestinal malignancies. These tumours lie in the core section of the biliary tract. Patients who undergo curative surgery have a 40–50-month median survival time, and a five-year overall survival rate of 35–45%. Therefore, curative intent surgery can lead to long-term survival. PHCC sometimes invades the surrounding tissues, such as the portal vein, hepatic artery, perineural tissues around the hepatic artery, and hepatic parenchyma. Contralateral hepatic artery invasion is classed as T4, which is considered unresectable due to its “locally advanced” nature. Recently, several reports have been published on concomitant hepatic artery resection (HAR) for PHCC. The morbidity and mortality rates in these reports were similar to those non-HAR cases. The five-year survival rate after HAR was 16–38.5%. Alternative procedures for arterial portal shunting and non-vascular reconstruction (HAR) have also been reported. In this paper, we review HAR for PHCC, focusing on its history, diagnosis, procedures, and alternatives. HAR, undertaken by established biliary surgeons in selected patients with PHCC, can be feasible.

Liver transplantation in patients with non-neoplastic portal vein thrombosis: 20 years of experience in a single center

BACKGROUND

The Yerdel classification is widely used for describing the severity of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in liver transplant (LT) candidates, but might not accurately predict transplant outcome.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data regarding 97 adult patients with PVT who underwent LT, investigating whether the complexity of portal reconstruction could better correlate with transplant outcome than the site and extent of the thrombosis.

RESULTS

79/97 (80%) patients underwent thrombectomy and anatomical anastomosis (TAA), 18/97 (20%) patients underwent non-anatomical physiological reconstructions (non-TAA). PVT Yerdel grade was 1-2 in 72/97 (74%) patients, and 3-4 in 25/97 (26%) patients. Univariate analysis revealed higher 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, 1-year mortality, and a higher rate of severe early complications in the non-TAA group than in the TAA group (p = .018, .001, .014, .009, respectively). In the model adjusted for PVT Yerdel grade, non-TAA remained independently associated with higher 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year mortality (p = .021, .007, and .015, respectively). The portal vein re-thrombosis and overall patient and graft survival rates were similar.

DISCUSSION

In our experience, the complexity of portal reconstruction better correlated with transplant outcome than the Yerdel classification, which did not even appear to be a reliable predictor of the surgical complexity and technique.

Portal vein arterialization following a radical left extended hepatectomy for Klatskin tumor: A case report

Portal vein arterialization (PVA) has been attracting attention for its role as a salvage inflow technique in various clinical applications. Initially performed in shunt surgery for portal hypertension, with the aim of preventing a decreased hepatic inflow, it is largely used in case of hepatic artery thrombosis in the transplantation domain or in the enlarged radical operations in case of hilar cancer invading the hepatic artery. A 62-year-old man underwent a left extended hepatectomy with hepatic bile duct resection and right Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Computed tomography scan on postoperative day (POD) 5 revealed right hepatic artery pseudo-aneurysm, which was confirmed by an angiography. Stent placement was infeasible. Coiling of the pseudoaneurysm was associated with a risk of complete occlusion inducing critical liver failure. Since his general conditions were deteriorated, the patient underwent an emergency laparotomy. Hepatic artery reconstruction was impossible. Thus, a PVA was performed by anastomosing the ileocecal artery and vein. The intraoperative ultrasound showed satisfactory patency of the PVA with good portal flow in the absence of arterial flow. Doppler ultrasound on POD 15 showed that the cross-sectional area and blood flow of the portal vein were increased. The patient was discharged on POD 54 in good general condition. Hepatic artery disruption represents potentially lethal complications of hepatic, biliary, and pancreatic surgery. PVA may be a feasible therapeutic strategy to guarantee arterial inflow to the remnant liver. Although PVA is a salvage surgical procedure, increased portal flow should be controlled to avoid portal hypertension and liver fibrosis.

Multivisceral transplant as an option to transplant cirrhotic patients with severe portal vein thrombosis

Non-tumoral portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a critical complication in the patient with advanced cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation (LT). With the evolution of liver transplant (LT) technique, PVT has morphed from an absolute contraindication to a relative contraindication, depending on the grade of the thrombus. The Yerdel classification is one system of grading PVT severity. Patients with Yerdel class 1-3 PVT can undergo LT at centers with experience in complex portal vein (PV) dissection, thrombectomy, and reconstruction. Class 4 PVT, however, is even more complex and may require heroic techniques such as cavoportal hemitransposition, PV arterialization or multivisceral transplant (MVT). Some centers use a MVT back-up approach for patients with Yerdel class 4 PVT. In these patients, all organs with PV outflow are procured simultaneously as a cluster graft from a deceased donor (liver, pancreas, intestine±stomach). If physiologic PV inflow is established intraoperatively, the recipient undergoes LT. Otherwise the MVT graft is transplanted. MVT establishes physiologic PV flow, but transplantation of the intestine confers significant lifelong risks including rejection, graft-versus host disease and post-transplant lymphoma. Yerdel class 1-4 PVT patients undergoing successful LT have 5-year survival similar to non-PVT patients, while patients requiring full MVT experience somewhat higher mortality because of the complexity of the surgery and medical management.

Tailored classification of portal vein thrombosis for liver transplantation: Focus on strategies for portal vein inflow reconstruction

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is currently not considered a contraindication for liver transplantation (LT), but diffuse or complicated PVT remains a major surgical challenge. Here, we review the prevalence, natural course and current grading systems of PVT and propose a tailored classification of PVT in the setting of LT. PVT in liver transplant recipients is classified into three types, corresponding to three portal reconstruction strategies: Anatomical, physiological and non-physiological. Type I PVT can be removed via low dissection of the portal vein (PV) or thrombectomy; porto-portal anastomosis is then performed with or without an interposed vascular graft. Physiological reconstruction used for type II PVT includes vascular interposition between mesenteric veins and PV, collateral-PV and splenic vein-PV anastomosis. Non-physiological reconstruction used for type III PVT includes cavoportal hemitransposition, renoportal anastomosis, portal vein arterialization and multivisceral transplantation. All portal reconstruction techniques were reviewed. This tailored classification system stratifies PVT patients by surgical complexity, risk of postoperative complications and long-term survival. We advocate using the tailored classification for PVT grading before LT, which will urge transplant surgeons to make a better preoperative planning and pay more attention to all potential strategies for portal reconstruction. Further verification in a large-sample cohort study is needed.

Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Patients With Portal Vein Thrombosis: A Single-center Experience

Background

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for patients with portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is associated with several technical challenges for its complicated procedures and poor outcomes. Some institutions still consider preexisting PVT as a relatively contraindication for LDLT.

Methods

Between April 2010 and May 2016, 129 adults underwent LDLT at our institution, and 28 (21.7%) of whom had preexisting PVT. Portal vein thrombosis was diagnosed using preoperative imaging techniques and intraoperative findings. The characteristics and outcomes of the cases were retrospectively evaluated.

Results

The type of PVT included Yerdel grade 1 in 21 (75.0%) cases, grade 2 in 3 (10.7%) cases, and grade 3 in 4 (14.3%) cases. There were no cases of Yerdel grade 4 PVT. After removing thrombus inside the vessel, we performed simple portal vein anastomosis in 25 (89.3%) cases, patch technique with vascular graft in 1 case (3.6%), and an interposition technique with vascular graft in 2 cases (7.1%). Compared with the non-PVT group, cold ischemic time was longer (P = 0.012) and the rate of postoperative PVT was higher (P = 0.001) in PVT group. In the comparison between the recipient without and with postoperative PVT, the existence of preoperative PVT was the independent risk factor in the multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 7.511; 95% confidence interval 1.382-40.820; P = 0.020).

Conclusions

Although it had a technically complicated operation, LDLT could be safely performed in the patients with PVT in our institution.

Successful Treatment of a Patient With Diffuse Portosplenomesenteric Thrombosis Using a Pericholedochal Varix for Portal Flow Reconstruction During Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation: A Case Report

Portal vein thrombosis remains a challenging issue in liver transplantation. When thrombectomy is not feasible due to diffuse portosplenomesenteric thrombosis, other modalities are adapted such as the use of a jump graft or portal tributaries or even multivisceral transplantation. For patients with diffuse thrombosis of the splanchnic venous system, a large pericholedochal varix can be a useful vessel for providing splanchnic blood flow to the graft and for relieving portal hypertension. We report our experience of successfully treating a patient with diffuse portosplenomesenteric thrombosis using a pericholedochal varix for portal flow reconstruction during deceased donor liver transplantation and eventually preventing unnecessary multivisceral transplantation. A 56-year-old man diagnosed with liver cirrhosis due to hepatitis B underwent deceased donor liver transplantation due to refractory ascites. Preoperative imaging revealed diffuse portosplenomesenteric thrombosis with large amount of ascites. During the operation, dissection of the main portal vein was not possible due to the development of multiple large pericholedochal varices and cavernous change of the main portal vein. After outflow reconstruction, portal inflow was restored by anastomosing the graft portal vein to a large pericholedochal varix. Postoperatively, although abdominal computed tomography scan showed stenosis of portal vein anastomosis site, liver function tests improved, and Doppler sonogram revealed no flow disturbance. During follow-up, the patient repeatedly developed hydrothorax and ascites. In addition, stenosis of the portal vein anastomosis and thrombosis of the portomesenteric system still remained. The patient underwent transhepatic portal vein stent insertion. After portal vein stent insertion, hydrothorax and ascites improved and the extent of thrombosis of the portomesenteric system decreased without anticoagulation therapy. In conclusion, enlarged pericholedochal varix in patients with totally obliterated splanchnic veins can be a source of useful inflow to restore portal flow and decrease the extent of thrombosis, thereby preventing unnecessary multivisceral transplantation.

Nontumoral portal vein thrombosis in patients awaiting liver transplantation

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) occurs in approximately 2%-26% of the patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT) and is no longer an absolute contraindication for LT. Nearly half of PVT cases are accidentally found during the LT procedure. The most important risk factor for PVT development in cirrhosis may be the severity of liver disease and reduced portal blood flow. Whether other inherited or acquired coagulation disorders also play a role is not yet clear. The development of PVT may have no effect on the liver disease progression, especially when it is nonocclusive. PVT may not increase the risk of wait-list mortality, but it is a risk factor for poor early post-LT mortality. Anticoagulation and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) are 2 major treatment strategies for patients with PVT on the waiting list. The complete recanalization rate after anticoagulation is approximately 40%. The role of TIPS to maintain PV patency for LT as the primary indication has been reported, but the safety and efficacy should be further evaluated. PVT extension and degree may determine the surgical technique to be used during LT. If a "conventional" end-to-end portal anastomotic technique is used, there is not a major impact on post-LT survival. Post-LT PVT can significantly reduce both graft and patient survival after LT and can preclude future options for re-LT.

Portal vein reconstruction in adult living donor liver transplantation for patients with portal vein thrombosis in single center experience

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) used to be contraindicated in patients with portal vein thrombosis (PVT). In comparison to deceased donor LT, living donor LT (LDLT) still presents additional difficulties in determining appropriate vein grafts and overcoming small-for-size syndrome. Here, we introduce our LDLT strategies and assess their outcomes in adult patients with pre-existing PVT.

METHODS

We performed 282 consecutive adult LDLTs between April 2006 and December 2011. Forty-eight patients (17%) had pre-existing PVT (grade I; 15, II; 20, III; 12, IV; 1).

RESULTS

Our preferred treatments for PVT were thrombectomies/thromboendovenectomies in 30 patients, replaced grafts in seven, jump grafts in seven, renoportal anastomosis in one and no surgical intervention owing to minimal thrombosis in three. Post-transplant portal vein complications occurred in eight of 48 (17%) cases, which were treated by surgery, anticoagulation therapy, and/or interventional radiology. Post-transplant survival rates of patients with preexisting PVT at 1 year and 5 years were comparable to a PVT-free cohort (1 year; 81% vs. 77%, 5 years; 81% vs. 73%).

CONCLUSIONS

The excellent survival rates in patients with PVT who underwent LDLT could be attributed to our strategies, which included surgical techniques and timely treatment of postoperative complications.

From portal to splanchnic venous thrombosis: What surgeons should bear in mind

The present study aims to review the evolution of surgical management of portal (PVT) and splanchnic venous thrombosis (SVT) in the context of liver transplantation over the last 5 decades. PVT is more commonly managed by endovenous thrombectomy, while SVT requires more complex technical expedients. Several surgical techniques have been proposed, such as extensive eversion thrombectomy, anastomosis to collateral veins, reno-portal anastomosis, cavo-portal hemi-transposition, portal arterialization and combined liver-intestinal transplantation. In order to achieve satisfactory outcomes, careful planning of the surgical strategy is mandatory. The excellent results that are obtained nowadays confirm that, even extended, splanchnic thrombosis is no longer an absolute contraindication for liver transplantation. Patients with advanced portal thrombosis may preferentially be referred to specialized centres, in which complex vascular approaches and even multivisceral transplantation are performed.