Randomized trial on extended versus modified right lobe grafts in living donor liver transplantation

Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH) involves either laparoscopic or robot-assisted technique, with the graft being retrieved through a remote incision. Current evidence reports faster recovery and better quality of life following MIDH than open donor hepatectomy, although these are limited to a handful of high-volume transplant centers. Nonetheless, grafts obtained by MIDH have a slight disadvantage of having shorter vein lengths than its open counterpart. Additionally, biliary complications are more prevalent in recipients of grafts retrieved by laparoscopic technique, while those obtained by the robotic platform demonstrate biliary complication rates comparable to, or even better than, those from open donor hepatectomy. Widespread application of MIDH has still not occurred across the world. This narrative review explores the challenges faced by the transplant surgeons when transitioning from open donor hepatectomy to MIDH, standard technique of robotic donor hepatectomy and suggests strategies to overcome the learning curve. It compares laparoscopic and robotic donor hepatectomies, detailing the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, as well as their outcomes.

Initial experience of parenchyma-sparing liver resection with systematic selective hepatic vein reconstruction for colorectal metastases

Objectives

This study aims to assess the feasibility and short-term and intermediate-term technical success rate of the concept of systematic selective hepatic vein (HV) reconstruction for parenchyma-sparing hepatectomies (PSHs) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) in accordance with stage 2a of the IDEAL framework.

Design

The prospective case series of patients deemed eligible and operated on according to the concept.

Setting

All patients were treated by a single surgical team in three hospitals in Ukraine from June 2022 to November 2023.

Participants

The study included nine cases of resectable CRLM with at least one lesion located in the hepatocaval confluence with HV(s) invasion, for whom reconstruction of the HV(s) allowed for additional parenchyma preservation, being an alternative to major or extended hepatectomy.

Interventions

Liver resections with different types of HVs reconstruction (primary closure, patching, end-to-end anastomosis with or without grafting) were performed after a thorough evaluation of the future liver remnant volume, volume of potentially additionally preserved parenchyma and possibility of future repeat hepatectomies.

Main outcome measures

Postoperative morbidity, short-term and long-term patency of the reconstructed vessels, and the volume of additionally preserved parenchyma were the focus.

Results

Segmental resection was performed in four cases, two with graft interposition. Patch reconstruction was performed for three HVs and two inferior vena cava resections. Two cases required primary closure. No mortality was observed, while the major morbidity rate was 33%. The short-term and long-term patency of the reconstructed HVs was 88.9% and 66.7%, respectively. HV reconstructions allowed the preservation of additional parenchyma (mean 495.4 mL, 95% CI 350.2 to 640.7). A decision-making algorithm to be used within the described approach is proposed.

Conclusions

Selective HV reconstruction is a feasible approach for PSH for CRLM. Further studies are needed to compare this approach to convenient major hepatectomies.

Indications and results of right-lobe living donor liver transplantation

The shortage of deceased liver donor organs over the years has always posed the need to expand the donor pool. A viable alternative to deceased donors is that of the living donor. Indeed, the living donor in liver transplantation, initially in pediatric transplantation, but for several years now also in adult transplantation, is a more than viable alternative to deceased liver donation. In fact, right liver lobe donation has proven to be a surgical procedure with low impact on the donor's life in terms of morbidity and mortality, with excellent results in recipients of such organs. In recent years, an increasing number of studies have been published that show excellent results in right-lobe living donor liver transplantation, encouraging this practice not only in countries that have historically had a shortage of deceased donor organs, such as Asian countries, but making it a practice of increasing use in Western countries as well. In addition, thanks to improvements in surgical technique and the experience of high-volume centers, this surgery has also begun to be performed using minimally invasive surgical techniques, allowing us to envision ever better outcomes for both donor and recipient in the coming years.

Preventing Small-for-size Syndrome in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) is a well-recognized complication following liver transplantation (LT), with up to 20% developing this following living donor LT (LDLT). Preventing SFSS involves consideration of factors before the surgical procedure, including donor and recipient selection, and factors during the surgical procedure, including adequate outflow reconstruction, graft portal inflow modulation, and management of portosystemic shunts. International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplant Society of India Consensus Conference was convened in January 2023 to develop recommendations for the prediction and management of SFSS in LDLT. The format of the conference was based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. International experts in this field were allocated to 4 working groups (diagnosis, prevention, anesthesia, and critical care considerations, and management of established SFSS). The working groups prepared evidence-based recommendations to answer-specific questions considering the currently available literature. The working group members, independent panel, and conference attendees served as jury to edit and confirm the final recommendations presented at the end of the conference by each working group separately. This report presents the final statements and evidence-based recommendations provided by working group 2 that can be implemented to prevent SFSS in LDLT patients.

Textbook outcome among voluntary donors undergoing major living donor hepatectomy

PURPOSE

Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite measure of outcome and provides superior assessment of quality of care after surgery. TO after major living donor hepatectomy (MLDH) has not been assessed. The objective of this study was to determine the rate of TO and its associated factors, after MLDH.

METHODS

This was a single center retrospective review of living liver donors who underwent MLDH between 2012 and 2021 (n = 1022). The rate of TO and its associated factors was determined.

RESULTS

Among 1022 living donors (of whom 693 [67.8%] were males, median age 26 [range, 18-54] years), TO was achieved in 714 (69.9%) with no donor mortality. Majority of donors met the cutoffs for individual outcome measures: 908 (88.8%) for no major complications, 904 (88.5%) for ICU stay ≤ 2 days, 900 (88.1%) for hospital stay ≤ 10 days, 990 (96.9%) for no perioperative blood transfusion, 1004 (98.2%) for no 30-day re-admission, and 1014 (99.2%) for no post-hepatectomy liver failure. Early donation era (before streamlining of donor operative pathways) was associated with failure to achieve TO [OR 1.4, CI 1.1-1.9, P = 0.006]. TO was achieved in 506/755 (67%) donors in the early donation era versus 208/267 (77.9%) in the later period (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Despite zero mortality and low complication rate, TO was achieved in approximately 70% donors. TO was modifiable and improved with changes in donor operative pathway.

Influence of surgical technique in donor hepatectomy on immediate and short-term living donor outcomes - A systematic review of the literature, meta-analysis, and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

There are currently no guidelines pertaining to ERAS pathways in living donor hepatectomy.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify whether surgical technique influences immediate and short-term outcomes after living liver donation surgery.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel (CRD42021260707). Endpoints were mortality, overall complications, serious complications, bile eaks, pulmonary complications, estimated blood loss and length of stay.

RESULTS

Of the 2410 screened articles, 21 articles were included for final analysis; three observational, 13 retrospective cohort, four prospective cohort studies, and one randomized trial. Overall complications were higher with right versus left hepatectomy (26.8% vs. 20.8%; OR 1.4, P = .010). Donors after left hepatectomy had shorter length of stay (MD 1.4 days) compared to right hepatectomy. There was no difference in outcomes after right donor hepatectomy with versus without middle hepatic vein. We had limited data on the influence of incision type and minimally invasive approaches on living donor outcomes, and no data on the effect of operative time on donor outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Left donor hepatectomy should be preferred over right hepatectomy, as it is related to improved donor short-term outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Right donor hepatectomy with or without MHV has equivalent outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong); no preference is recommended, decision should be based on program's experience and expertise. No difference in outcomes was observed related to incision type, minimally invasive vs. open (QOE; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Weak); no preference can be recommended.

OPEN TO ROBOTIC RIGHT DONOR HEPATECTOMY: A TECTONIC SHIFT IN SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Robotic right live donor hepatectomy(r-LDRH) has been reported with reduced morbidity compared to open donor right hepatectomy(o-LDRH) in few recent series. Nevertheless, its routine use is debated. We present a large series comparing pure r-LDRH with o-LDRH. Consecutive r-LDRH performed from June 2018 to June 2020 (n = 102) were compared with consecutive donors undergoing o-LDRH (n = 152) from February 2016 to February 2018, a period when r-LDRH was not available at this centre. Propensity score matched (PSM) analysis of 89 case-control pairs was additionally performed. Primary endpoints were length of high dependency unit (HDU) & hospital stay and Clavien-Dindo graded complications among donors. Although r-LDRH took longer to perform (540 versus 462 mins, P<0.001), the post-operative peak transaminases levels(P<0.001), the length of HDU (3 versus 4 days, P<0.001) and hospital stay (8 versus 9 days, P<0.001) were lower in in donors undergoing r-LDRH. Clavien-Dindo graded complications were similar (16.67% in r-LDRH and 13.16% in o-LDRH). The rates of early allograft dysfunction (1.6% versus 3.3%), bile leak (14.7% versus 10.7%), and 1-year mortality (13.7% versus 11.8%) were comparable between r-LDRH and o-LDRH recipients. PSM analysis yielded similar results between the groups. These data support the safety and feasibility of r-LDRH in select donors. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Influence of middle hepatic vein resection during right or left hepatectomy on post hepatectomy outcomes

Backgrounds/Aims

Middle hepatic vein (MHV) is usually preserved as a part of the right or left hepatectomy in order preserve the venous outflow of remnant liver. The aim of this study was to evaluate if resection of MHV could influence post-resection outcomes of standard right or left hepatectomy.

Methods

Patients who underwent standard right or left hepatectomy between January 2015 and December 2019 were included. Anatomical remnant liver volumes were measured retrospectively using the Hermes workstation (Hermes Medical Solutions AB, Stockholm, Sweden). Uni- and multi-variate analyses were performed to assess the difference in outcomes of those with preservation of MHV and those without preservation.

Results

A total of 144 patients were included. Right hepatectomy was performed for 114 (79.2%) and left hepatectomy was performed for 30 (20.8%) patients. MHV was resected for 13 (9.0%) in addition to the standard right or left hepatectomy. Median remnant liver volume was significantly higher in the MHV resected group (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in serum level of bilirubin, international normalized ratio, alanine aminotransferase, creatinine on postoperative day 1, 3, 5, or 10, ≥ grade IIIa complications (p = 0.44), or 90-day mortality (p = 0.41). On multivariable analysis, resection of the MHV did not influence the incidence of post hepatectomy liver failure (p = 0.52).

Conclusions

Resection of the MHV at standard right or left hepatectomy did not have a negative impact on postoperative outcomes of patients with adequate remnant liver volume.

Extended criteria donors for Robotic Right Hepatectomy- A Propensity Score matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic right donor hepatectomy (RDH) has been reported from experienced centers with reduced morbidity when compared to open RDH. However, outcomes in donors with large grafts/ complex biliovascular anatomy are unknown.

METHODS

Out of 170 robotic RDH, 100 had one or more of the following: graft weight ≥ 800gms, type 2/3 portal vein, >1 bile duct or hepatic artery and inferior hepatic veins >5mm requiring reconstruction (extended criteria donors- ExRDH), while the remaining 70 had standard anatomy (SRDH). After propensity score matching, 66 ExRDH were compared with 66 SRDH. Additionally, all robotic RDH performed were analysed in 3 temporal phases (60, 60 and 50).

RESULTS

Peak AST and ALT were higher among donors and recipients in the ExRDH arm compared to SRDH. Other intraoperative parameters and post-operative complications were similar between the two groups. During the last phase, donors demonstrated reduction in duration of surgery, postoperative complications and hospital stay while recipients showed decreased blood loss and hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Robotic right hepatectomy performed in donors with extended criteria have similar perioperative outcomes as standard donors. However, a significant learning curve needs to be traversed. Further studies are required before safely recommending robotic RDH for all donors.

Technique of robotic right donor hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive right donor hepatectomy (RDH) has been reported, this innovation is yet to be widely accepted by transplant community. Bleeding during transection, division of right hepatic duct (RHD), suturing of donor duct as well as retrieval with minimal warm ischemia are the primary concerns of most donor surgeons. We describe our simplified technique of robotic RDH evolved over 144 cases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Right lobe mobilization is performed in a clockwise manner from right triangular ligament over inferior vena cavae up to hepatocaval ligament. Transection is initiated using a combination of bipolar diathermy and monopolar shears controlled by console surgeon working in tandem with lap CUSA operated by assistant surgeon. With the guidance of indocyanine green cholangiography, RHD is divided with robotic endowrist scissors (Potts), and remnant duct is sutured with 6-0 PDS. Final posterior liver transection is completed caudocranial without hanging manoeuvre. Right lobe with intact vascular pedicle is placed in a bag, vascular structures then divided, and retrieved through Pfannenstiel incision.

CONCLUSION

Our technique may be easy to adapt with the available robotic instruments. Further innovation of robotic platform with liver friendly devices could make robotic RDH the standard of care in future.

Middle hepatic vein reconstruction in adult living donor liver transplantation: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

In adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), venous drainage of the anterior sector is usually reconstructed on the bench to form a neo-middle hepatic vein (MHV). Reconstruction of the MHV for drainage of the anterior sector is crucial for optimal graft function. The conduits used for reconstruction include cryopreserved allografts, synthetic grafts, or the recipient portal vein. However, the ideal choice remains a matter of debate. This study compares the efficacy of the native recipient portal vein (RPV) with PTFE grafts for reconstruction of the neo-MHV.

METHODS

Patients in this equivalence-controlled, parallel-group trial were randomized to either RPV (62 patients) or PTFE (60 patients) for use in the reconstruction of the neo-MHV. Primary endpoint was neo-MHV patency at 14 days and 90 days. Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality and post-transplant parameters as scored by predefined scoring systems.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of neo-MHV thrombosis at 14 days (RPV 6.5 per cent versus PTFE 10 per cent; P = 0.701) and 90 days (RPV 14.5 per cent versus PTFE 18.3 per cent; P = 0.745) between the two groups. Irrespective of the type of graft used for reconstruction, 90-day all-cause and sepsis-specific mortality was significantly higher among patients who developed neo-MHV thrombosis. Neo-MHV thrombosis and sepsis were identified as risk factors for mortality on Cox proportional hazards analysis. No harms or unintended side effects were observed in either group.

CONCLUSION

In adult LDLT using modified right lobe graft, use of either PTFE or RPV for neo-MHV reconstruction resulted in similar early patency rates. Irrespective of the type of conduit used for reconstruction, neo-MHV thrombosis is a significant risk factor for mortality.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CTRI/2018/11/016315 (www.ctri.nic.in).

Double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial of N-acetylcysteine infusion following live donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

The role of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in improving outcomes following live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is not well established. We designed a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial to study the role of NAC infusion in recipients undergoing LDLT.

METHODS

We assigned 150 patients who underwent LDLT by computer-generated random sequence on 1:1 ratio to either NAC group or placebo group. Patients in the NAC group received NAC infusion which was started at beginning of graft implantation at an initial loading dose of 150 mg/kg/h over 1 h, followed by 12.5 mg/kg/h for 4 h and then at 6.25 mg/kg/h continued for 91 h. Placebo group received normal saline. The primary endpoint was composite occurrence of acute kidney injury (AKI) and early allograft dysfunction (EAD) in the recipient. Secondary endpoints included levels of bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), creatinine, INR, primary graft non-function, intraoperative bleeding, post-transplant hospital stay and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

The composite endpoint did not show any significant difference between the NAC and placebo group (21.3% vs 29.3%, p = 0.35). Peak AST (425.65 IU/L vs 702.24 IU/L, p = 0.02) and peak ALT (406.65 IU/L vs 677.99 IU/L, p = 0.01) levels were significantly lower in the study group. Time to normalization of transaminases was also significantly low in the study group.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative NAC infusion following LDLT resulted in significantly lower postoperative AST and ALT levels. Rapid normalization of transaminases was also observed. This, however, did not translate to improvement in AKI or EAD.

Antegrade Hepatic Artery and Portal Vein Perfusion Versus Portal Vein Perfusion Alone in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Randomized Trial

Traditionally, deceased donor liver grafts receive dual perfusion (DP) through the portal vein and the hepatic artery (HA) either in situ or on the back table. HA perfusion is avoided in living donor liver grafts for fear of damage to the intima and consequent risk of hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT). However, biliary vasculature is predominantly derived from the HA. We hypothesized that antegrade perfusion of the HA in addition to the portal vein on the back table could reduce the incidence of postoperative biliary complications. Consecutive adult patients undergoing living donor liver transplantations were randomized after donor hepatectomy to receive graft perfusion of histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solution either via both the HA and portal vein (DP group, n = 62) or only through the portal vein (standard perfusion [SP] group, n = 62). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of biliary complications (biliary leak/stricture). Secondary endpoints included HAT and patient survival. The incidence of biliary stricture was significantly lower in the DP group (6.5% versus 19.4%; odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.95; P = 0.04). There was no significant reduction in the incidence of HAT, bile leak, or hospital stay between the 2 groups. The 3-year mortality and graft survival rates were significantly higher among patients who received DP compared with SP (P = 0.004 and P = 0.003, respectively). On multivariate analysis, nonperfusion of the HA and preceding bile leak were found to be risk factors for the development of biliary stricture (P = 0.04 and P < 0.001, respectively). In conclusion, DP of living donor liver grafts through both the HA and portal vein on the back table may protect against the development of biliary stricture. This could translate to improved patient survival in the short term.