Living Donor Right Liver Lobe Transplantation With or Without Inclusion of the Middle Hepatic Vein: Analysis of Complications

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.

Living donor liver transplantation in Brazil-current state

Currently in Brazil, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) represents 8.5% of liver transplantation (LT), being the majority pediatric one. Up to now, according to Brazilian Organ Transplantation Association (ABTO) annual report, 2,086 procedures have been done nationwide, most of them in southeast and south regions. Based on national centers reports, biliary complication is the most common recipient postoperative complication (14.5-20.6%), followed by hepatic artery thrombosis (3.1-10.7%) and portal vein thrombosis (2.3-9.1%). Patient and graft overall 5-y survival correspond to 76% and 74%, respectively. Regarding the donor, morbidity rate ranges from 12.4% to 28.3%, with a national mortality rate of 0.14%. In conclusion, Brazilian LDLT programs enhance international experience that this is a feasible and safe procedure, as well as an excellent alternative strategy to overcome organs shortage.

Management of the middle hepatic vein in right lobe living donor liver transplantation: A meta-analysis

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a curative treatment for end stage liver disease. It is advantageous due to the shortage of deceased donors. However, in LDLT, whether the middle hepatic vein (MHV) should be preserved in donors remains controversial. We conducted searches in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Ovid, and Google Scholar using the key words "living donor liver transplantation" and "middle hepatic vein". Due to ethical issues, there were no randomized control trails focusing on MHV in LDLT. The majority of reports were retrospective studies. We examined the reference lists to identify related investigations. Google Scholar was then used to obtain full texts. Nine observational studies were analyzed. There were no significant differences in liver function (WMD, -5.51; P=0.12) and complications (RR, 0.98; P=0.89) in donors with or without MHV. However, the liver function in recipients was greatly improved after LDLT with MHV (WMD, -78.32; P=0.01). No definite conclusion was obtained in terms of the liver regeneration indices between LDLT with or without MHV. It was conclude that grafts with MHV in LDLT favor recipient outcomes and do not harm the living donor if a careful preoperative evaluation is performed.

Segment 4 and the left lateral segment regeneration pattern after resection of the middle hepatic vein in a living donor right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Inclusion of the middle hepatic vein (MHV) with a right hepatectomy (RH) in live donor liver transplantation improves venous drainage of the anterior sector of the graft. Its long-term effects on donor left liver (LL) regeneration are not well described.

METHODS

Donors who underwent RH with MHV (MHV+, n = 12) were compared with donors who underwent RH with preservation of the MHV (MHV-, n = 24). Peri-operative complications and volume of the entire liver and individual segments were evaluated at 1 year post-donation.

RESULTS

There was a trend towards a higher complication rate in the MHV+ group (41% versus 25%), without reaching statistical significance (P = 0.3). Males, high body mass index (BMI) and a smaller residual liver volume (RLV) were predictors for greater LL regeneration. MHV+ donors had impaired regeneration of segment 4 (S4) at 1 year, and compensatory greater left lateral segment regeneration. The absence of venous drainage of S4 (V4) to left hepatic vein (LHV) was a predictor of impaired S4 regeneration.

CONCLUSIONS

Regeneration of S4 is impaired in MHV+ donors. Caution should be taken when considering MHV removal on donors with dominant S4, especially on those with potential increased demand for liver regeneration, such as males, higher BMI and a smaller RLV.

Are the imaging findings used to assess the portal triad reliable to perform living-donor liver transplant?

BACKGROUND

A crucial aspect of living-donor liver transplant is the risk imposed to the donor due to a procedure performed in a healthy individual that can lead to a high postoperative morbidity rate

AIM

To correlate the pre- and intraoperative hepatic imaging findings of living adult donors.

METHODS

From 2003 to 2008 the medical charts of 66 donors were revised; in that, 42 were males (64%) and 24 females (36%), mean age of 30 ± 8 years. The preoperative anatomy was analyzed by magnetic resonance cholangiography to study the bile ducts and by computed tomography angiography to evaluate the hepatic artery and portal vein. Normalcy criteria were established according to previously published studies.

RESULTS

Anatomic variations of the bile ducts were found in 59.1% of donors, of the artery hepatic in 31.8% and of the portal vein in 30.3% of the cases during the preoperative period. The magnetic resonance cholangiography findings were in agreement in 44 (66.6%) of donors and in disagreement in 22 (33.3%). With regards to hepatic artery, in all donors the findings of the imaging examination were in agreement with those of the intraoperative period. As to the portal vein, the computed tomography findings were in agreement in 59 (89.4%) donors and in disagreement in seven (10.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The bile duct anatomic variations are frequent, and the magnetic resonance cholangiography showed moderate accuracy (70%) in reproducing the surgical findings; the computed tomography reproduced the intraoperative findings of the hepatic artery in 100% of donors, and of the portal vein in 89.4% of the cases, thus demonstrating high accuracy (89%).

Donor safety in living donor liver transplantation: a single-center analysis of 300 cases

Aim

To evaluate the safety to donors of living-donor liver transplantation.

Methods

This study included 300 consecutive living liver tissue donors who underwent operations at our center from July 2002 to December 2012. We evaluated the safety of donors with regard to three aspects complications were recorded prospectively and stratified by grade according to Clavien’s classification, and the data were compared in two stages (the first 5 years’ experience (pre-January 2008) and the latter 5 years’ experience (post-January 2008); laboratory tests such as liver function and blood biochemistry were performed; and the health-related quality of life was evaluated.

Results

There was no donor mortality at our center, and the overall morbidity rate was 25.3%. Most of the complications of living donors were either grade I or II. There were significantly fewer complications in the latter period of our study than in the initial period (19.9% vs 32.6%, P<0.001), and biliary complications were the most common complications, with an incidence of 9%. All of the liver dysfunction was temporary; however, the post-operative suppression of platelet count lasted for years. Although within the normal range, eight years after operation, 22 donors showed lower platelet levels (189×10⁹/L) compared with the pre-operative levels (267×10⁹/L) (P<0.05). A total of 98.4% of donors had returned to their previous levels of social activity and work, and 99.2% of donors would donate again if it was required and feasible. With the exception of two donors who experienced grade III complications (whose recipients died) and a few cases of abdominal discomfort, fatigue, chronic pain and scar itching, none of the living donors were affected by physical problems.

Conclusion

With careful donor selection and specialized patient care, low morbidity rates and satisfactory long-term recovery can be achieved after hepatectomy for living-donor liver transplantation.

Estimation of the congestion area volume in potential living donor remnant livers

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation is widely performed in adult patients. One of the problems in this setting is a small-for-size graft, which results in dysfunction and poor prognosis of a transplantation. A right liver graft was devised to overcome this problem; furthermore, inclusion of the middle hepatic vein (MHV) has been suggested to greatly improve recipient outcomes. However, extended right hepatectomy involves a surgical risk for the living donor in terms of congestion of the left paramedian sector. The volume of the venoocclusive region of a living donor liver possibly varies depending on the collateral patterns of veins draining the cranial part of segment 4 (S4).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We were analyzed the normal livers of 50 patients who underwent triphasic contrast-enhanced multidetector row computed tomography during preoperative and postoperative examinations. The patient pathologies consisted of gastric cancer (n = 25), colon cancer (n = 1), or renal cancer (n = 24). We calculated the volume of the entire liver as well as those of the right graft and left remnant lobes for comparison with the drainage volume of each hepatic vein and its branches.

RESULTS

On the basis of the anatomic venous drainage of the cranial part of S4 (V4sup), we classified hepatic veins as group A (n = 31), the V4sup joined the left hepatic vein or the MHV distal to the vein draining S8 area (MV8), or group B (n = 19), V4sup joined the MHV proximal to MV8. The mean volume of the congested area was 6.9% in group A and 15.9% in group B. The venoocclusive areas in the remnant livers were estimated to be larger in group B (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The collateral pattern of V4sup and MV8 as well as preoperative volumetric analysis are important for graft selection to decide the line of transection.

Relationship between preoperative volume and weight of the right liver lobe graft, with and without the middle hepatic vein, in living-donor transplantation

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the preoperative volume of the right liver lobe (as determined by computed tomography) and the intraoperative graft weight with or without the middle hepatic vein.

METHODS

Sixty-three patients who underwent liver transplantation were included in this study. The preoperative volumes of both the left and the right liver lobe were measured in all patients using computed tomography. The intraoperative weight of the right liver lobe was also measured with (group 1, n = 29) and without (group 2, n = 34) the middle hepatic vein. The results were compared with respect to gender, age, body weight, height, body mass index (BMI), weights of the left and right liver lobes as measured by computed tomography, and intraoperative weight of the right liver lobe.

RESULTS

A 21.64 % difference was observed between the weight of the right liver lobe as measured by computed tomography and the weight of the right lobe without the hepatic vein as measured intraoperatively (group 2). Moreover, a 12.38 % difference was observed between the weight of the right liver lobe as measured by computed tomography and the weight of the right lobe plus the middle hepatic vein as measured intraoperatively (group 1).

CONCLUSIONS

The weight of the right liver lobe graft in a living-donor transplantation is less than that calculated by preoperative computed tomography, and the inclusion of the middle hepatic vein in the right liver lobe graft resulted in a statistically significant decrease in this difference.

Right lobe living-donor liver transplantation with or without middle hepatic vein: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare outcomes after right-lobe living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) with or without the middle hepatic vein (MHV).

METHODS

Studies were identified through a computerized search of Pubmed, Embase, Ovid, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Library database, and the Web of Science. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of each study and abstracted outcome data. We extracted data for liver functional recovery in donors, donor hospital stay, donor complications and liver functional recovery in recipients. We synthesized published data using random-effects and fixed-effect models, expressing results as weighted mean differences (WMD) or relative risk (RR).

RESULTS

The 11 included eligible studies came from medical centers worldwide. Significant differences between "with MHV" versus "without MHV" groups were not observed for liver functional recovery (P=.08; WMD=-2.88), donor hospital stay (P=.00; WMD=0.00), or donor complications (P=.90; RR=1.02). However, our meta-analysis showed a significant benefit for recipients liver functional recovery favoring the MHV group (P=.02; WMD=-33.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis discovered that right lobes with MHV not only experienced better liver functional recovery in recipients, but also caused no greater harm or risk to donors.