Living-donor liver transplantation: Right versus left

Current Understanding of Marginal Grafts in Liver Transplantation

End-stage liver disease (ESLD), stemming from a spectrum of chronic liver pathologies including chronic liver failure, acute cirrhosis decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma, imposes a significant global healthcare burden. Liver transplantation (LT) remains the only treatment for ESLD. However, the escalating mortality on transplant waitlists has prompted the utilization of marginal liver grafts in LT procedures. These grafts primarily encompass elderly livers, steatotic livers, livers from donation after circulatory death, split livers and those infected with the hepatitis virus. While the expansion of the donor pool offers promise, it also introduces concomitant risks. These encompass graft failure, biliary and cardiovascular complications, the recurrence of liver disease and reduced patient and graft survival. Consequently, various established strategies, ranging from improved donor-recipient matching to surgical interventions, have emerged to mitigate these risks. This article undertakes a comprehensive assessment of the current landscape, evaluating the viability of diverse marginal liver grafts. Additionally, it synthesizes approaches aimed at enhancing the quality of such marginal liver grafts. The overarching objective is to augment the donor pool and ameliorate the risk factors associated with the shortage of liver grafts.

Transplant oncology - Current indications and strategies to advance the field

Liver transplantation (LT) was originally described by Starzl as a promising strategy to treat primary malignancies of the liver. Confronted with high recurrence rates, indications drifted towards non-oncologic liver diseases with LT finally evolving from a high-risk surgery to an almost routine surgical procedure. Continuously improving outcomes following LT and evolving oncological treatment strategies have driven renewed interest in transplant oncology. This is not only reflected by constant refinements to the criteria for LT in patients with HCC, but especially by efforts to expand indications to other primary and secondary liver malignancies. With new patient-centred oncological treatments on the rise and new technologies to expand the donor pool, the field has the chance to come full circle. In this review, we focus on the concept of transplant oncology, current indications, as well as technical and ethical aspects in the context of donor organs as precious resources.

Increasing practice and acceptable outcomes of high-MELD living donor liver transplantation in the USA

Recent deceased-donor allocation changes in the United States may have increased high-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) living donor liver transplantation (LDLT); however, outcomes in these patients remain poorly defined. We aimed to examine the impact of the MELD score on LDLT outcomes. Using UNOS data (January 1, 2010-December 31, 2021), LDLT recipients were identified and stratified into low-MELD (<15), intermediate-MELD (15-24), and high-MELD (≥25) groups. We compared outcomes between MELD-stratified LDLT groups and between MELD-stratified LDLT and donation after brain death liver transplantation recipients. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis to compare graft survival rates and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling to identify factors associated with graft outcomes. Of 3558 LDLTs, 1605 (45.1%) were low-MELD, 1616 (45.4%) intermediate-MELD, and 337 (9.5%) high-MELD. Over the study period, the annual number of LDLTs increased from 282 to 569, and the proportion of high-MELD LDLTs increased from 3.9% to 7.7%. Graft survival was significantly higher in low-MELD versus high-MELD LDLT recipients (adjusted HR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.03-1.79); however, 5-year survival exceeded 70.0% in both groups. We observed no significant difference in graft survival between high-MELD LDLT and high-MELD donation after brain death liver transplantation recipients (adjusted HR: 1.25, 95% CI:0.99-1.58), with a 5-year survival of 71.5% and 77.3%, respectively. Low LDLT center volume (<3 LDLTs/year) and recipient life support requirement were both associated with inferior graft outcomes among high-MELD LDLT recipients. While higher MELD scores confer graft failure risk in LDLT, high-MELD LDLT outcomes are acceptable with similar outcomes to MELD-stratified donation after brain death liver transplantation recipients. Future practice guidance should consider the expansion of LDLT recommendations to high-MELD recipients in centers with expertise to help reduce donor shortage.

Novel Benchmark for Adult-to-Adult Living-donor Liver Transplantation: Integrating Eastern and Western Experiences

OBJECTIVE

To define benchmark values for adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

BACKGROUND

LDLT utilizes living-donor hemiliver grafts to expand the donor pool and reduce waitlist mortality. Although references have been established for donor hepatectomy, no such information exists for recipients to enable conclusive quality and comparative assessments.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LDLT were analyzed in 15 high-volume centers (≥10 cases/year) from 3 continents over 5 years (2016-2020), with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Benchmark criteria included a Model for End-stage Liver Disease ≤20, no portal vein thrombosis, no previous major abdominal surgery, no renal replacement therapy, no acute liver failure, and no intensive care unit admission. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of all centers' medians.

RESULTS

Of 3636 patients, 1864 (51%) qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cutoffs, including posttransplant dialysis (≤4%), primary nonfunction (≤0.9%), nonanastomotic strictures (≤0.2%), graft loss (≤7.7%), and redo-liver transplantation (LT) (≤3.6%), at 1-year were below the deceased donor LT benchmarks. Bile leak (≤12.4%), hepatic artery thrombosis (≤5.1%), and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI ® ) (≤56) were above the deceased donor LT benchmarks, whereas mortality (≤9.1%) was comparable. The right hemiliver graft, compared with the left, was associated with a lower CCI ® score (34 vs 21, P < 0.001). Preservation of the middle hepatic vein with the right hemiliver graft had no impact neither on the recipient nor on the donor outcome. Asian centers outperformed other centers with CCI ® score (21 vs 47, P < 0.001), graft loss (3.0% vs 6.5%, P = 0.002), and redo-LT rates (1.0% vs 2.5%, P = 0.029). In contrast, non-benchmark low-volume centers displayed inferior outcomes, such as bile leak (15.2%), hepatic artery thrombosis (15.2%), or redo-LT (6.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Benchmark LDLT offers a valuable alternative to reduce waitlist mortality. Exchange of expertise, public awareness, and centralization policy are, however, mandatory to achieve benchmark outcomes worldwide.

Unusual grafts for living-donor liver transplantation

PURPOSE

Unusual grafts, including extended left liver plus caudate lobe, right anterior section, and right posterior section grafts, are alternatives to left and right lobe grafts for living-donor liver transplantation. This study aimed to investigate unusual grafts from the perspectives of recipients and donors.

METHODS

From 2016 to 2021, 497 patients received living-donor liver transplantation at Severance Hospital. Among them, 10 patients received unusual grafts. Three patients received extended left liver plus caudate lobe grafts, two patients received right anterior section grafts, and five patients received right posterior section grafts. Liver volumetrics and anatomy were analyzed for all recipients and donors. We collected data on laboratory examinations (alanine aminotransferase, total bilirubin, international normalized ratio), imaging studies, graft survival, and complications. A 1:2 ratio propensity-score matching method was used to reduce selection bias and balance variables between the unusual and conventional graft groups.

RESULTS

The median of Model for End-stage Liver Disease score of unusual graft recipients was 13.5 (interquartile range 11.5-19.3) and that of graft-recipient weight ratio was 0.767 (0.7-0.9). ABO incompatibility was observed in four cases. The alanine aminotransferase level, total bilirubin level, and international normalized ratio decreased in both recipients and donors. Unusual and conventional grafts had similar survival rates (p = 0.492). The right and left subgroups did not differ from each counter-conventional subgroup (p = 0.339 and p = 0.695, respectively). The incidence of major complications was not significantly different between unusual and conventional graft recipients (p = 0.513). Wound seromas were reported by unusual graft donors; the complication ratio was similar to that in conventional graft donors (p = 0.169).

CONCLUSION

Although unusual grafts require a complex indication, they may show feasible surgical outcomes for recipients with an acceptable donor complication.

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.

Relationship of the Presence of the Inferior Right Hepatic Vein with the Right Hepatic Vein Diameter and CT Liver Volumetry

Background  Right hepatic venous anatomy, right lobe volume, and percentage of remnant liver are issues to be considered in preoperative planning especially transplantation. Objectives  The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship of the presence of the inferior right hepatic vein (IRHV) with the right hepatic vein (RHV) diameter, right lobe volume, and percentage of remnant liver. Materials and Methods  In t his cross-sectional study, the computed tomography (CT) images of 90 patients who underwent triphasic CT for being living liver donation were evaluated retrospectively. The number and diameter of IRHVs and the diameter of main RHV were recorded. For the liver volume analysis, a deep learning-based automatic liver segmentation (Hepatic VCAR) program was used. A virtual hepatectomy plane was drawn, where the right and left liver volumes were found and the percentage of the left lobe to the total liver volume was calculated. Pearson's correlation analysis was used for correlation analysis and Student's t -test was used to compare parameters. Results  A total of 74 IRHVs were detected in 53 (58.88%) of 90 patients. There were no differences in the percentage of remnant left lobe volume, right lobe volume, and RHV diameter between the IRHV (+) and (-) groups. The RHV diameter had a weak negative correlation with the IRHV diameter, and a weak positive correlation with the right lobe volume. Conclusions  The percentage of remnant left lobe volume, right lobe volume, and RHV diameter did not differ in liver donors with and without an IRHV. The RHV diameter had a weak negative correlation with the IRHV diameter and a weak positive correlation with the right lobe volume.

Full-Right Full-Left Split Liver Transplantation for Two Adult Recipients: A Single-Center Experience in China

BACKGROUND

The most effective treatment for end-stage liver diseases is liver transplantation, which is impeded by the shortage of donor livers. Split liver transplantation (SLT) is important for addressing the donor liver shortage. However, full-right full-left SLT for two adult recipients is globally rarely conducted. This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of this technique.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 22 recipients who underwent full-right full-left SLT at Shulan (Hangzhou) Hospital between January, 2021 and September, 2022. The graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR), cold ischemia time, operation time, length of the anhepatic phase, intraoperative blood loss, and red blood cell transfusion amount were all analyzed. The differences in liver function recovery after transplantation were compared between the left and right hemiliver groups. The postoperative complications and prognosis of the recipients were also analyzed.

RESULTS

The livers of 11 donors were transplanted into 22 adult recipients. The GRWR ranged from 1.16-1.65%, the cold ischemia time was 282.86 ± 134.87 min, the operation time was 371.32 ± 75.36 min, the anhepatic phase lasted 60.73 ± 19.00 min, the intraoperative blood loss was 759.09 ± 316.84 mL, and the red blood cell transfusion amount was 695.45 ± 393.67 mL. No significant difference in the levels of liver function markers, total bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, or alanine aminotransferase between left and right hemiliver groups at 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, and 28 d postoperatively was observed (both p > 0.05). One recipient developed bile leakage 10 d after transplantation, which improved with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided nasobiliary drainage and stent placement. Another developed portal vein thrombosis 12 d after transplantation and underwent portal vein thrombectomy and stenting to restore portal vein blood flow. A color Doppler ultrasound performed 2 d after transplantation revealed hepatic artery thrombosis in one patient, and thrombolytic therapy was administered to restore hepatic artery blood flow. The liver function of other patients recovered quickly after transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Full-right full-left SLT for two adult patients is an efficient way to increase the donor pool. It is safe and feasible with careful donor and recipient selection. Transplant hospitals with highly experienced surgeons in SLT are recommended to promote using full-right full-left SLT for two adult recipients.

Recent Advances in Liver Engineering With Decellularized Scaffold

Liver transplantation is currently the only effective treatment for patients with end-stage liver disease; however, donor liver scarcity is a notable concern. As a result, extensive endeavors have been made to diversify the source of donor livers. For example, the use of a decellularized scaffold in liver engineering has gained considerable attention in recent years. The decellularized scaffold preserves the original orchestral structure and bioactive chemicals of the liver, and has the potential to create a de novo liver that is fit for transplantation after recellularization. The structure of the liver and hepatic extracellular matrix, decellularization, recellularization, and recent developments are discussed in this review. Additionally, the criteria for assessment and major obstacles in using a decellularized scaffold are covered in detail.