The "carving" liver partitioning technique for graft hepatectomy in live donor liver transplantation: a single-center experience

Right Lobe Versus Left Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Donor and Recipient Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an established treatment for advanced liver disease. Whether right lobe (RL) or left lobe (LL) LDLT provides the best outcomes for donors and recipients remains contentious.

METHODS

MedLine, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central were searched to identify studies comparing RL- and LL-LDLT and reporting donor and/or recipient outcomes. Effect sizes were pooled using random-effect meta-analysis. Meta-regressions were used to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies were included. RL donors were more likely to experience major complications (relative risk [RR] = 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30-2.05; I2 = 19%) than LL donors; however, no difference was observed in the risk of any biliary complication (RR = 1.41; 95% CI = 0.91-2.20; I2 = 59%), bile leaks (RR = 1.56; 95% CI = 0.97-2.51; I2 = 52%), biliary strictures (RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.43-1.88; I2 = 27%), or postoperative death (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.25-1.05; I2 = 0%). Among recipients, the incidence of major complications (RR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.68-1.06; I2 = 21%), biliary complications (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 0.91-1.33; I2 = 8%), and vascular complications (RR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.44-1.43; I2 = 0%) was similar. Although the rate of small for size syndrome (RR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30-0.74; I2 = 0%) and postoperative deaths (RR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.44-0.87; I2 = 0%) was lower among RL-LDLT recipients, no differences were observed in long-term graft (hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.55-1.38; I2 = 74%) and overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.60-1.22; I2 = 44%).

CONCLUSIONS

LL donors experience fewer complications than RL donors, and LL-LDLT recipients had similar outcomes to RL-LDLT recipients. These findings suggest that LL-LDLT offers the best outcomes for living donors and similar outcomes for recipients when measures are taken to prevent small for size syndrome.

Analysis of risk factors affecting coagulopathy after donor hepatectomy in a newly established liver transplant center

OBJECTIVE

As might be expected, living donor liver surgery is associated with serious morbidity and mortality risks. Coagulopathy after donor hepatectomy is an important risk factor affecting morbidity. In this study, risk factors affecting the development of coagulopathy after donor hepatectomy was evaluated in a newly-established liver transplant center.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective evaluation of 46 liver donors to whom hepatectomy was applied in Medipol Universty of School of Medicine Department of Organ Transplantation between April 2014 and July 2015 was made. Coagulopathy was defined as prothrombin time ≥15 sec. or platelet count <80000/mm³ on postoperative day 3. Donors were separated into 2 groups as those with (n=24) and without (n=22) coagulopathy. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative factors acting on coagulopathy were analyzed.

RESULTS

In the intergroup analysis, it was seen that remnant liver volume, remnant liver volume % and remnant liver volume to body weight ratio were factors associated with coagulopathy. The cut-off values for these 3 parameters were calculated as 773.5 cm³, 40.5% and 0.915 cm³/kg, respectively. Only remnant liver volume % was determined as a risk factor for coagulopathy after donor hepatectomy on multiple logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed that the most important risk factors affecting coagulopathy after donor hepatectomy were the parameters associated with remnant liver volume.

Risk of venous congestion in live donors of extended right liver graft

AIM: To investigate middle hepatic vein (MHV) management in adult living donor liver transplantation and safer remnant volumes (RV).

METHODS: There were 59 grafts with and 12 grafts without MHV (including 4 with MHV-5/8 reconstructions). All donors underwent our five-step protocol evaluation containing a preoperative protocol liver biopsy Congestive vs non-congestive RV, remnant-volume-body-weight ratios (RVBWR) and postoperative outcomes were evaluated in 71 right graft living donors. Dominant vs non-dominant MHV anatomy in total liver volume (d-MHV/TLV vs nd-MHV/TLV) was constellated with large/small congestion volumes (CV-index). Small for size (SFS) and non-SFS remnant considerations were based on standard cut-off- RVBWR and RV/TLV. Non-congestive RVBWR was based on non-congestive RV.

RESULTS: MHV and non-MHV remnants showed no significant differences in RV, RV/TLV, RVBWR, total bilirubin, or INR. SFS-remnants with RV/TLV < 30% and non-SFS-remnants with RV/TLV ≥ 30% showed no significant differences either. RV and RVBWR for non-MHV (n = 59) and MHV-containing (n = 12) remnants were 550 ± 95 mL and 0.79 ± 0.1 mL vs 568 ± 97 mL and 0.79 ± 0.13, respectively (P = 0.423 and P = 0.919. Mean left RV/TLV was 35.8% ± 3.9%. Non-MHV (n = 59) and MHV-containing (n = 12) remnants (34.1% ± 3% vs 36% ± 4% respectively, P = 0.148. Eight SFS-remnants with RVBWR < 0.65 had a significantly smaller RV/TLV than 63 non-SFS-remnants with RVBWR ≥ 0.65 [SFS: RV/TLV 32.4% (range: 28%-35.7%) vs non-SFS: RV/TLV 36.2% (range: 26.1%-45.5%), P < 0.009. Six SFS-remnants with RV/TLV < 30% had significantly smaller RVBWR than 65 non-SFS-remnants with RV/TLV ≥ 30% (0.65 (range: 0.6-0.7) vs 0.8 (range: 0.6-1.27), P < 0.01. Two (2.8%) donors developed reversible liver failure. RVBWR and RV/TLV were concordant in 25%-33% of SFS and in 92%-94% of non-SFS remnants. MHV management options including complete MHV vs MHV-4A selective retention were necessary in n = 12 vs n = 2 remnants based on particularly risky congestive and non-congestive volume constellations.

CONCLUSION: MHV procurement should consider individual remnant congestive- and non-congestive volume components and anatomy characteristics, RVBWR-RV/TLV constellation enables the identification of marginally small remnants.

Three-dimensional print of a liver for preoperative planning in living donor liver transplantation

The growing demand for liver transplantation and the concomitant scarcity of cadaveric livers have increased the need for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Ensuring the safety of donors and recipients is critical. The preoperative identification of the vascular and biliary tract anatomy with 3-dimensional (3D) printing may allow better preoperative surgical planning, avert unnecessary surgery in patients with potentially unsuitable anatomy, and thereby decrease the complications of liver transplant surgery. We developed a protocol and successfully 3D-printed synthetic livers (along with their complex networks of vascular and biliary structures) replicating the native livers of 6 patients: 3 living donors and 3 respective recipients who underwent LDLT. To our knowledge, these are the first complete 3D-printed livers. Using standardized preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative assessments, we demonstrated identical anatomical and geometrical landmarks in the 3D-printed models and native livers.