Right Hemiliver Transplant: Results From Living and Cadaveric Donors

Outcome of split liver transplantation vs living donor liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) from different grafts have been studied individually and in combination, but the reports were conflicting with some researchers finding no difference in both short-term and long-term outcomes between the deceased donor split LT (DD-SLT) and living donor LT (LDLT).

AIM

To compare the outcomes of DD-SLT and LDLT we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The following databases were searched for articles comparing outcomes of DD-SLT and LDLT: PubMed; Google Scholar; Embase; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; and Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/). The search terms used were: "liver transplantation;" "liver transplant;" "split liver transplant;" "living donor liver transplant;" "partial liver transplant;" "partial liver graft;" "ex vivo splitting;" and "in vivo splitting."

RESULTS

Ten studies were included for the data synthesis and meta-analysis. There were a total of 4836 patients. The overall survival rate at 1 year, 3 years and 5 years was superior in patients that received LDLT compared to DD-SLT. At 1 year, the hazard ratios was 1.44 (95% confidence interval: 1.16-1.78; P = 0.001). The graft survival rate at 3 years and 5 years was superior in the LDLT group (3 year hazard ratio: 1.28; 95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.63; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that LDLT has better graft survival and overall survival when compared to DD-SLT.

Liver Transplantation in Children: An Overview of Organ Allocation and Surgical Management

Liver transplantation is the standard treatment for children with end-stage liver disease, primary hepatic neoplasms, or liver-localized metabolic defects. Perioperative mortality is almost absent, and long-term survival exceeds 90%. Organ shortage is managed thanks to advances in organ retrieval techniques; living donation and partial liver transplantation almost eliminated waiting list mortality, thus leading to expanding indications for transplantation. The success of pediatric liver transplantation depends on the prompt and early referral of patients to transplant Centers and on the close and integrated multidisciplinary collaboration between pediatricians, hepatologists, surgeons, intensivists, oncologists, pathologists, coordinating nurses, psychologists, and social workers.

Split versus living-related adult liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND-OBJECTIVE

The outcomes of split liver transplantation between recipients of deceased donor split liver transplant (SLT) or live donor liver transplants (LDLT) have never been compared in meta-analysis. It is important to understand graft and recipient survival between recipients of these grafts.

METHODS

Databases were searched for relevant articles over the previous 20 years (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar). Meta-analyses were performed using both fixed- and random-effects models. Patient survival and graft survival were obtained using the inverse variance hazard ratio method.

RESULTS

There were differences in the characteristics of the donors and recipients. Donors of the SLT were younger compared to LDLT cohort [mean difference (MD) = - 11.12 years (- 15.41 to - 6.84), p < 0.001] whilst recipients of LDLT were younger [MD = - 2.06 years (- 1.12 to - 3.01), p < 0.001]. Significantly fewer men received grafts after SLT, 45%, compared to those receiving LDLT, 55%, [OR = 0.66 (0.55 to 0.80), p < 0.001]. There were no significant differences detected in postoperative complications, graft and patient 1-, 3- and 5-year survival between the SLT and LDLT cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no apparent difference in overall survival, graft survival or complications between recipients of SLT or LDLT. However, characteristics of the donor and recipients differed suggesting the need for adequate risk-adjusted assessment of outcomes.

Where are we today in split liver transplantation?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Results of surgical innovations using partial liver grafts from deceased donors have improved the availability of transplantable organs. However, current data on outcomes after split liver transplantation (SLT) are conflicting. This article reviews the current state of SLT, focusing on long-term outcomes and predictors for patient and graft survival after SLT.

RECENT FINDINGS

The conventional SLT has been proven to be a durable life-saving procedure. Early results for full left-right SLT for two adults are promising but this technique had not showed efficacy for wide application. Predictors of diminished patient survival after SLT included the use of split grafts in critically ill recipients (model for end-stage liver disease score >30), retransplant patients, cold ischemia time more than 10 h, and the performance of SLT in low-volume liver transplant centers.

SUMMARY

Conventional SLT performed in specialized centers resulted in long-term survival outcomes comparable with whole-organ liver transplantation. Full left-right SLT for two adults remains experimental. Splitting of the liver is an effective approach to expand the donor pool and remains an untapped resource for patients in need of liver transplantation. Split graft-to-recipient pairing is crucial for optimal organ allocation and survival outcomes after liver transplantation.

Adult living donor liver transplantation with right lobe graft: the venous outflow management in the Milan-Niguarda experience

In right lobe living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT), reconstruction of middle hepatic vein (MHV) tributaries is often necessary to avoid severe graft congestion. From March 2001, we performed 36 right lobe ALDLT (segments 5, 6, 7, and 8) without MHV and one pediatric transplant (segments 2 and 3). In the presence of MHV tributaries larger than 5 mm, we intraoperatively evaluated the need for reconstruction. At a mean follow-up of 848 days (range=8-2412), 33/37 transplanted patients are alive with overall patient and graft survivals of 89.2% and 83.8%, respectively. Large MHV tributaries (>5 mm) were present in 10 cases, and inferior right hepatic veins (IRHV) draining segment 6 in 11 cases. In 10 cases, we performed an end-to-side anastomosis between the IRHV and the side of the recipient vena cava. In three cases, the MHV tributaries were end-to-end anastomosed to the stump of the recipient MHV. In all other cases, the vein tributaries were not reconstructed. A computed tomography scan performed from 1 to 3 months after surgery did not show any congested area in the liver parenchyma. In our experience, reconstruction of the MHV tributaries was not always necessary when graft-to-recipient weight ratio is >0.8. Pre- and intraoperative evaluation of the segmental branches of the hepatic vein is crucial to decide about reconstructing these collaterals. Anastomosis of V5 or V8 to the stump of the recipient MHV reduces the number of vascular anastomosis and maintains a physiological angle between these collaterals and the caval vein.

Split-liver transplantation: an underused resource in liver transplantation

Split-liver transplantation is an efficient tool to increase the number of liver grafts available for transplantation. More than 15 years after its introduction only the classical splitting technique has reached broad application. Consequently children are benefiting most from this possibility. Full-right full-left splitting for two adult recipients has been shown to work but is hampered mainly by the dangers of small-for-size transplantation. A solution to this last problem would completely change the scope of split-liver transplantation. Organ allocation systems and collaboration between centers play a crucial role in the chances to let suitable patients profit from this valuable source of extra grafts.

Should we still offer split-liver transplantation for two adult recipients? A retrospective study of our experience

The role of split-liver transplantation (SLT) for two adult recipients is still a matter of debate, and no agreement exists on indications, surgical techniques, and results. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze the outcome of our series of SLT. From May 1999 to December 2006, 16 patients underwent SLT at our unit. We used 9 full right grafts (segments 5-8) and 7 full left grafts (segments 1-4). The splitting procedure was always carried out in situ with a fully perfused liver. Postoperative complications were recorded in 8 (50%) patients: 5 (55%) in full right grafts and 3 (43%) in full left grafts. No one was retransplanted. After a median follow-up of 55.82 months (range, 0.4-91.2), 5 (31%) patients died, and the 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rate for patients and grafts was 69%. We considered as a control group for the global outcome 232 whole liver transplantations performed at our unit in the same period of time. Postoperative complications were recorded in 53 (23%) patients, and after a median follow-up of 57.37 months (mean, 55.11; range, 1-102.83), the 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall patient survival was 87%, 82%, and 80%, respectively. In conclusion, SLT for two adult recipients is a technically demanding procedure that requires complex logistics and surgical teams experienced in both liver resection and transplantation. Although the reported rate of survival might be adequate for such a procedure, more efforts have to be made to improve the short-term outcome, which is inadequate in our opinion. The true feasibility of SLT for two adults has to be considered as still under investigation.