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

Revisiting the forgotten "full-right full-left" liver division: Simplified technique and new strategical considerations for clinical implementation in Italy

BACKGROUND

Full-right/full-left liver splitting was introduced early in the 90s as part of the great wave of technical innovations that characterized that decade. One approach was to divide the liver on the right of the Cantlie's line and leave the middle hepatic vein with the left graft, with both grafts allocated to adults. Both grafts had some functional disadvantages and exposed the adult recipients to some early hepatic dysfunction, and the results were not great. An alternative approach consisted of an ex situ division of the liver, exactly along Cantlie's line, thus sharing the middle hepatic vein between the two grafts. None of these two techniques were really adopted, and there has been nearly no transplantation of this type in the last decade worldwide.

METHOD AND RESULTS

The authors propose a variation of the latter technique that was used recently with success: The division of the liver is made simpler; the two grafts are prepared ex situ and need a simple vascular reconstruction (one venous patch on each graft); and the grafts can be implanted using very standard techniques.

CONCLUSION

Because candidates for liver transplantation weighing 25-60 kg (old children, teenagers, and some small adults) are often at some disadvantage in getting size-matched livers (this range of weight is less represented in the donor population), implementing the latter technique would help provide adequate grafts for them. In Italy, where many livers offered for splitting are not used, there would be ample room for implementing this option within the actual donor pool and allocation system.

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.

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.

Donor Morbidity Is Equivalent Between Right and Left Hepatectomy for Living Liver Donation: A Meta-Analysis

Maximizing liver graft volume benefits the living donor liver recipient. Whether maximizing graft volume negatively impacts living donor recovery and outcomes remains controversial. Patient randomization between right and left hepatectomy has not been possible due to anatomic constraints; however, a number of published, nonrandomized observational studies summarize donor outcomes between 2 anatomic living donor hepatectomies. This meta-analysis compares donor-specific outcomes after right versus left living donor hepatectomy. Systematic searches were performed via PubMed, Cochrane, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar databases to identify relevant studies between January 2005 and November 2019. The primary outcomes compared overall morbidity and incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo >III) between right and left hepatectomy in donors after liver donation. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to derive summary risk estimates of outcomes. A total of 33 studies (3 prospective and 30 retrospective cohort) were used to identify 7649 pooled patients (5993 right hepatectomy and 1027 left hepatectomy). Proportion of donors who developed postoperative complications did not significantly differ after right hepatectomy (0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.40) and left hepatectomy (0.23; 95% CI, 0.17-0.29; P = 0.19). The overall risk ratio (RR) did not differ between right and left hepatectomy (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.83-1.63; P = 0.36). The relative risk for a donor to develop severe complications showed no differences by hepatectomy side (Incidence rate ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.67-1.40; P = 0.86). There is no evidence that the overall morbidity differs between right and left lobe donors. Publication bias reflects institutional and surgeon variation. A prospective, standardized, multi-institutional study would help quantify the burden of donor complications after liver donation.

The influence of the middle hepatic vein and its impact on outcomes in right lobe living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

In adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation, the decision to include the middle hepatic vein (MHV) remains controversial.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 50 R-LDLTs between January 2008 and June 2016 was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one procedures were performed using a MHV+ graft (42.0%) and 29 procedures using a MHV- graft (58%). MHV- donors were taller (173 vs 166 cm, p = 0.004) with a larger standard liver volume (1351 vs 1245 mls, p = 0.014) compared to MHV+ donors. The duration of operation for donors was significantly longer in the MHV+ group (530 (313-975) mins) compared to the MHV- group (489 (336-708) mins) (p = 0.029). Similarly, the operative time for recipients was longer in the MHV+ group (660 (428-831) mins) compared to MHV- (579 (359-1214) mins) (p = 0.023). MHV- grafts were heavier compared to MHV+ grafts (918 vs 711 g, p = 0.017). Recipient mortality rates and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were comparable (p = 0.411). All donors were well at last review.

CONCLUSION

Both MHV+ and MHV- grafts are safe for the donor and recipient. The decision to take the MHV should be based on specific donor-recipient characteristics.

Split liver transplantation: What’s unique?

The intraoperative management of split liver transplantation (SLT) has some unique features as compared to routine whole liver transplantations. Only the liver has this special ability to regenerate that confers benefits in survival and quality of life for two instead of one by splitting livers. Primary graft dysfunction may result from small for size syndrome. Graft weight to recipient body weight ratio is significant for both trisegmental and hemiliver grafts. Intraoperative surgical techniques aim to reduce portal hyperperfusion and decrease venous portal pressure. Ischemic preconditioning can be instituted to protect against ischemic reperfusion injury which impacts graft regeneration. Advancement of the technique of SLT is essential as use of split cadaveric grafts expands the donor pool and potentially has an excellent future.

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.

Reconstructing middle hepatic vein tributaries in right-lobe living donor liver transplantation

AIMS

To investigate the effectiveness of our technique and policy in reconstructing middle hepatic vein (MHV) tributaries of patients undergoing right-lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

From January 2001 to December 2010, 186 adult patients underwent right-lobe LDLT without the MHV. Patients were divided into two groups: group A (n = 71) and group B (n = 115) without or with the MHV tributaries reconstruction. We evaluated the serum liver function markers after transplantation and monitored vascular flow in the graft and interpositional vein by Doppler ultrasonography.

RESULTS

The cumulative 1-, 3-, 5-year graft and patient survival rates were not significant between group A and group B (p = 0.287 and p = 0.258). Biliary complications appeared to be more frequent in group A than in group B (16.9 vs. 5.2%, p = 0.009). Liver function impairment was found in patients without MHV reconstruction and those with occluded interpositional vessels early after transplantation. The cumulative 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-month patency rate of the interpositional veins was 81.51, 79.60, 74.69 and 72.68%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The reconstruction technique based on our policy ensures excellent outflow drainage and favorable recipient outcome, while better criteria for MHV reconstruction should be established.

Liver transplantation: Fifty years of experience

Since 1963, when the first human liver transplantation (LT) was performed by Thomas Starzl, the world has witnessed 50 years of development in surgical techniques, immunosuppression, organ allocation, donor selection, and the indications and contraindications for LT. This has led to the mainstream, well-established procedure that has saved innumerable lives worldwide. Today, there are hundreds of liver transplant centres in over 80 countries. This review aims to describe the main aspects of LT regarding the progressive changes that have occurred over the years. We herein review historical aspects since the first experimental studies and the first attempts at human transplantation. We also provide an overview of immunosuppressive agents and their potential side effects, the evolution of the indications and contraindications of LT, the evolution of survival according to different time periods, and the evolution of methods of organ allocation.