Feasibility and limits of caval-flow preservation during liver transplantation

Comparison of the modified piggyback with standard piggyback and conventional orthotopic liver transplantation techniques: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In conventional orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), the recipient's retrohepatic inferior vena cava (IVC) is completely clamped and replaced with the donor IVC. The piggyback technique has been used to preserve venous return, either via an end-to-side or standard piggyback (SPB), or via a side-to-side or modified piggyback (MPB) anastomosis, using a venous cuff from the recipient hepatic veins with partially clamping and preserves the recipient's inferior vena cava. However, whether these piggyback techniques improve the efficacy of OLT is unclear. To address the low quality of the available evidence, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of conventional, MPB, and SPB techniques.

METHODS

Literature was searched in Medline and Web of Science databases for relevant articles published until 2021 without any time restriction. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the intra- and postoperative outcomes of conventional OLT, MPB, and SPB techniques.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included, comprising 10,238 patients. MPB and SPB had significantly shorter operation times and fewer transfusions of red blood cell and fresh frozen plasma than conventional techniques. However, there were no differences between MPB and SPB in operation time and blood product transfusion. There were also no differences in primary non-function, retransplantation, portal vein thrombosis, acute kidney injury, renal dysfunction, venous outflow complications, length of hospital and intensive care unit stay, 90-day mortality rate, and graft survival between the three techniques.

CONCLUSION

MBP and SBP techniques reduce the operation time and need for blood transfusion compared with conventional OLT, but postoperative outcomes are similar. This indicates that all techniques can be implemented based on the experience and policy of the transplant center.

Application of various surgical techniques in liver transplantation: a retrospective study

Background

Surgical techniques of liver transplantation have continually evolved and have been modified. We retrospectively analyzed a single-center case series and compared the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

Methods

Six-hundred and seventy-four recipients’ perioperative data were assessed and analyzed stratified by different surgical technics [modified classic (MC), modified piggyback (MPB) and classic piggyback (CPB)].

Results

MELD score and Child-Pugh scores was significantly higher in CPB groups (P=0.008 and 0.003, respectively). Anhepatic time in MPB group was longer than those in CPB group (P<0.05). The operation duration in MPB group was significantly longer than those in MC group and CPB group (P=0.003). Three patients had outflow obstruction (P=0.035). The overall survival in MPB group were better than those in MC group and CPB group in general comparison (P<0.001). In patients with preoperative creatine >120 µmol/L, the overall survival in MC group was worst (P<0.001). In patients with a high MELD score (>24), the overall survival in MPB group tended to be the best (P<0.001).

Conclusions

The advantages and disadvantages are different for these three surgical techniques. A reasonable operation technique should be adopted considering the patient's unique condition to ensure the stability of hemodynamics.

Initial piggyback technique facilitates late liver retransplantation - a retrospective monocentric study

Optimal management of inferior vena cava (IVC) is crucial to ensure safety in late liver retransplantation (ReLT). The aim of this study was to evaluate different surgical strategies with regard to IVC in late ReLT. All consecutive late ReLT (≥90 days from the previous transplant) from 2013 to 2018 in a single center was reviewed (n = 66). Of them, 46 (69.7%) were performed without venovenous bypass (VVB) including 29 with caval preservation (CP) and 17 with caval replacement (CR). The remaining 20 cases (30.3%) required the use of VVB. Among ReLT without VVB, CP was associated with a lower number of packed red blood cells (median 4 vs. 7; P = 0.016) and a lower incidence of post-transplant acute kidney injury (6.9% vs. 47.1%; P = 0.003). The feasibility of CP was 95% (14/15) in patients with previous 3-vein piggyback caval anastomosis versus 48.3% (15/31) after other techniques (P = 0.003). Indirect signs of portal hypertension (PHT) before retransplantation were predictive of VVB requirement. Early and long-term outcomes were similar across the three groups (CP without VVB, CR without VVB, and VVB). Preserving the IVC in late ReLT is associated with better postoperative renal function and is facilitated by a previous 3-vein piggyback. Routine CR is not justified in late ReLT.

Complex Liver Transplantation Using Venovenous Bypass With an Atypical Placement of the Portal Vein Cannula

In liver transplantation (LT) medical literature, venovenous bypass (VVB) with the interposition of a venous graft attached to the inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) or to the splenic vein (SV) has not been reported previously. Here, we report the decompression of the portomesenteric compartment in 2 patients with complex cases of orthotopic LT. A femoroaxillary percutaneous VVB was installed prior to abdominal opening to decompress massive collateral veins in the abdominal wall. In the first patient, the IMV was connected to a donor vein graft with a lateroterminal anastomosis, and the distal part of the vein graft was cannulated and connected to the VVB. In the second patient, because of the excessive size of the spleen, it was necessary to perform a splenectomy to gain sufficient space in the abdomen to implant the new liver. The SV was connected to a donor vein graft with a terminoterminal anastomosis, and the distal part of the vein graft was cannulated and connected to the VVB. In both patients, the decompression of the portomesenteric compartment was crucial to reduce portal hypertension and to access the hepatic hilum, where the dissection was very complex due to previous major surgeries. In conclusion, VVB with the interposition of a venous graft attached to the IMV or to the SV during LT is a safe and simple technique, and it may be useful for patients needing VVB with no standard access to the portal compartment, particularly in the case of severe portal hypertension and re-LTs.

Piggyback or Cava Replacement: Which Implantation Technique Protects Liver Recipients From Acute Kidney Injury and Complications?

The cava-preserving piggyback (PB) technique requires only partial cava clamping during the anhepatic phase in liver transplantation (LT) and, therefore, maintains venous return and may hemodynamically stabilize the recipient. Hence, it is an ongoing debate whether PB implantation is more protective from acute kidney injury (AKI) after LT when compared with a classic cava replacement (CR) technique. The aim of this study was to assess the rate of AKI and other complications after LT comparing both transplant techniques without the use of venovenous bypass. We retrospectively analyzed the adult donation after brain death LT cohort between 2008 and 2016 at our center. Liver and kidney function and general outcomes including complications were assessed. Overall 378 transplantations were analyzed, of which 177 (46.8%) were performed as PB and 201 (53.2%) as CR technique. AKI occurred equally often in both groups. Transient renal replacement therapy was required in 22.6% and 22.4% comparing the PB and CR techniques (P = 0.81). Further outcome parameters including the complication rate were similar in both cohorts. Five-year graft and patient survival were comparable between the groups with 81% and 85%, respectively (P = 0.48; P = 0.58). In conclusion, both liver implantation techniques are equal in terms of kidney function and overall complications following LT.

Liver Transplantation Without Venovenous Bypass: Does Surgical Approach Matter?

Background

The use of venovenous bypass in liver transplantation has declined over time. Few studies have examined the impact of surgical approach in cases performed exclusively without venovenous bypass. We hypothesized that advances in liver transplant anesthesia and perioperative care have minimized the importance of surgical approach in the modern era.

Methods

Deceased donor liver transplants at the University of Toronto from 2000 to 2015 were reviewed, all performed without venovenous bypass. First, an unadjusted analysis was performed comparing perioperative outcomes and graft/patient survival for 3 different liver transplant techniques (caval interposition, piggyback, side-to-side cavo-cavostomy). Second, a propensity-matched analysis was performed comparing caval interposition to caval-preserving techniques.

Results

One thousand two hundred thirty-three liver transplants were included in the study. On unadjusted analysis, blood loss, transfusion requirement, postoperative complications, and graft/patient survival were equivalent for the 3 different techniques. To account for possible confounding patient variables, propensity matching was performed. Analysis of the propensity-matched cohorts also demonstrated similar outcomes for caval interposition versus caval-preserving approaches.

Conclusions

In the modern era at centers with a multidisciplinary team, the importance of specific liver transplant technique is minimized. Full or partial cross-clamping of the inferior vena cava is feasible without the use of venovenous bypass.

Caval reconstruction techniques in orthotopic liver transplantation

There are several caval reconstruction techniques currently in use for orthotopic liver transplantation. These include caval replacement or the conventional technique, performed with or without venovenous bypass, piggyback technique with anastomosis with two or three hepatic veins with or without cavotomy and modifications of the piggyback technique including end-to-side and side-to-side cavocaval anastomosis. There are few randomized controlled trials comparing the use of these techniques and our knowledge of their comparability is based on a few multi- and many single-center retrospective and prospective reviews. Although there are advantages and disadvantages for each technique, it is advisable that the surgeon perform the technique with which they have the most the experience and at which they are the most skilled as excellent outcomes can be obtained with any of the caval reconstruction options discussed.

Conventional versus piggyback techniques: do they have different outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Conventional orthotopic liver transplant includes resection of the recipient's native liver, together with the retrohepatic inferior vena cava, whereas with the piggyback technique, the recipient's vena cava is preserved and the donor's vena cava is anastomosed with the recipient's hepatic veins. So the caval flow is maintained during explantation, but on the other hand, the cava must be dissected completely from the liver, prolonging hepatic excision.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of conventional versus piggyback techniques. Primary outcomes were serious adverse events or complications, and secondary outcomes were graft survival for 3 and 12 months, quality of life, days in the intensive care unit and in the hospital, and days spent receiving mechanical ventilation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 3, 2007, to December 31, 2008, 120 liver transplant patients were divided into 2 groups: conventional (n = 93) and piggyback (n = 27).

RESULTS

Intraoperative and postoperative complications, graft survival for 3 and 12 months, quality of life, and hospital stay did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. However, the stay in the intensive care unit (median, 2 vs 3 days; range, 1-101 vs 1-60 days) and the number of days on ventilatory support (median, 1 vs 2 days; range, 0-41 vs 1-60 days) were notably lower in the conventional group.

CONCLUSION

The conventional liver transplant technique had significantly better results than the piggyback technique in terms of length of stay in the intensive care unit and duration of mechanical ventilation.

Preservation of the patent umbilical vein during a recipient hepatectomy: case report

Clamping of the portal vein during a recipient hepatectomy during the anhepatic phase causes venous stagnation and hemodynamic instability. To prevent this, a temporary portocaval shunt is placed at some centers. This case report shows the patent umbilical vein of a patient undergoing a recipient hepatectomy, leading to a 20% reduction of pressure in the portal vein. Preservation of a patent umbilical vein may help prevent complications of high portal vein pressure during a recipient hepatectomy.

Perioperative management of liver transplantation with concurrent coronary artery disease: Report of two cases

Coronary artery disease (CAD), even if asymptomatic, has been known to complicate the perioperative management of patients undergoing liver transplantation. Perioperative outcome for such patients is worse than those without CAD despite improvement in risk stratification and management of CAD. We hereby report the successful perioperative management of two patients with CAD undergoing living-related liver transplantation. Maintaining systemic vascular resistance, goal-directed volume administration and surgical technique avoiding total clamping of IVC was the mainstay of stable intraoperative course. Moreover, a lower model for end stage liver disease (MELD) score at the time of liver transplant may also have been contributory to successful outcome in our patients.

Hanging of the hepatic veins septa: a safe control prior and during outflow anastomosis in liver transplantation

Inferior vena cava (IVC) preservation during orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is known as the "piggyback" technique. The end-to-side anastomosis is constructed between the graft's IVC and recipient's hepatic veins using a Satinsky side clamp applied in a transverse position. To stabilize the large Satinsky clamp and preserve a sufficient vascular stump after hepatectomy and before graft implantation, we propose a technical innovation consisting of hanging the septa between the left and middle hepatic vein and between the middle and right hepatic vein using 2 tapes. This technique showed some advantages when performing the caval outflow anastomosis, representing a further technical refinement of the piggyback end-to-side technique for the implantation on the 3 hepatic veins. From November 2001 to September 2012, we performed 272 consecutive OLT at our institution with the piggyback technique using the hanging of the hepatic veins septa in all cases. In conclusion, the hanging of the 3 hepatic veins septa presented in this study represents a simple, safe and reproducible technique for the outflow anastomosis using the piggyback technique.

Repeat endovascular treatment of recurring hepatic artery stenoses in orthotopic liver transplantation

Hepatic artery stenosis (HAS) is a complication that impacts the results of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Interventional radiological techniques are important therapeutic options for HAS. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the outcome of repeated radiological treatments in recurring HAS after OLT. Of the 941 patients who underwent OLT at our center from January 1998 to September 2010, 48 (5%) were diagnosed with HAS, 37 (77%) of whom underwent transluminal interventional therapy with the placement of an endovascular stent. Success rate, complications, hepatic artery patency and follow-up were reviewed. After stent placement, artery patency was achieved in all patients. Three patients developed complications, including arterial dissection and hematoma. HAS recurrence was observed in 9 patients (24%), and hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) occurred in 4 (11%). Radiological interventions were repeated 10 times in 8 patients without complications. At a median follow-up of 66 months (range 10-158), hepatic artery patency was observed in 35 cases (94.6%). The 5-year rates for graft and patient survival were 82.3% and 87.7%, respectively. Restenosis may occur in one-third of patients after endovascular treatment for thrombosis and HAS, but the long-term outcomes of iterative radiological treatment for HAS indicate a high rate of success.

Side-to-side cavocavostomy in adult piggyback liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to perform a retrospective study that described the anastomosis technique as well as the complications of side-to-side cavo-caval reconstruction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From June 1998 to April 2011, we performed 284 liver transplantations including 10 adults with live donor organs. In all cases but 2 (272), cavo-caval reconstruction was performed using side-to-side cavo-caval (STSCC) anastomosis. In 19 cases (6.9%), we also carried out an end-to-side temporary porto-caval shunt (TPCS). In 17 cases (6.2%) the technique was performed for retransplantation.

RESULTS

STSCC anastomosis was technically feasible in all but 2 cases, regardless of the recipient's vena cava, anatomic factors, or graft size. Mean operative time for the STSCC was 13 minutes (range, 6-25). Routine Doppler ultrasonography was performed intraoperatively at the end of the surgery. There was no case of cava stump thrombosis. Complications associated with this technique were limited to 2 patients. One complication was torsion due to donor graft/recipient mismatch, which was successfully treated surgically by falciform ligament fixation. The second complication was only evident by sinusoidal congestion and was managed nonoperatively. Seventeen cases were uneventful for retransplant recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

STSCC during piggyback liver transplantation is safe and can be performed in the retransplantation setting, with a low incidence of venous outflow obstruction that can be associated with the traditional piggyback technique. Our data suggest that donor graft to recipient mismatch is not an absolute contraindication when proper body size match is considered. A wide anastomosis with typical recipient hepatic vein inclusion is warranted with routine postanastomotic Doppler ultrasonography.

Does caval reconstruction technique affect early graft function after liver transplantation? A preliminary analysis

BACKGROUND

In the past decades, the inferior vena cava (IVC) reconstruction technique has undergone several evolutions, such as biopump, piggyback technique (PB), and laterolateral approach (LLPB). Several advantages are reported comparing the PB technique to biopump use. However, comparison between PB and LLPB has not been as well investigated. The aim of this study was to compare the results in terms of immediate graft function and intermediate graft survival among 3 subgroups characterized by distinct caval reconstruction techniques.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 200 consecutive adult patients who underwent liver transplantation from January 2001 to December 2009. The patients were stratified according to 3 caval reconstructive techniques: biopump (n=135), PB (n=32) and LLPB (n=33).

RESULTS

The LLPB group showed the shortest cold and warm ischemia times and the best immediate postoperative graft function. Survival analysis revealed LLPB patients to present the best 1-year graft survival rates: namely, 90.9% versus 75.0% and 74.1% among the PB and biopump groups, respectively (log-rank tests: LLPB vs biopump: P=.03; LLPB vs PB: P=.05). In our experience, LLPB showed the best graft survivals with an evident reduction in both cold and warm ischemia times. However, it is hard to obtain an irrefutable conclusion owing to the retrospective nature of this study, the small sample, and the different periods in which the groups were transplanted.

CONCLUSIONS

LLPB technique was a safe procedure that minimized the sequelal of ischemia-reperfusion damage. This technique yielded results superior to venovenous bypass. No definitive conclusions can to be obtained in this study comparing classic PB or LLPB.

Cavo-caval intervention stent insertion after deceased-donor liver transplantation using side-to-side piggyback technique: report of a case

Liver transplantation with preservation of the recipient vena cava (piggyback technique) has been performed as an alternative to the conventional method. Outflow disturbance or obstruction of the vena cava in the early period after liver transplantation is associated with high morbidity and mortality. We used side-to-side cavo-caval anastomosis (modified piggyback technique) in a deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for venous outflow reconstruction. On postoperative day 9, the patient developed abdominal discomfort, and abnormal liver function showing serum total bilirubin of 6.2 mg/dl and serum AST/ALT of 297/597 IU/L. Doppler ultrasound showed mono-phasic wave forms of the hepatic vein. Computed tomography showed focal narrowing of 9.5 mm×12 mm in diameter at the cavo-caval anastomosis site. Liver biopsy was showed that there was no evidence of acute allograft rejection. Direct venogram showed stenosis of the cavo-caval anastomosis with a pressure gradient of 12 mmHg. An interventional stent was inserted in the stenotic site of the inferior vena cava, and the pressure gradient decreased to 2 mmHg. He was discharged from hospital on postoperative day 23 without any other complications. Herein we report a case of deceased-donor liver transplantation using the modified piggyback technique, who received an inferior vena cava stent due to stricture of the reconstructed orifice of the vena cava.

Development of an improved pig model of piggyback liver transplantation with temporary portacaval shunting

AIM: To improve the piggy-back orthotopic liver transplantation (PBOLT) technique in pigs and to enhance the survival rate of pigs after liver transplantation.

METHODS: Pigs were divided into control group and experimental group. The inferior caval vein was separated from the liver of recipients by curettage and aspiration using Peng's multifunctional operative dissector in the control group. Temporary portacaval shunting was added in the experimental group to reduce congestion in the portal system during anhepatic phase.

RESULTS: The PBOLT procedures were performed in eight pairs of pigs in both the control group and experimental group, with a success rate of 87.5% and 100%, respectively. There were significant differences in cold ischemia time (142.8 min ± 7.4 min vs 155.6 min ± 8.3 min, P = 0.006), anhepatic phase duration (25.8 min ± 1.3 min vs 36.3 min ± 1.0 min, P = 0.000), and operation time (264.1 min ± 9.5 min vs 277.3 min ± 8.6 min, P = 0.012) between the two groups though no significant difference was noted in mean bleeding volume (892.5 mL ± 113.9 mL vs 888.8 mL ± 93.7 mL, P = 0.94). The 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-day survival rates were 87.5% and 100%, 25% and 100%, 12.5% and 87.5%, and 0% and 87.5% in the control group and experimental group, respectively. On day 10 after PBOLT, 87.5% of pigs of the experimental group were still alive (P = 0.000).

CONCLUSION: PBOLT with temporary portacaval shunting can maintain hemodynamic stability and relieve congestion of the portal system in pigs during liver transplantation. Control of gastrointestinal congestion is key to the success of liver transplantation and can raise the survival rate of pigs after liver transplantation.

A single-center experience of 500 liver transplants using the modified piggyback technique by Belghiti

Over the past 4 decades, the surgical techniques of liver transplantation (LTx) have permanently evolved and been modified. Among these, the modified piggyback (MPB) technique by Belghiti offers specific advantages. The objective of this study was to present our single-center experience with the MPB technique in 500 cases. Recipients' perioperative data were prospectively collected and evaluated. Postoperative and specific complications, stay in the intensive and intermediate care unit, and the mortality rate with cause of death were analyzed. Most recipients were classified as Child C (49.1%). For the patients who underwent LTx for the first time, alcoholic (23.9%) and viral (22.2%) cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (15.1%) were the prevalent indications. The overall median warm ischemia time, anastomosis duration, and operative time were 45, 108, and 320 minutes, respectively. The median intraoperative blood loss was 1500 mL. A venovenous bypass was never needed to maintain hemodynamic stability. Only in a few cases was temporary inferior vena cava clamping necessary. Most prominent surgical complications were hemorrhage, hematoma, and wound dehiscence. Renal failure occurred in 6.2% of patients. The overall median stay in the intensive and intermediate care unit was 14 days. The mortality rates within 30 and 90 days were 6.3% and 13.3%, respectively. No technique-related death occurred. The MPB technique by Belghiti is a feasible and simple LTx technique. The caval flow is preserved during the anhepatic phase, and this minimizes the need for venovenous bypass or portocaval shunt. This technique requires only 1 caval anastomosis, which is easy to perform with a short anhepatic phase. To minimize the risk of outflow obstruction, attention should be paid by doing a wide cavocavostomy cranially to the donor inferior vena cava in a door-lock manner. This technique can be applied in almost all patients undergoing LTx for the first time and liver retransplantation as well.

Temporary porto-caval shunt utility during orthotopic liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION

In liver transplantation (OLT) a porto-caval shunt is a well-defined technique practiced by many surgeons in several centers.

METHODS

We considered 186 cadaveric OLT patients who underwent a cavo-cavostomy-type reconstruction; they were divided into two groups: those in whom we performed a porto-caval shunt (group A) and those in whose we did not (group B). We evaluated several variables: warm and total ischemia time, intraoperative blood and fresh frozen plasma transfusions, crystalloid and colloid requirements, blood loss, operative duration, hemodynamic intraoperative changes and diuresis, length of hospital stay, and creatinine values at days 1 and 2, and at discharge day.

RESULTS

Total and warm ischemic time differed significantly between the two groups. Infusion of blood, fresh frozen plasma, colloid, and crystalloid did not significantly differ. Blood loss was lower, and intraoperative diuresis was not significantly increased in group A subjects. Postoperative hospitalizations were 16.5 and 17.8 days and operative times, 504 and 611 minutes in the two groups. Both cardiac index and ejection fraction values during the anhepatic phase were significantly greater among group A than group B patients. PAD at the two phases was greater in group B. The PAS was significantly different only at reperfusion time. Creatinine values were significantly different at discharge. Better survival was shown for group A patients over group B subjects.

CONCLUSION

The results presented herein confirmed that a porto-caval shunt during OLT was a safe, useful expedient contributing to an improved hemodynamic status and a better time distribution in the various phases of liver transplantation.

The need for venovenous bypass in liver transplantation

Since introduction of the conventional liver transplantation (CLTx) by Starzl, which was based on the resection of recipient inferior vena cava (IVC) along the liver, the procedure has undergone several refinements. Successful use of venovenous bypass (VVB) was first introduced by Shaw et al., although in recent decades there has been controversy regarding the routine use of VVB during CLTx. With development of piggyback liver transplantation (PLTx), the use of caval clamping and VVB is avoided, leading to fewer complications related to VVB. However, some authors still advocate VVB in PLTx. The great diversity among centers in their use of VVB during CLTx, or even along the PLTx technique, has led to confusion regarding the indication setting for VVB. For this reason, we present an overview of the use of VVB in CLTx, the target of patients for whom VVB could be beneficial, and the needs assessment of VVB for patients undergoing PLTx. Recent studies have shown that with the advancement of surgical skills, refinement of surgical techniques, and improvements in anesthesiology, there are only limited indications for doing CLTx with VVB routinely. PLTx with preservation of IVC can be performed in almost all primary transplants and in the majority of re-transplantations without the need for VVB. Nevertheless, in a few selective cases with severe intra-operative hemodynamic instability, or with a failed test of transient IVC occlusion, the application of VVB is still justifiable. These indications should be judged intra-operatively and the decision is based on each center's preference.

End-to-side caval anastomosis in adult piggyback liver transplantation

No consensus exists regarding the optimal reconstruction of the cavo-caval anastomosis in piggyback orthotopic liver transplantation (PB-LT). The aim of this study was to analyze our experience with end-to-side (ES) cavo-cavostomy. Outcome parameters were patient and graft survival and surgical complications. During the period 1995-2002 146 full-size PB-LT in 137 adult patients were performed with ES cavo-cavostomy without the routine use of temporary portocaval shunt (TPCS). In 12 patients (8%) this technique was used for implantation of second or third grafts. Veno-venous bypass was not used in any case and TPCS was performed only in eight patients (6%). One-, three- and five-yr patient and graft survival were 84%, 79% and 75%, and 81%, 74% and 69%, respectively. The median number of intraoperative transfusion of packed red blood cells (RBC) was 2.0 (range 0-33) and 30% of the patients (n = 43) did not require any RBC transfusion. Surgical complications of various types were observed after 49 LT (34%) and none of the complications was specifically related to the technique of ES cavo-cavostomy. Our experience indicates that PB-LT with ES cavo-cavostomy is a safe procedure, can safely be performed without the routine use of a TPCS, has a very low risk of venous outflow obstruction and can also be used effectively during retransplantations.

Analysis of differences in outcome of two European liver transplant centers

Authors analyzed the differences in the outcome of two European liver transplant centers differing in case volume and experience. The first was the Transplantation and Surgical Clinic, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary (SEB) and the second the University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands (UMCG). We investigated if such differences could be explained. The 1-, 3- and 5-year patient survival in the UMCG was 86%, 80%, and 77% compared with 65%, 56%, and 55% in SEB. Graft survival at the same time points was 79%, 71%, and 66% in the UMCG and 62%, 55%, and 53% in SEB. Significant differences were present regarding the donor and recipient age, diagnosis mix, disease severity and operation variables, per-operative transfusion rate, vascular complications, postoperative infection rate, and need for renal replacement. To determine factors correlating with survival, a separate uni- and multivariate analysis was performed in each center individually, between study parameters and patient survival. In both centers, peri-operative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion rate was a significant predictor for patient survival. The difference in blood loss can be explained by different operation techniques and shorter operation time in SEB, with consequently less time spent on hemostasis. It was jointly concluded that measures to reduce blood loss by adapting the operation technique might lead to improved survival and reduced morbidity.

Donor graft outflow venoplasty in living donor liver transplantation

Hepatic venous outflow reconstruction is a key to successful living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) because its obstruction leads to graft dysfunction and eventual loss. Inclusion or reconstruction of most draining veins is ideal to ensure graft venous drainage and avoids acute congestion in the donor graft. We developed donor graft hepatic venoplasty techniques for multiple hepatic veins that can be used in either right- or left-lobe liver transplantation. In left-lobe grafts, venoplasty consisting of the left hepatic vein and adjacent veins such as the left superior vein, middle hepatic vein, or segment 3 vein is performed to create a single, wide orifice without compromising outflow for anastomosis with the recipient's vena cava. In right lobe graft where a right hepatic vein (RHV) is adjacent with a significantly-sized segment 8 vein, accessory RHV, and/or inferior RHV, venoplasty of the RHV with the accessory RHV, inferior RHV, and/or segment 8 vein is performed to create a single orifice for single outflow reconstruction with the recipient's RHV or vena cava. Of 35 venoplasties, 2 developed hepatic venous stenoses which were promptly managed with percutaneous interventional radiologic procedures. No graft was lost due to hepatic venous stenosis. In conclusion, these techniques avoid interposition grafts, are easily performed at the back table, simplify graft-to-recipient cava anastomosis, and avoid venous outflow narrowing.

Caval Anastomosis in Liver Transplantation: Prospective Experience of Verona Liver Transplantation Program

Caval anastomosis in liver transplantation has been modified to avoid outflow complications. Classic cava replacement is rarely indicated; most liver transplantation teams use a piggy-back (PB) technique. At the start of our liver transplantation program, we opted for a latero-lateral (L-L) caval anastomosis. In our prospective experience, the L-L caval anastamosis was safe and feasible in all 24 adult patients. No vascular complications occurred. Graft and patient survival rates were both 96% at 11 months follow-up.

Venous outflow reconstructions with the piggyback technique in liver transplantation: a single-center experience of 431 cases

The ideal method of venous outflow reconstruction with the piggyback technique (PB) in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is not well-established. The complications related to PB in 431 primary OLTs were analyzed comparing the orifices used for the anastomosis (cuff of the recipient left and middle hepatic veins [LM], LM with a >1 cm cavoplasty [LM+], or also including the right hepatic vein [LMR]). Treatment strategies and outcome were also evaluated. Twenty patients (4.6%) experienced complications: 13 of 120 (10.8%) with LM, four of 225 (1.8%) with LM+, and three of 86 (3.5%) with LMR (LM versus LM+: P < 0.0001; LM versus LMR: P = NS; LM+ versus LMR = NS). Balloon dilation was successful in 10 of 13 cases in which it was attempted (77%). Eight patients required retransplantation (40%). Three patients (0.7%) died from causes linked to stenosis. Five-year survival of patients with and without complications was 75% and 79%, respectively (P =NS); 5-year graft survival was 50% and 76%, respectively (P = 0.001). The stump formed by the recipient left and middle hepatic veins with a transversal incision >1 cm of the caval wall constantly provides an adequate width for the caval anastomosis with the PB.

Liver transplantation with preservation of the inferior vena cava. A comparison of conventional and piggyback techniques in adults

The aim of this study is to analyse a single centre's experience with two techniques of liver transplantation (OLT), conventional (CON-OLT) and piggyback (PB-ES), and to compare outcome in terms of survival, morbidity, mortality and post-operative liver function as well as operative characteristics. A consecutive series (1994-2000) of 167 adult primary OLT were analysed. Ninety-six patients had CON-OLT and 71 patients had PB-ES. In PB-ES group two revascularization protocols were used. In the first protocol reperfusion of the graft was performed first via the portal vein followed by the arterial anastomosis (PB-seq). In the second protocol the graft was reperfused simultaneously via portal vein and hepatic artery (PB-sim). One-, 3- and 5-yr patient survival in the CON-OLT and PB-ES groups were 90, 83 and 80%, and 83, 78 and 78%, respectively (p = ns). Graft survival at the same time points was 81, 73 and 69%, and 78, 69 and 65%, respectively (p = ns). Apart from the higher number of patients with cholangitis and sepsis in CON-OLT group, morbidity, retransplantation rate and post-operative liver and kidney function were not different between the two groups. The total operation time was not different between both groups (9.4 h in PB-ES vs. 10.0 h in CON-OLT), but in PB-ES group cold and warm ischaemia time (CIT and WIT), revascularization time (REVT), functional and anatomic anhepatic phases (FAHP and AAHP) were significantly shorter (8.9 h vs. 10.7 h, 54 min vs. 63 min, 82 min vs. 114 min, 118 min vs. 160 min and 87 min vs. 114 min, respectively, p < 0.05). RBC use in the PB-ES group was lower compared to the CON-OLT group (4.0 min vs. 10.0 units, p < 0.05). Except for WIT and REVT there were no differences in operative characteristics between PB-Sim and PB-Seq groups. The WIT was significantly longer in PB-Sim group compared with PB-Seq group (64 min vs. 50 min, p < 0.05); however REVT was significantly shorter in PB-Sim group (64 min vs. 97 min, p < 0.05). Results of this study show that both techniques are comparable in survival and morbidity; however PB-ES results in shorter AAHP, FAHP, REVT and WIT as well as less RBC use. In the PB-ES group there seems to be no advantage for any of the revascularization protocols.

Resection prior to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and postoperative course of liver transplantation (LT) in cirrhotic patients who underwent liver resection prior to LT for HCC.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Although LT provides longer survival than liver resection for treatment of small HCCs, donor shortage and long LT wait time may argue against LT. The feasibility and survival following LT after hepatic resection have not been previously examined.

METHODS

Between 1991 and 2001, among 107 patients who underwent LT for HCC, 88 met Mazzafero's criteria upon pathologic analysis of the explant. Of these, 70 underwent primary liver transplantation (PLT) and 18 liver resection prior to secondary liver transplantation (SLT) for recurrence (n = 11), deterioration of liver function (n = 4), or high risk for recurrence (n = 3). Perioperative and postoperative factors and long-term survival were compared.

RESULTS

Comparison of PLT and SLT groups at the time of LT revealed similar median age (53 vs. 55 years), sex, and etiology of liver disease (alcohol/viral B/C/other). In the SLT group, the mean time between liver resection and listing for LT was 20 months (range 1-84 months). Overall time on LT waiting list of the two groups was similar (3 vs. 5 months). Pathologic analysis after LT revealed similar tumor size (2.2 vs. 2.3 cm) and number (1.6 vs. 1.7). Perioperative and postoperative courses were not different in terms of operative time (551 vs. 530 minutes), blood loss (1191 vs. 1282 mL), transfusion (3 vs. 2 units), ICU (9 vs. 10 days) or hospital stay (32 vs. 31 days), morbidity (51% vs. 56%) or 30-day mortality (5.7% vs. 5.6%). During a median follow-up of 32 months (3 to 158 months), 3 patients recurred after PLT and one after SLT. After transplantation, 3- and 5-year overall survivals were not different between groups (82 vs. 82% and 59 vs. 61%).

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, liver resection prior to transplantation does not increase the morbidity or impair long-term survival following LT. Therefore, liver resection prior to transplantation can be integrated in the treatment strategy for HCC.

Cavocaval adult liver transplantation and retransplantation without venovenous bypass and without portocaval shunting: a prospective feasibility study in adult liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

The original method of liver transplantation (LT) included recipient inferior vena cava (IVC) resection and the use of extracorporeal venovenous bypass (VVB). Refinements in technique permit transplantation to be done with IVC preservation and without VVB use.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between November 1993 and November 2000, 202 consecutive grafts were performed in 188 adults (>/=16 years of age). Twelve patients (6.4%) received two and three retransplants (re-LT). Split grafting was performed 19 times (19 of 202 grafts, 9.4%). Risk factors included United Network of Organ Sharing status I (n=30, 16%), previous right upper abdominal surgery (n=32, 17.1%), caudate lobe encirclement of IVC (n=65, 32.2%), IVC (n=24, 11.9%), and splanchnic venous modification (n=58, 30.9%), transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (n=34, 16.8%), giant (>5 kg) liver tumor (n=6, 3%), septic necrosis of the caudate lobe (n=1, 0.5%), and previous cavocaval (n=13, 6.4%) or classical LT (n=5, 2.5%).

RESULTS

IVC preservation, avoidance of IVC cross clamping and of VVB use were possible in 98.9%, 93%, and 99.5% of 183 primary LT and in 89.5%, 84.2%, and 89.5% of 19 re-LT. Temporary portocaval shunting was never applied. Perioperative mortality was 1.2%. There was no allotransfusion in 73 (36%) grafts and 45 (22%) patients were immediately extubated. Permanent hepatic vein and caval problems were encountered in three (1.5%) grafts. One patient needed stent placement to treat IVC stenosis. Actual 3- and 12-month patient survival for whole, re-LT, and right-lobe split LT groups were 94.7%, 94.1%, 94.7%, 88.2%, 94.1%, and 89%. Three-month graft survival rates for these groups were 92.6%, 94.7%, and 84.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

LT with IVC preservation and without VVB use and portocaval shunting is possible in nearly all primary transplants and in the majority of re-LT.

Hepatic venoplasty in living-donor liver transplantation using right lobe graft with middle hepatic vein

Inclusion of the middle hepatic vein in a right lobe graft from a living-donor may improve venous drainage and avoid graft dysfunction, but reconstruction of the middle hepatic vein is technically difficult. We developed a hepatic venoplasty technique, which was applied in eight consecutive right lobe liver transplantations. The right and middle hepatic veins of the graft were joined together to form a triangular cuff for a single anastomosis to the recipient's inferior vena cava. Hepatic venoplasty was successful in all cases, and no interposition graft was required. Venovenous bypass was not used. All grafts showed immediate function, and no hepatic venous outflow obstruction was observed. There was no reoperation and the graft survival rate was 100%. This hepatic venoplasty technique can be applied systemically as a standard one in right lobe liver graft with the middle hepatic vein to simplify the recipient hepatectomy and to obviate venous outflow obstruction.