Hepatic venous outflow reconstruction in adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation without middle hepatic vein:

Middle hepatic vein allocation in adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION

When adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using the right lobe is carried out, there is disagreement between different centers as to whether the middle hepatic vein (MHV) is included or retained by the donor.

METHODS

Ninety-two cases of adult-to-adult LDLT were performed between January 2007 and December 2010 using a right lobe graft. A protocol for MHV allocation was applied according to the donor's remnant liver volume, overall graft/recipient weight ratio (GRWR), and anatomic characteristics of the hepatic vein. Among these cases, there were 44 cases with MHV and 48 cases without MHV. No blood products were used during donor operations, and there was no occurrence of death or small-for-size syndrome after operations.

RESULTS

There were statistical differences between Groups I and II according to the ages of the recipients, the actual GRWR, the weights of grafts, the cold storage time of grafts, etc. All patients recovered smoothly; one-, three-, and five-yr survival rates of patients were 96.7%, 92.4%, and 92.4% and of grafts were 95.7%, 91.3%, and 91.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

With a reasonable allocation protocol and precise evaluation, either MHV harvested or MHV retained to the donor during adult-to-adult LDLT using the right lobe can achieve good outcome.

Venous Outflow Reconstruction in Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant: Outcome of a Policy for Right Lobe Grafts without the Middle Hepatic Vein

Introduction. The difficulty and challenge of recovering a right lobe graft without MHV drainage is reconstructing the outflow tract of the hepatic veins. With the inclusion or the reconstruction of the MHV, early graft function is satisfactory. The inclusion of the MHV or not in the donor's right lobectomy should be based on sound criteria to provide adequate functional liver mass for recipient, while keeping risk to donor to the minimum. Objective. Reviewing the results of a policy for right lobe grafts transplant without MHV and analyzing methods of venous reconstruction related to outcome. Materials and Methods. We have two groups Group A (with more than one HV anast.) (n = 16) and Group B (single HV anast.) (n = 24). Both groups were compared regarding indications for reconstruction, complications, and operative details and outcomes, besides describing different modalities used for venous reconstruction. Results. Significant increase in operative details time in Group A. When comparison came to complications and outcomes in terms of laboratory findings and overall hospital stay, there were no significant differences. Three-month and one-year survival were better in Group A. Conclusion. Adult LDLT is safely achieved with better outcome to recipients and donors by recovering the right lobe without MHV, provided that significant MHV tributaries (segments V, VIII more than 5 mm) are reconstructed, and any accessory considerable inferior right hepatic veins (IRHVs) or superficial RHVs are anastomosed.

Reconstruction of the middle hepatic vein tributary in adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

In adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), the use of a right lobe graft without the middle hepatic vein (MHV) can cause hepatic congestion and disturbance of venous drainage. To solve this problem, we successfully used cadaveric venous allografts preserved in 4 °C University of Wisconsin (UW) solution within 10 days as interposition veins for drainage of the paramedian portion of the right lobe in adult LDLT.

METHODS

From June 2007 to January 2008, 11 adult LDLT patients received modified right liver grafts. The major MHV tributaries (greater than 5 mm in diameter) of 9 cases were preserved and reconstructed using cadaveric interposition vein allografts that had been stored for 1 to 10 days in 4 °C UW solution. The regeneration of the paramedian sector of the grafts and the patency of the interposition vein allografts were examined by Doppler ultrasonography after the operation.

RESULTS

MHV tributaries were reconstructed in 9 recipients. Only 1 recipient died of renal failure and severe pulmonary infection on day 9 after transplantation without any hemiliver venous outflow obstruction. The other 8 recipients achieved long-term survival with a median follow-up of 30 months. The cumulative patency rates of the 8 recipients were 63.63% (7/11), 45.45% (5/11), 45.45% (5/11) and 36.36% (4/11) at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months, respectively. Regeneration of the paramedian sectors was equivalent.

CONCLUSION

The cadaveric venous allograft preserved in 4 °C UW solution within 10 days serves as a useful alternative for interposition veins in facilitating implantation of a right lobe graft and guarantees outflow of the MHV.

Management of venous stenosis in living donor liver transplant recipients

AIM: To retrospectively evaluate the management and outcome of venous obstruction after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS: From February 1999 to May 2009, 1 intraoperative hepatic vein (HV) tension induced HV obstruction and 5 postoperative HV anastomotic stenosis occurred in 6 adult male LDLT recipients. Postoperative portal vein (PV) anastomotic stenosis occurred in 1 pediatric left lobe LDLT. Patients ranged in age from 9 to 56 years (median, 44 years). An air balloon was used to correct the intraoperative HV tension. Emergent surgical reoperation, transjugular HV balloon dilatation with stent placement and transfemoral venous HV balloon dilatation was performed for HV stenosis on days 3, 15, 50, 55, and 270 after LDLT, respectively. Balloon dilatation followed with stent placement via superior mesenteric vein was performed for the pediatric PV stenosis 168 d after LDLT.

RESULTS: The intraoperative HV tension was corrected with an air balloon. The recipient who underwent emergent reoperation for hepatic stenosis died of hemorrhagic shock and renal failure 2 d later. HV balloon dilatation via the transjugular and transfemoral venous approach was technically successful in all patients. The patient with early-onset HV stenosis receiving transjugular balloon dilatation and stent placement on the 15th postoperative day left hospital 1 wk later and disappeared, while the patient receiving the same interventional procedures on the 50th postoperative day died of graft failure and renal failure 2 wk later. Two patients with late-onset HV stenosis receiving balloon dilatation have survived for 8 and 4 mo without recurrent stenosis and ascites, respectively. Balloon dilatation and stent placement via the superior mesenteric venous approach was technically successful in the pediatric left lobe LDLT, and this patient has survived for 9 mo without recurrent PV stenosis and ascites.

CONCLUSION: Intraoperative balloon placement, emergent reoperation, proper interventional balloon dilatation and stent placement can be effective as a way to manage hepatic and PV stenosis during and after LDLT.