Outcomes of 385 adult-to-adult living donor liver transplant recipients: a report from the A2ALL Consortium

The Impact of Donor Body Mass Index on Safety and Outcomes in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: An Analysis of the National United States Database

Background

The prevalence of obesity is rising in the general population. Donor obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) may potentially reduce the donor pool and impact outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

Methods

We utilized the national transplant database to investigate the impact of donor obesity on donor and recipient outcomes. This was a retrospective cohort study of all LDLTs performed in the United States between January 2010 and June 2023. Outcomes of interest were analyzed by univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Patient and graft survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional analysis.

Results

Six hundred seventy-four donors with obesity and 3498 donors without obesity were analyzed. Donors with obesity had higher rates of readmission within 1 y of donation (15.9% versus 11.6%; P = 0.003). The risk of readmission was significantly different between 6 wk and 6 mo of donation (8.8% versus 5.9%; P = 0.036). Donor body mass index (odds ratio [OR], 1.460; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.129-1.999; P = 0.004) and preoperative alkaline phosphatase levels (OR, 1.005; 95% CI, 1.000-1.011; P = 0.038) were independent predictors of donor readmission. High LDLT center volume was associated with reduced odds of donor readmission (OR, 0.509; 95% CI, 0.373-0.694; P < 0.001). Graft and recipient survival was comparable.

Conclusions

Selection of living donors with obesity may be a potential avenue to increase the available donor pool without compromising recipient outcomes; however, they are at an increased risk for readmission between 6 wk and 6 mo of donation. The reason for readmission requires further study.

Indications and results of right-lobe living donor liver transplantation

The shortage of deceased liver donor organs over the years has always posed the need to expand the donor pool. A viable alternative to deceased donors is that of the living donor. Indeed, the living donor in liver transplantation, initially in pediatric transplantation, but for several years now also in adult transplantation, is a more than viable alternative to deceased liver donation. In fact, right liver lobe donation has proven to be a surgical procedure with low impact on the donor's life in terms of morbidity and mortality, with excellent results in recipients of such organs. In recent years, an increasing number of studies have been published that show excellent results in right-lobe living donor liver transplantation, encouraging this practice not only in countries that have historically had a shortage of deceased donor organs, such as Asian countries, but making it a practice of increasing use in Western countries as well. In addition, thanks to improvements in surgical technique and the experience of high-volume centers, this surgery has also begun to be performed using minimally invasive surgical techniques, allowing us to envision ever better outcomes for both donor and recipient in the coming years.

Early Graft Failure After Living-Donor Liver Transplant

BACKGROUND

Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been increasing in the USA. While data exist on longer-term patient and graft outcomes, a contemporary analysis of short-term outcomes is needed.

AIM

Evaluate short-term (30-day) graft failure rates and identify predictors associated with these outcomes.

METHODS

Adult (≥ 18) LDLT recipients from 01/2004 to 12/2021 were analyzed from the United States Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Graft status at 30 days was assessed with graft failure defined as retransplantation or death. Comparison of continuous and categorical variables was performed and a multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors of early graft failure.

RESULTS

During the study period, 4544 LDLTs were performed with a graft failure rate of 3.4% (155) at 30 days. Grafts from male donors (aOR: 0.63, CI 0.44-0.89), right lobe grafts (aOR: 0.40, CI 0.27-0.61), recipients aged > 60 years (aOR: 0.52, CI 0.32-0.86), and higher recipient albumin (aOR: 0.73, CI 0.57-0.93) were associated with superior early graft outcomes, whereas Asian recipient race (vs. White; aOR: 3.75, CI 1.98-7.10) and a history of recipient PVT (aOR: 2.7, CI 1.52-4.78) were associated with inferior outcomes. LDLTs performed during the most recent 2016-2021 period (compared to 2004-2009 and 2010-2015) resulted in significantly superior outcomes (aOR: 0.45, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that while short-term adult LDLT graft failure is uncommon, there are opportunities for optimizing outcomes by prioritizing right lobe donation, improving candidate nutritional status, and careful pre-transplant risk assessment of candidates with known PVT. Notably, a period effect exists whereby increased LDLT experience in the most recent era correlated with improved outcomes.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Adults With High Model for End-stage Liver Disease Score: The US Experience

BACKGROUND

Outcomes after living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) at high Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores are not well characterized in the United States.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data in adults listed for their first liver transplant alone between 2002 and 2021. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the association of MELD score (<20, 20-24, 25-29, and ≥30) and patient/graft survival after LDLT and the association of donor type (living versus deceased) on outcomes stratified by MELD.

RESULTS

There were 4495 LDLTs included with 5.9% at MELD 25-29 and 1.9% at MELD ≥30. LDLTs at MELD 25-29 and ≥30 LDLT have substantially increased since 2010 and 2015, respectively. Patient survival at MELD ≥30 was not different versus MELD <20: adjusted hazard ratio 1.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.88). However, graft survival was worse: adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.69 (95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.68). Compared with deceased-donor liver transplant, LDLT led to superior patient survival at MELD <20 (aHR 0.92; P = 0.024) and 20-24 (aHR 0.70; P < 0.001), equivalent patient survival at MELD 25-29 (aHR 0.97; P = 0.843), but worse graft survival at MELD ≥30 (aHR 1.68, P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Although patient survival remains acceptable, the benefits of LDLT may be lost at MELD ≥30.

Outcomes of Living Donor Liver Transplantation Compared with Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation

Improved surgical techniques and revolutionary immunosuppressive agents have enhanced the long-term outcomes for liver transplantation, with more patients seeking the benefits of liver transplantation, and demand is high. In this review, we hope to delineate where the current data supporting favorable outcomes in using live donation to expand the donor pool compared with the outcomes seen in deceased donor liver transplants. Advances in surgery, transplant and center comfort has made live donor transplantation an asset with favorable patient outcomes in comparison to decease donor data.

Transplant oncology - Current indications and strategies to advance the field

Liver transplantation (LT) was originally described by Starzl as a promising strategy to treat primary malignancies of the liver. Confronted with high recurrence rates, indications drifted towards non-oncologic liver diseases with LT finally evolving from a high-risk surgery to an almost routine surgical procedure. Continuously improving outcomes following LT and evolving oncological treatment strategies have driven renewed interest in transplant oncology. This is not only reflected by constant refinements to the criteria for LT in patients with HCC, but especially by efforts to expand indications to other primary and secondary liver malignancies. With new patient-centred oncological treatments on the rise and new technologies to expand the donor pool, the field has the chance to come full circle. In this review, we focus on the concept of transplant oncology, current indications, as well as technical and ethical aspects in the context of donor organs as precious resources.

The role of reconstructive microsurgeons in liver transplantation-a narrative review

Background and Objective

Liver transplantation is a life-saving procedure, but also associated with complications. Hepatic artery thrombosis is one of the most devastating complications, especially for living donor liver transplantation. The application of microsurgical techniques for hepatic artery reconstruction has greatly reduced the risk of hepatic artery thrombosis. In this narrative review, we discuss the technical considerations and challenges faced in microsurgical reconstruction of hepatic artery in liver transplantation.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for keywords relating to "liver transplantation", "microsurgery", "living donor liver transplantation", "deceased donor liver transplantation", "hepatic artery", "hepatic artery thrombosis", "hepatic artery reconstruction" and "microsurgical anastomosis". Relevant articles pertaining to the technical considerations and challenges of microsurgery in liver transplantation were included.

Key Content and Findings

The conditions of liver transplantation pose unique challenges to the microsurgeon. Nonetheless, there are described strategies that can overcome these conditions, as well as technical details that may improve the outcomes of hepatic artery reconstruction. These strategies start from proper positioning of the patient, conscientious selection of donor and recipient hepatic vessels, and minimizing movements during critical microsurgical anastomosis. Technical details include techniques to overcome vessel delamination, size mismatch, poor quality vessels, and short vessel stump. This review also explores the outcomes of microsurgical hepatic arterial reconstruction.

Conclusions

There are various strategies to mitigate the challenges of microsurgery in liver transplant. Microsurgery improves the outcome of liver transplantation. Microsurgeons will continue to be a priceless resource that all liver transplant teams should have.

Increasing practice and acceptable outcomes of high-MELD living donor liver transplantation in the USA

Recent deceased-donor allocation changes in the United States may have increased high-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) living donor liver transplantation (LDLT); however, outcomes in these patients remain poorly defined. We aimed to examine the impact of the MELD score on LDLT outcomes. Using UNOS data (January 1, 2010-December 31, 2021), LDLT recipients were identified and stratified into low-MELD (<15), intermediate-MELD (15-24), and high-MELD (≥25) groups. We compared outcomes between MELD-stratified LDLT groups and between MELD-stratified LDLT and donation after brain death liver transplantation recipients. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis to compare graft survival rates and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling to identify factors associated with graft outcomes. Of 3558 LDLTs, 1605 (45.1%) were low-MELD, 1616 (45.4%) intermediate-MELD, and 337 (9.5%) high-MELD. Over the study period, the annual number of LDLTs increased from 282 to 569, and the proportion of high-MELD LDLTs increased from 3.9% to 7.7%. Graft survival was significantly higher in low-MELD versus high-MELD LDLT recipients (adjusted HR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.03-1.79); however, 5-year survival exceeded 70.0% in both groups. We observed no significant difference in graft survival between high-MELD LDLT and high-MELD donation after brain death liver transplantation recipients (adjusted HR: 1.25, 95% CI:0.99-1.58), with a 5-year survival of 71.5% and 77.3%, respectively. Low LDLT center volume (<3 LDLTs/year) and recipient life support requirement were both associated with inferior graft outcomes among high-MELD LDLT recipients. While higher MELD scores confer graft failure risk in LDLT, high-MELD LDLT outcomes are acceptable with similar outcomes to MELD-stratified donation after brain death liver transplantation recipients. Future practice guidance should consider the expansion of LDLT recommendations to high-MELD recipients in centers with expertise to help reduce donor shortage.

Feasibility and outcomes of living-donor liver transplantation utilizing the right hemi-liver graft with portal vein anatomical variations

PURPOSE

Portal vein (PV) reconstruction is a key factor for successful living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Anatomical variations of right PV (RPV) are encountered among potential donors.

METHODS

To evaluate a single center experience of reconstruction techniques for the right hemi-liver grafts with PV variations during the period between May 2004 and 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 915 recipients underwent LDLT, among them 52 (5.8%) had RPV anatomical variations. Type II PV was found in 7 cases (13.5%), which were reconstructed by direct venoplasty. Type III PV was found in 27 cases (51.9%). They were reconstructed by direct venoplasty in 2 cases (3.8%), Y graft interposition in 2 cases (3.8%), and in situ double PV anastomoses in 23 cases (44.2%). Type IV PV was found in 18 cases (34.6%) and was reconstructed by Y graft interposition in 9 cases (17.3%), and in situ double PV anastomoses in 9 cases (17.3%). Early right posterior PV stenosis occurred in 2 recipients (3.8%). Early PV thrombosis occurred in 3 recipients (5.8%). The median follow-up duration was 54.5 months (4 - 185). The 1-, 3-, and 5-years survival rates were 91.9%, 86%, and 81.2%, respectively. Late PV stenosis occurred in 2 recipients (3.8%) and was managed conservatively.

CONCLUSION

Utilization of potential living donors with RPV anatomic variations may help to expand the donor pool. We found that direct venoplasty and in situ dual PV anastomoses techniques were safe, feasible, and associated with successful outcomes.

Comparing High- and Low-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Living-Donor Liver Transplantation to Determine Clinical Efficacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (CHALICE Study)

INTRODUCTION

Various studies have demonstrated that low-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) recipients have better outcomes with improved patient survival than deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) recipients. LDLT recipients gain the most from being transplanted at MELD <25-30; however, some existing data have outlined that LDLT may provide equivalent outcomes in high-MELD and low-MELD patients, although the term "high" MELD is arbitrarily defined in the literature and various cut-off scores are outlined between 20 and 30, although most commonly, the dividing threshold is 25. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare LDLT in high-MELD with that in low-MELD recipients to determine patient survival and graft survival, as well as perioperative and postoperative complications.

METHODS

Following PROSPERO registration CRD-42021261501, a systematic database search was conducted for the published literature between 1990 and 2021 and yielded a total of 10 studies with 2183 LT recipients; 490 were HM-LDLT recipients and 1693 were LM-LDLT recipients.

RESULTS

Both groups had comparable mortality at 1, 3 and 5 years post-transplant (5-year HR 1.19; 95% CI 0.79-1.79; p-value 0.40) and graft survival (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.72, 1.63; p-value 0.71). No differences were observed in the rates of major morbidity, hepatic artery thrombosis, biliary complications, intra-abdominal bleeding, wound infection and rejection; however, the HM-LDLT group had higher risk for pulmonary infection, abdominal fluid collection and prolonged ICU stay.

CONCLUSIONS

The high-MELD LDLT group had similar patient and graft survival and morbidities to the low-MELD LDLT group, despite being at higher risk for pulmonary infection, abdominal fluid collection and prolonged ICU stay. The data, primarily sourced from high-volume Asian centers, underscore the feasibility of living donations for liver allografts in high-MELD patients. Given the rising demand for liver allografts, it is sensible to incorporate these insights into U.S. transplant practices.

Clinical trials reimagined

Clinical trials have been a central driver of change and have provided the evidence base necessary to advance new therapies for liver diseases. This review provides a perspective on the status of trials in hepatology and a vantage point into the emerging capabilities and external forces that will shape the conduct of clinical trials in the future. The adaptations to clinical trial operations in response to the disruptions by the COVID-19 pandemic and opportunities for innovation in hepatology trials are emphasized. Future trials in hepatology will be driven by unmet therapeutic needs and fueled by technological advances incorporating digital capabilities with expanded participant-derived data collection, computing, and analytics. Their design will embrace innovative trial designs adapted to these advances and that emphasize broader and more inclusive participant engagement. Their conduct will be further shaped by evolving regulatory needs and the emergence of new stakeholders in the clinical trials ecosystem. The evolution of clinical trials will offer unique opportunities to advance new therapeutics that will ultimately improve the lives of patients with liver diseases.

Outcomes of the Initial Phase of an Adult Living vs Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation Program in a Low-Volume Transplant Center: Integration of Hepatobiliary and Transplant Surgery

BACKGROUND

The development of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is clinically challenging, especially in a low-volume transplant program. We evaluated the short-term outcomes of LDLT and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) to demonstrate the feasibility of performing LDLT in a low-volume transplant and/or high-volume complex hepatobiliary surgery program during the initial phase.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of LDLT and DDLT in Chiang Mai University Hospital from October 2014 to April 2020. Postoperative complications and 1-year survival were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Forty patients who underwent LT in our hospital were analyzed. There were 20 LDLT patients and 20 DDLT patients. The operative time and hospital stay were significantly longer in the LDLT group than in the DDLT group. The incidence of complications in both groups was comparable, except for biliary complications, which were higher in the LDLT group. Bile leakage, found in 3 patients (15%), is the most common complication in a donor. The 1-year survival rates of both groups were also comparable.

CONCLUSION

Even during the initial phase of the low-volume transplant program, LDLT and DDLT had comparable perioperative outcomes. Surgical expertise in complex hepatobiliary surgery is necessary to facilitate effective LDLT, potentially increasing case volumes and promoting program sustainability.

Living Liver Donation Does not Significantly Affect Long-Term Life, Disability, or Medical Insurability

INTRODUCTION

The growing practice of living liver donation requires comprehensive understanding of the financial implications for living liver donors. While obtaining and maintaining insurance is important to financial health, little is known about the impact of liver donation on future insurability.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the donors' experiences with insurance following donation and identify the insurance provider-driven factors that contribute to donor insurability.

DESIGN

A two center cohort of living donors with donation between January 2000 and December 2018 (N = 442) were surveyed about postdonation insurance experiences. To understand insurance provider practices towards liver donors, life (n = 11) and disability (n = 4) insurance underwriters were asked to provide policy quotes for a standardized living liver donor profile.

RESULTS

Responses (N = 101) were received by August 2020 (response rate = 22.9%). Living liver donors reported owning life (58%), disability (35%), and medical (87%) insurance at rates comparable to the general population with low proportions reporting difficulty obtaining these insurance types (9%, 9%, 4%, respectively). Post-donation life insurance ownership was associated with post-donation employment (P = 0.01). Underwriter responses indicate life and disability insurability were adversely affected up to 12 months following donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Living liver donors did not have difficulty maintaining insurance in the long-term but should be counseled to purchase insurance prior to surgery as short-term insurability may be affected. Perception of difficulty obtaining insurance following donation remains of significant concern among living donors. Further collaboration between the transplant community and insurance companies is warranted.

Low utilization of adult-to-adult LDLT in Western countries despite excellent outcomes: International multicenter analysis of the US, the UK, and Canada

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers an opportunity to decrease the liver transplant waitlist and reduce waitlist mortality. We sought to compare donor and recipient characteristics and post-transplant outcomes after LDLT in the US, the UK, and Canada.

METHODS

This is a retrospective multicenter cohort-study of adults (≥18-years) who underwent primary LDLT between Jan-2008 and Dec-2018 from three national liver transplantation registries: United Network for Organ Sharing (US), National Health Service Blood and Transplantation (UK), and the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry (Canada). Patients undergoing retransplantation or multi-organ transplantation were excluded. Post-transplant survival was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable adjustments were performed using Cox proportional-hazards models with mixed-effect modeling.

RESULTS

A total of 2,954 living donor liver transplants were performed (US: n = 2,328; Canada: n = 529; UK: n = 97). Canada has maintained the highest proportion of LDLT utilization over time (proportion of LDLT in 2008 - US: 3.3%; Canada: 19.5%; UK: 1.7%; p <0.001 - in 2018 - US: 5.0%; Canada: 13.6%; UK: 0.4%; p <0.001). The 1-, 5-, and 10-year patient survival was 92.6%, 82.8%, and 70.0% in the US vs. 96.1%, 89.9%, and 82.2% in Canada vs. 91.4%, 85.4%, and 66.7% in the UK. After adjustment for characteristics of donors, recipients, transplant year, and treating transplant center as a random effect, all countries had a non-statistically significantly different mortality hazard post-LDLT (Ref US: Canada hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.28-1.01, p = 0.05; UK hazard ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.59-2.02, p = 0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of LDLT has remained low in the US, the UK and Canada. Despite this, long-term survival is excellent. Continued efforts to increase LDLT utilization in these countries may be warranted due to the growing waitlist and differences in allocation that may disadvantage patients currently awaiting liver transplantation.

LAY SUMMARY

This multicenter international comparative analysis of living donor liver transplantation in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada demonstrates that despite low use of the procedure, the long-term outcomes are excellent. In addition, the mortality risk is not statistically significantly different between the evaluated countries. However, the incidence and risk of retransplantation differs between the countries, being the highest in the United Kingdom and lowest in the United States.

Liver Paired Exchange: Programmatic Hopes and Fears

The dearth of deceased liver donors has created a supply demand gap, necessitating creation of living donor liver transplantation. However, living donor liver transplantation has relied on directed donation, whereby many potential directed donors are rejected based on ABO blood group incompatibility, hepatic size incompatibility, or the need for biliary or arterial reconstruction during transplant surgery. Much like kidney paired exchange, liver paired exchange (LPE) circumvents these incompatibility issues by relying on anonymous, nondirected, or bridge donors that are better anatomical or histological matches for recipients. Although Asia has taken the lead in LPE, the process has only recently been adopted in North America, with the first successful surgery done in the United States in 2019. Our review article sheds light on the process of LPE and the success of LPE in the United States thus far and, additionally, highlights the several logistical and ethical challenges that must be considered as transplant centers adopt and scale up LPE across the United States to address the increased demand for liver allografts.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation With Augmented Venous Outflow and Splenectomy: A Promised Land for Small Left Lobe Grafts

OBJECTIVE

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using small grafts, especially left lobe grafts (H1234-MHV) (LLG), continues to be a challenge due to small-for-size syndrome (SFSS). We herein demonstrate that with surgical modifications, outcomes with small grafts can be improved.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2020, we performed 130 adult LDLT using 61 (47%) LLG (H1234-MHV) in a single Enterprise. The median graft-to-recipient weight ratio was 0.84%, with graft-to-recipient weight ratio <0.7% accounting for 22%. Splenectomy was performed in 72 (56%) patients for inflow modulation before (n=50) or after (n=22) graft reperfusion. In LLG-LDLT, venous outflow was achieved using all three recipient hepatic veins. In right lobe graft (H5678) (RLG)-LDLT, the augmented graft right hepatic vein was anastomosed to the recipient's cava with a large cavotomy. Outcome measures include SFSS, early allograft dysfunction (EAD), and survival.

RESULTS

Graft survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 94%, 90%, and 83%, respectively, with no differences between LLG (H1234-MHV) and RLG (H5678). Splenectomy significantly reduced portal flow without increasing the complication rate. Despite the aggressive use of small grafts, SFSS and EAD developed in only 1 (0.8%) and 18 (13.8%) patients, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression revealed model for end-stage liver disease score and LLG (H1234-MHV) as independent risk factors for EAD and splenectomy as a protective factor (odds ratio: 0.09; P =0.03). For LLG (H1234-MHV)-LDLT, patients who underwent prereperfusion splenectomy tended to have better 1-year graft survival than those receiving postreperfusion splenectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

LLG (H1234-MHV) are feasible in adult LDLT with excellent outcomes comparable to RLG (H5678). Venous outflow augmentation and splenectomy help lower the threshold of using small-for-size grafts without compromising graft survival.

Survival Benefit of Living-Donor Liver Transplant

Importance

Despite the acceptance of living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) as a lifesaving procedure for end-stage liver disease, it remains underused in the United States. Quantification of lifetime survival benefit and the Model for End-stage Liver Disease incorporating sodium levels (MELD-Na) score range at which benefit outweighs risk in LDLT is necessary to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness.

Objective

To assess the survival benefit, life-years saved, and the MELD-Na score at which that survival benefit was obtained for individuals who received an LDLT compared with that for individuals who remained on the wait list.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This case-control study was a retrospective, secondary analysis of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database of 119 275 US liver transplant candidates and recipients from January 1, 2012, to September 2, 2021. Liver transplant candidates aged 18 years or older who were assigned to the wait list (N = 116 455) or received LDLT (N = 2820) were included. Patients listed for retransplant or multiorgan transplant and those with prior kidney or liver transplants were excluded.

Exposures

Living-donor liver transplant vs remaining on the wait list.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome of this study was life-years saved from receiving an LDLT. Secondary outcomes included 1-year relative mortality and risk, time to equal risk, time to equal survival, and the MELD-Na score at which that survival benefit was obtained for individuals who received an LDLT compared with that for individuals who remained on the wait list. MELD-Na score ranges from 6 to 40 and is well correlated with short-term survival. Higher MELD-Na scores (>20) are associated with an increased risk of death.

Results

The mean (SD) age of the 119 275 study participants was 55.1 (11.2) years, 63% were male, 0.9% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 4.3% were Asian, 8.2% were Black or African American, 15.8% were Hispanic or Latino, 0.2% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 70.2% were White. Mortality risk and survival models confirmed a significant survival benefit for patients receiving an LDLT who had a MELD-Na score of 11 or higher (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.47-0.88]; P = .006). Living-donor liver transplant recipients gained an additional 13 to 17 life-years compared with patients who never received an LDLT.

Conclusions and Relevance

An LDLT is associated with a substantial survival benefit to patients with end-stage liver disease even at MELD-Na scores as low as 11. The findings of this study suggest that the life-years gained are comparable to or greater than those conferred by any other lifesaving procedure or by a deceased-donor liver transplant. This study's findings challenge current perceptions regarding when LDLT survival benefit occurs.

Minimal Surgical Manpower for Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Background: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is widely performed with good outcomes in the current era of improved surgical techniques. However, few studies have addressed how many human resources are required in the surgery itself. This study aimed to introduce how to perform LDLT with minimal manpower and evaluate the outcomes in adult patients. Methods: The main surgical procedures of donor and recipient operations of LDLT were performed by a single specialist surgeon who led a team of minimal manpower that only included one fellow, one resident, one intern, and three nurses. He also provided postsurgical care and followed up all the patients as a primary care physician. The outcomes were analyzed from the standpoints of the feasibility and acceptability. Results: Between November 2018 and February 2020, a total of 47 patients underwent LDLT. Ten patients had ABO-incompatible donors. The median age of the overall recipients was 57 years old (36–71); 37 patients (78.7%) were male. The MELD score was 10 (6–40), and the main etiologies were hepatic malignancy (38 patients or 80.9%) and liver failure (9 patients or 19.1%). The median age of the overall donors was 34 years old (19–62); 22 patients (46.8%) were male. All the graft types were right liver except for one case of extended right liver with middle hepatic vein. All donors had an uneventful recovery with no complications. There was one intraoperative mortality due to cardiac arrest after reperfusion in one recipient. Hepatic artery thrombosis was developed in 5 (10.6%) recipients. An acute rejection episode occurred in one patient. The median follow-up period for all the patients was 32.9 months (range, 24.7–39.8). Biliary complications were developed in 11 (23.4%) recipients. In total, 7 (15%) patients died, including 1 intraoperative mortality, 5 from cancer recurrence, and 1 from intracranial hemorrhage. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival rates in the recipient group were 91.5%, 87.2%, and 85.1%, respectively. Conclusions: LDLT with minimal surgical manpower is feasible under the supervision of a single expert surgeon who has the capacity for all the main surgical procedures in both donor and recipient operations without compromising the outcomes in the present era of advanced surgical management.

Living Donor Liver Transplant Center Volume Influences Waiting List Survival Among Children Listed for Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains infrequently performed in the United States and localized to a few centers. This study aimed to compare pediatric waiting list and posttransplant outcomes by LDLT center volume.

METHODS

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database was retrospectively reviewed for all pediatric (age <18 y) liver transplant candidates listed between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019. The average annual number of LDLT, deceased donor partial liver transplant (DDPLT), and overall (ie, LDLT + DDPLT + whole liver transplants) pediatric liver transplants performed by each transplant center during the study period was calculated.

RESULTS

Of 88 transplant centers, only 44 (50%) performed at least 1 pediatric LDLT during the study period. LDLT, DDPLT, and overall transplant center volume were all positively correlated. LDLT center volume was protective against waiting list dropout after adjusting for confounding variables (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.97; P = 0.004), whereas DDPLT and overall center volume were not (P > 0.05); however, DDPLT center volume was significantly protective against both recipient death and graft loss, whereas overall volume was only protective against graft loss and LDLT volume was not protective for either.

CONCLUSIONS

High-volume pediatric LDLT center can improve waiting list survival, whereas DDPLT and overall volume are associated with posttransplant survival. Expertise in all types of pediatric liver transplant options is important to optimize outcomes.

The Landscape of Nondirected Living Liver Donation in the United States

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplants (LDLTs) including those from nondirected donors (NDDs) have increased during the past decade, and center-level variations in LDLTs have not yet been described. We sought to quantify changes in the volume of NDD transplants over time and variation in NDD volume between transplant centers. We further examined characteristics of living liver donors and identified factors potentially associated with receiving an NDD liver transplant.

METHODS

Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data between March 01, 2002, and December 31, 2020, we compared 173 NDDs with 5704 DLDs and 167 NDD recipients with 1153 waitlist candidates.

RESULTS

NDDs increased from 1 (0.4% of LDLTs) in 2002 to 58 (12% of LDLTs) in 2020. Of 150 transplant centers, 35 performed at least 1 NDD transplant. Compared with waitlist candidates, adult NDD recipients were less frequently males (39% versus 62%, P < 0.001), had a lower model for end-stage liver disease (16 versus 18, P = 0.01), and spent fewer days on the waitlist (173 versus 246, P = 0.02). Compared with waitlist candidates, pediatric NDD recipients were younger (50% versus 12% age <2 y, P < 0.001) and more often diagnosed with biliary atresia (66% versus 41%, P < 0.001). Compared with DLDs, NDDs were older (40 versus 35 y, P < 0.001), college educated (83% versus 64%, P < 0.001), White (92% versus 78%, P < 0.001), and more frequently donated left-lateral segment grafts (32.0% versus 14%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Liver NDD transplants continue to expand but remain concentrated at a few centers. Graft distribution favors female adults and pediatric patients with biliary atresia. Racial inequities in adult or pediatric center-level NDD graft distribution were not observed.

Outcomes of Right and Left Hepatic Arterial Anastomosis in Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplant

OBJECTIVES

Living donor liver transplant is a complex surgery with well-known complications. Here, we report the use of the right and left hepatic arteries of the recipient for anastomosis and the effects of each procedure on overall outcomes and any associated short-term or long-term biliary complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective observational study with long-term follow-up of 200 patients (100 in the right hepatic artery group and 100 in the left hepatic artery group).

RESULTS

The average donor age was 28.9 years in the left hepatic artery group and 30.9 years in the right hepatic artery group. Most of the donors (60%) were female. Overall, there was 10.5% mortality in the early postoperative period. Among survivors, there were more late strictures in the right hepatic artery group (29.7% vs 22.7%). Bile leak (P = .42), mortality (P = .71), and incidence of late-onset biliary strictures (P = .83) were less common in the left hepatic artery group.

CONCLUSIONS

Left artery anastomosis was found to be technically safe and feasible and did not adversely affect patient outcome compared with right artery anastomosis. Left hepatic artery anastomosis may also reduce the incidence of the biliary complications compared with the right hepatic artery anastomosis.

Can Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States Reach Its Potential?

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a vital tool to address the growing organ shortage in the United States caused by increasing numbers of patients diagnosed with end-stage liver disease. LDLT still only makes up a very small proportion of all liver transplantations performed each year, but there are many innovations taking place in the field that may increase its acceptance among both transplant programs and patients. These innovations include ways to improve access to LDLT, such as through nondirected donation, paired exchange, transplant chains, transplant of ABO-incompatible donors, and transplants in patients with high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores. Surgical innovations, such as laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy, and portal flow modulation, are also increasingly being implemented. Policy changes, including decreasing the financial burden associated with LDLT, may make it a more feasible option for a wider range of patients. Lastly, center-level behavior, such as ensuring surgical expertise and providing culturally competent education, will help toward LDLT expansion. Although it is challenging to know which of these innovations will take hold, we are already seeing LDLT numbers improve within the past 2 years.

The learning curve of deceased donor liver transplant during fellowship training

Liver transplantation (LT) is a complex operation that most transplant surgeons learn in fellowship. Training varies as there is lack of objective data that can be used to standardize teaching. We performed a retrospective review of our adult LT database with aim of looking at fellow's experience. Using American Society of Transplant Surgery cutoff of, at least 45 LT during fellowship, data for first 45 LT were compared to LT 45-90. Fellow's cases were also clustered in sequential groups of 15 LT and analyzed to estimate the learning curve (LC). Comparison of LT 1-45 with LT 46-90 showed significantly lower total operative times (TOT) (324 vs. 344 min) and warm ischemia times (WIT) (28 vs. 31 min) in the 45-90 group. Rates of biliary complications (23.8% vs. 16.4%) and bile leaks alone (10.3% vs. 5.5%) were significantly higher for first 45 LT. Analysis of fellows experience in sequential clusters of 15 LT showed decreasing TOT, WIT, biliary complications and rates of unplanned return to the OR with progression of fellowship. This study validates the current ASTS requirement of at least 45 LT. LC generated using these data can help individualize training and optimize outcomes through identification of areas in need of improvement.

Challenging the Traditional Paradigm of Supply and Demand in Pediatric Liver Transplantation Through Nondirected Living Donation: A Case Series

A gap exists between the demand for pediatric liver transplantation and the supply of appropriate size-matched donors. We describe our center's experience with pediatric liver transplantation using anonymous nondirected living liver donors (ND-LLD). First-time pediatric liver transplant candidates listed at our center between January 2012 and June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed and categorized by donor graft type, and recipients of ND-LLD grafts were described. A total of 13 ND-LLD pediatric liver transplantations were performed, including 8 left lateral segments, 4 left lobes, and 1 right lobe. Of the ND-LLD recipients, 5 had no directed living donor evaluated, whereas the remaining 8 (62%) had all potential directed donors ruled out during the evaluation process. Recipient and graft survival were 100% during a median follow-up time of 445 (range, 70-986) days. Of ND-LLDs, 69% were previous living kidney donors, and 1 ND-LLD went on to donate a kidney after liver donation. Of the ND-LLDs, 46% were approved prior to the recipient being listed. Over time, the proportion of living donor transplants performed, specifically from ND-LLDs, increased, and the number of children on the waiting list decreased. The introduction of ND-LLDs to a pediatric liver transplant program can expand the benefit of living donor liver transplantation to children without a suitable directed living donor while achieving excellent outcomes for both the recipients and donors.

Why are there so many liver transplants from living donors in Asia and so few in Europe and the US?

Acceptance of liver transplantation (LT) as an established treatment modality for end-stage liver disease has led to an exponential increase in the demand for organs, resulting in an ever-increasing gap between the availability of organs and the number of sick patients waiting for them. Interestingly, influenced by cultural, socio-economic and other constraints, the West and the East have attempted to address this problem of shortage in different ways. Living donor LT (LDLT) became polarised to the East with over 90% of LT in this region being LDLT. On the other hand, the West chose to concentrate their efforts on optimising the use of cadaveric livers with techniques such as split LT, or by using extended criteria donors (including donation after cardiac death donors) and machine perfusion devices etc. Consequently, LDLT did not find the widespread acceptance it did in the East and hence over 90% of all LT are DDLT in this region. We review each regions' perspective and attempt to provide a globally viable roadmap to bridge the widening gap between the demand and availability of livers for LT.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States: Evolution of Frequency, Outcomes, Center Volumes, and Factors Associated With Outcomes

Recent modifications in organ allocation policies and increases in chronic liver diseases may have resulted in important changes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the United States. We examined the trends, outcomes, and factors associated with outcomes in adult LDLT. United Network for Organ Sharing data on 2566 adult LDLT recipients who received transplants from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2019, were analyzed. LDLT graft and patient survival rates were compared with propensity score-matched deceased donor liver transplantation recipients by the Kaplan-Meier curve estimator. The association between preceding LDLT frequency and subsequent outcomes were assessed by Cox proportional hazards mixed effects modeling. After a stable annual frequency of LDLTs from 2010 to 2014 (~200 per year), the number of LDLTs doubled to 440 in 2019. The 1-year and 5-year graft survival rates for LDLT recipients were 88.4% and 78.1%, respectively, compared with 92.5% and 80.7% in the propensity score-matched donation after brain death recipients (P = 0.005), respectively. Older donor age and recipient diabetes mellitus and life support requirement were significantly associated with graft failure among LDLT recipients (P values <0.05). Average preceding LDLT frequencies of <3 per year, 3 to 20 per year, and >20 per year resulted in 1-year graft survival rates of 82%, 88% to 89%, and 93%, respectively (P values <0.05). There were 3 living donor deaths (0.12%). The frequency of LDLTs has doubled during the past decade, with good outcomes and acceptable donor safety profiles. However, there appear to be varying threshold transplant frequencies (volume/unit time) associated with acceptable (88%-89%) and aspirational (93%) 1-year graft survival rates. These data should be reassuring and encourage LDLT practice as efforts continue to expand the donor pool.

Extraluminal Recanalization for Biliary Duct-to-Duct Anastomotic Obstruction After Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Experience in Eight Patients

PURPOSE

To investigate clinical outcomes and safety of extraluminal recanalization for duct-to-duct anastomotic obstruction after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Extraluminal recanalization was performed as a salvage procedure after failure of intraluminal cannulation in eight patients who underwent percutaneous transhepatic treatment of duct-to-duct anastomotic obstruction 11.0 ± 5.27 months after LDLT between October 2012 and April 2019. Technical details, safety, and outcomes of extraluminal recanalization were investigated.

RESULTS

Total ten sessions of extraluminal recanalization were performed in the eight patients with the stiff backend of a 0.035 inch hydrophilic guide wire, 22-gauge Chiba needle, or Colapinto needle. Percutaneous common bile duct access was performed in three sessions to obtain a straight course for the puncture. There was one instance of subcapsular and intraparenchymal hematoma requiring placement of an additional drainage catheter and conservative treatment. During a follow-up period ranging from 18.4 to 100.7 months, the drainage catheter was removed in seven of the eight patients, including three patients who had recurrent stricture requiring repeat percutaneous treatment and one who underwent a routine change of an endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage catheter.

CONCLUSIONS

Extraluminal recanalization can be an effective and safe salvage procedure after failed intraluminal cannulation of duct-to-duct anastomotic obstruction in LDLT.

Current status of adult liver transplantation: utilization of living donor versus deceased donor graft

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article will summarize prior and recent studies comparing outcomes between living donor and deceased donor liver transplantation (LT) in adults and provide a rationale and framework for expanding living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in Western countries to address the growing critical organ shortage.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating superior survival outcomes in LDLT in addition to a multitude of other advantages including shorter cold ischemia times, opportunity for pretransplant medical optimization, and expansion of transplant eligibility. Additionally, these outcomes continue to improve with center volume and experience.

SUMMARY

LDLT in adults emerged in response to an effective donor organ shortage created by the critical discrepancy between donor graft supply and demand. Overcoming this organ shortage and an increasing waitlist mortality requires a liver transplant framework that fully integrates LDLT into liver disease management although continuing to fully maximize deceased donor graft utilization at experience, capable centers. Optimizing both living and deceased donor graft utilization will drastically increase patients' access to LT.

Using Glissonian sheath as an alternative way to prevent biliary stricture in living-donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

/Objective: The aim of this study was to report a single-institution experience involving a Glissonian sheath-to-duct method for biliary reconstruction in living donor liver transplantation, focusing on the association between surgical techniques and biliary stricture rates.

METHODS

Three hundred and twenty adult right lobar living donor liver transplantation procedures were analyzed through a comparison of 200 Glissonian sheath-to-duct (GD) reconstructions and 120 duct-to-duct (DD) reconstructions in biliary anastomosis.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up period of 60.8 months, the GD group had a significantly lower biliary stricture rate (13.5%, 27/200) than the DD group (26.7%, 32/120) (p = 0.003). In biliary anastomosis with single duct anastomosis, the incidence of biliary stricture was significantly greater for the DD group (17/79, 21.5%) than for the GD group (14/141, 9.9%) (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

This study has shown that GD anastomosis of the bile duct produced outstanding results with respect to the reduction of biliary stricture. The GD technique can therefore be suggested as an alternative method for biliary reconstruction in LDLT.

Increased Surgical Complications but Improved Overall Survival with Adult Living Donor Compared to Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) provides an alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for patients with end-stage liver disease in the circumstance of scarcity of deceased grafts. However, the outcomes of LDLT remain controversial.

Method

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LDLT with DDLT. Twelve outcomes were assessed.

Results

Thirty-nine studies involving 38563 patients were included. LDLT was comparable in red blood cell transfusion, perioperative mortality, length of hospital stay, retransplantation rate, hepatitis C virus recurrence rate, and hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence rate with DDLT. Cold ischemia time was shorter and duration of recipient operation was longer in LDLT. Postoperative intra-abdominal bleeding rate occurred less frequently in LDLT recipients (odds ratio (OR) = 0.64, 95%confidence interval (CI) = 0.46 − 0.88, P = 0.006), but this did not decrease the perioperative mortality. LDLT was associated with significantly higher biliary (OR = 2.23, 95%CI = 1.59 − 3.13, P < 0.00001) and vascular (OR = 2.00, 95%CI = 1.31 − 3.07, P = 0.001) complication rates and better overall survival (OS) (1 year: OR = 1.32, 95%CI = 1.01 − 1.72, P = 0.04; 3 years: OR = 1.39, 95%CI = 1.14 − 1.69, P = 0.0010; and 5 years: OR = 1.33, 95%CI = 1.04 − 1.70, P = 0.02). According to subgroup analysis, biliary complication rate and OS improved dramatically as experience increased, while vascular complication rate could not be improved because it was mainly caused by the difference of the donor type itself.

Conclusions

LDLT remains a valuable option for patients in need of liver transplantation for it provides an excellent alternative to DDLT without compromising recipient outcomes. Further refinement in biliary and vascular reconstruction techniques and the accumulation of liver transplantation centers' experience are the key factors in expanding the application of LDLT.

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy, systemic review

Liver transplantation is a life-saving therapy for patients with end-stage liver disease. Living donation is a critical source of organs throughout the world. Reducing donor morbidity and mortality is of utmost importance while maintaining access to liver transplantation for recipients. While laparoscopy was more rapidly utilized in donor nephrectomy, laparoscopy has been slower to develop for living donor hepatectomies due to the concerns about hemostasis, safety of the donor and quality of the graft. Pure minimal invasive approach has become a standard of care for left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) for pediatric recipients. In the past few years, a number of centers with significant laparoscopic and living donor experience have reported fully minimally invasive approach to hemi-hepatectomies. In this manuscript we discuss the experiences, lessons learned and path forward for laparoscopic and minimal invasive surgery(MIS) in donor hepatectomies (DH).

Center Experience Affects Liver Transplant Outcomes in Patients with Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Based on favorable outcomes reported by experienced centers, perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (Ph-CCA) has become an accepted indication for liver transplantation (LT). What is less clear is if the reported outcomes have been reproduced nationwide in the US.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate post-transplant outcomes in patients with Ph-CCA and to determine prognostic factors.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LT with Model for End-stage Liver Disease exception scores for Ph-CCA between 2010 and 2017 were evaluated. Transplant centers were classified into well- and less-experienced groups: Group 1 [well-experienced (≥ 6 LTs), 7 centers]; Group 2 [less-experienced (< 6 LTs), 23 centers]. Post-transplant mortality due to all-cause and recurrence of Ph-CCA were set as endpoints.

RESULTS

Post-transplant outcomes were significantly better in Group 1 than in Group 2, with 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival rates of 91.8%, 56.9%, and 45.8%, versus 65.6%, 48.8%, and 26.0%, respectively. Group 2 showed a significantly higher risk of 1-, 3-, and 5-year all-cause mortality and 1-year mortality associated with Ph-CCA recurrence. Center experience was an independent risk factor for post-transplant mortality. In intention-to-treat analysis, a positive prognostic effect of LT was significant and LT decreased the mortality risk by 86% in the well-experienced group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.14, p < 0.001], whereas this effect was not observed in the less-experienced group (HR 1.35, p = 0.47).

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of recurrence of malignancy and mortality was significantly higher in the less-experienced center group. Center effects on post-transplant outcomes in patients with Ph-CCA should be recognized, and the introduction of center approval for LT for Ph-CCA may be justified to achieve comparable outcomes between centers.

Liver Transplantation

The field of liver transplantation has changed since the MELD scoring system became the most widely used donor allocation tool. Due to the MELD-based allocation system, sicker patients with higher MELD scores are being transplanted. Persistent organ donor shortages remain a challenging issue, and as a result, the wait-list mortality is a persistent problem for most of the regions. This chapter focuses on deceased donor and live donor liver transplantation in patients with complications of portal hypertension. Special attention will also be placed on donor-recipient matching, perioperative management of transplant patients, and the impact of hepatic hemodynamics on transplantation.

Current Status of Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was introduced in response to the shortage of deceased donor liver grafts. The number of adult living donor transplants is increasing due to improved outcomes and increasing need. Advantages of LDLT include optimization of the timing of transplant, better organ quality, and lower rates of recipient mortality compared to staying on the wait list for deceased donor liver transplant. Donor safety remains the major focus when considering LDLT. Recent advancements have supported the increased use of LDLT to help decrease wait list death and improve long-term survival of transplant recipients.

Clinical utility of postoperative phosphate recovery profiles to predict liver insufficiency after living donor hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Living donor hepatectomy (LDH) is associated with significant postoperative hypophosphatemia.

METHODS

From January 1997 through July 2017, we performed 176 LDH and compared donors who developed liver insufficiency (LI) to those that did not within 30 days of LDH. Using smoothing splines, we constructed a mixed-effects model and assessed receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

Of the 176 donors, 161 were included in our study and 10 (6.2%) developed LI. The cohorts differed in minimum observed phosphate levels (1.77 mg/dL, LI cohort; 2.01 mg/dL No LI cohort) at a median nadir of 1.6 days (38 h) postoperatively (p = 0.003). In the ROC analysis, intraoperative time and postoperative phosphate levels best predicted LI (sensitivity, 90%; specificity, 55.6%).

CONCLUSION

Mean postoperative phosphate profiles differ significantly between those patients who develop LI and those who do not in the first 38 h after LDH.

"Real-time" risk models of postoperative morbidity and mortality for liver transplants

AIM

A comprehensive description of morbidity and mortality risk factors for post liver transplant has not been available to date. In this study, we established real-time risk models of postoperative morbidities and mortality in liver transplant recipients using two Japanese nationwide databases.

METHODS

Data from two Japanese nationwide databases were combined and used for this study. We developed real-time prognostic models for morbidity and mortality from a derivation cohort (n = 1472) and validated the findings with an independent cohort (n = 395). Preoperative variables (C1), preoperative and intraoperative variables (C2), and all variables including postoperative morbidities within 30 days (C3) were analyzed to evaluate the independent risk factors for postoperative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

We established real-time risk models for morbidity and mortality. Areas under the curve (AUC) of C1 and C2 risk models for mortality were 0.74 (0.63-0.82) and 0.79 (0.69-0.86), respectively. Multivariate logistic analysis using C3 showed that hemoglobin <10 g/dL, operative time (hours), and five postoperative morbidities (prolonged ventilation >48 hours, coma >24 hours, renal dysfunction, postoperative systemic sepsis, and serum total bilirubin ≥10 mg/dL) represented independent risk factors for mortality (AUC = 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

Real-time risk models of postoperative morbidities and mortality at various perioperative time points in liver transplant recipients were established. These novel approaches may improve postoperative outcomes of liver transplant recipients. Furthermore, these real-time risk models may be applicable to other surgical procedures.

Internal hernia of the small intestine around biliary catheter after living-donor liver transplantation: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Biliary reconstruction is a cornerstone of living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The routine uses of trans-anastomotic biliary catheters in biliary reconstruction had been a controversial issue. We describe a rare complication related to the use of trans-anastomotic biliary catheter after LDLT. In this case, intestinal obstruction occurred early after LDLT due to internal herniation of the small bowel around trans-anastomotic biliary catheter.

PRESENTATION

A 42 years male patient with end stage liver disease underwent LDLT utilizing a right hemi-liver graft. Biliary reconstruction was done by single duct-to-duct anastomosis over trans-anastomotic biliary catheter. The patient was doing well apart from early postoperative ascites that was managed medically. Three weeks after surgery, the patient developed severe agonizing central abdominal pain not responding to anti-spasmodics and analgesics. The decision was to proceed for surgical exploration. Exploration revealed internal herniation of the small bowel loops around the trans-anastomotic biliary catheter without strangulation. Reduction of the internal hernia was done by releasing the fixation of the biliary catheter from the anterior abdominal wall. Small bowel resection was not required. The patient had smooth postoperative course and was discharged 10 days after surgery.

DISCUSSION

Awareness regarding this rare complication plus early surgical intervention can prevent the development of postoperative morbidity and mortality. To the best of our knowledge this is the first report to describe such are complication after LDLT.

CONCLUSION

We report the first case of internal herniation of small bowel around biliary catheter early after LDLT.

Status of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States: Results from the Adult-To-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

This article reviews the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant Cohort Study (A2ALL). The findings show that the number of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplants is consistently increasing. Living donor liver transplantation has an important benefit for patients with acute liver failure, does not compromise donor safety, and has lower rates of acute cellular rejection in biologically related donor and recipient. The conclusions from the A2ALL consortium have been critical in transplant advancement, supporting increased use to help decrease waitlist death and improve long-term survival of transplant recipients.

Predictive Factors of Liver Dysfunction After Right Hemihepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living liver donors represent a special group of patients. They are healthy individuals who are exposed to a major surgery, in which the dominant liver proportion is extracted as a graft. Of all potential donor-related morbidities, posthepatectomy liver dysfunction (PHLD) is the most significant as it may be directly related to donor mortality. We aimed to review our data of adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) utilizing the right hemiliver grafts to determine the incidence and potential predictors for the development of PHLD, defined according to the International Study Group of Liver Surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed the data of all adult living donors who underwent right hemihepatectomy during the period between May 2004 and 2016.

RESULTS

During the study period, 434 cases underwent right hemihepatectomy for adult LDLT. We divided our cases into 2 groups according to the occurrence of PHLD. A significant lower residual liver volume and percentage were noted in PHLD group. Longer intensive care unit stay and hospital stay, and more postoperative morbidities, were observed in PHLD group. PHLD occurred in 50 cases (11.5%), and most of them were grade A (47 cases [10.8%]). Two cases (0.5%) had grade B requiring diuretic therapy, and 1 case (0.2%) had grade C requiring ultrasound guided tube drainage and surgical exploration finally.

CONCLUSIONS

We should not underestimate the risks of liver donation surgery, especially when utilizing the right hemiliver graft. Donor safety should be ensured by accurate preoperative volumetric assessment of the remnant liver and remnant liver volume limitations must be strictly followed.

A liver for a kidney: Ethics of trans-organ paired exchange

Living donation provides important access to organ transplantation, which is the optimal therapy for patients with end-stage liver or kidney failure. Paired exchanges have facilitated thousands of kidney transplants and enable transplantation when the donor and recipient are incompatible. However, frequently willing and otherwise healthy donors have contraindications to the donation of the organ that their recipient needs. Trans-organ paired exchanges would enable a donor associated with a kidney recipient to donate a lobe of liver and a donor associated with a liver recipient to donate a kidney. This article explores some of the ethical concerns that trans-organ exchange might encounter including unbalanced donor risks, the validity of informed consent, and effects on deceased organ donation.