Impact of Graft Hepatic Vein Inferior Vena Cava Reconstruction with Graft Venoplasty and Inferior Vena Cava Cavoplasty in Living Donor Adult Liver Transplantation Using a Left Lobe Graft

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

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.

Reconstruction of hepatic venous outflow and management of its complications using ex vivo liver resection and autotransplantation: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to investigate the techniques of hepatic venous outflow reconstruction and the management of its complications using ex vivo liver resection and autotransplantation (ELRA).

METHODS

Being a retrospective case series covering 84 patients who underwent hepatic venous outflow reconstruction during ELRA from January 2016 to October 2020, 11 cases of postoperative hepatic venous outflow obstruction (HVOO), whose surgery details were described and survival rates analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of the 84 alveolar Echinococcosis (AE) series was no intraoperative death. The 30-day mortality was 5.95% (5 /84). The most common postoperative complication was pleural effusion in 21 cases (25%). HVOO occurred in 11 cases, one of them died of liver failure, and the other 10 patients underwent interventional revascularization with good results. There was no significant difference in survival between patients with successful interventional revascularization due to HVOO and patients without HVOO (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Individualized and well design reconstruction of hepatic vein can be considered as a key procedure to reduce the complications of HVOO in ELRA. Once HVOO occurs, emergent management must be performed immediately before liver dysfunction. Interventional revascularization showed an effective approach, though the more clinical cases need to be evaluated.

Small-for-size graft, small-for-size syndrome and inflow modulation in living donor liver transplantation

The extended application of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has revealed the problem of graft size mismatching called "small-for-size syndrome (SFSS)." The initial trials to resolve this problem involved increasing the procured graft size, from left to right, and even extending to include a right lobe graft. Clinical cases of living right lobe donations have been reported since then, drawing attention to the risks of increasing the liver volume procured from a living donor. However, not only other modes of increasing graft volume (GV) such as auxiliary or dual liver transplantation, but also control of the increased portal pressure caused by a small-for-size graft (SFSG), such as a porto-systemic shunt or splenectomy and optimal outflow reconstruction, have been trialed with some positive results. To establish an effective strategy for transplanting SFSG and preventing SFSS, it is essential to have precise knowledge and tactics to evaluate graft quality and GV, when performing these LDLTs with portal pressure control and good venous outflow. Thus, we reviewed the updated literature on the pathogenesis of and strategies for using SFSG.

Middle hepatic vein reconstruction in adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation improves recipient survival

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and necessity of middle hepatic vein (MHV) reconstruction in adult-to-adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remain controversial. The present study aimed to evaluate the survival beneficiary of MHV reconstructions in LDLT.

METHODS

We compared the clinical outcomes of liver recipients with MHV reconstruction (n = 101) and without MHV reconstruction (n = 43) who underwent LDLT using right lobe grafts at our institution from January 2006 to May 2017.

RESULTS

The overall survival (OS) rate of recipients with MHV reconstruction was significantly higher than that of those without MHV reconstruction in liver transplantation (P = 0.022; 5-yr OS: 76.2% vs 58.1%). The survival of two segments (segments 5 and 8) hepatic vein reconstruction was better than that of the only one segment (segment 5 or segment 8) hepatic vein reconstruction (P = 0.034; 5-yr OS: 83.6% vs 67.4%). The survival of using two straight vascular reconstructions was better than that using Y-shaped vascular reconstruction in liver transplantation with two segments hepatic vein reconstruction (P = 0.020; 5-yr OS: 100% vs 75.0%). The multivariate analysis demonstrated that MHV tributary reconstructions were an independent beneficiary prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio=0.519, 95% CI: 0.282-0.954, P = 0.035). Biliary complications were significantly increased in recipients with MHV reconstruction (28.7% vs 11.6%, P = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

MHV reconstruction ensured excellent outflow drainage and favored recipient outcome. The MHV tributaries (segments 5 and 8) should be reconstructed as much as possible to enlarge the hepatic vein anastomosis and reduce congestion.

Left lobe living donor liver transplantation in adults: What is the safety limit?

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) is the most significant cause of graft loss after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), especially after left lobe (LL) LDLT in adults. The safety limit of applying LL-LDLT in adults without severe SFSS with a high rate of lethality needs to be determined. A total of 207 LL-LDLTs in adults since September 2005 were evaluated to analyze the risk factors for severe SFSS, defined as a serum total bilirubin concentration of ≥20.0 mg/dL after LDLT. Although there were no significant differences in cumulative graft survival after LDLT between medium grafts (graft volume [GV] to standard liver volume [SLV] ratio ≥ 40.0%), small grafts (35.0% ≤ GV/SLV < 40.0%), and extra small grafts (GV/SLV < 35.0%), patients with severe SFSS showed a significantly lower 5-year graft survival rate than those without (42.9% versus 94.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis for severe SFSS after LL-LDLT showed that donor age of ≥48 years (P = 0.01), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of ≥ 19 (P < 0.01), and end portal venous pressure of ≥19 mm Hg (P = 0.04) were the significant and independent factors for severe SFSS after LL-LDLT. Within such high-risk subgroups of patients with a donor age of ≥48 years or MELD score of ≥ 19 before LDLT, operative blood loss volume of ≥8.0 L was a risk factor for severe SFSS. LL-LDLT in adults could be indicated and provide acceptable outcomes for the combinations of donors aged < 48 years and recipients with a MELD score of <19. Smaller grafts might yield acceptable outcomes in appropriately selected donor-recipient combinations. Liver Transplantation 22 1666-1675 2016 AASLD.

Left lobe graft poses a potential risk of hepatic venous outflow obstruction in adult living donor liver transplantation

Hepatic venous outflow obstruction (HVOO) is a critical complication after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of HVOO and the risk factors for HVOO in adults. From 2005 to 2015, 430 adult LDLT patients (right lobe [RL] graft, 270 patients; left lobe [LL] graft, 160 patients) were enrolled and divided into no HVOO (n = 413) and HVOO (n = 17) groups. Patient demographics and surgical data were compared, and risk factors for HVOO were analyzed. Furthermore, the longterm outcomes of percutaneous interventions as treatment for HVOO were assessed. HVOO occurred in 17 (4.0%) patients. The incidence of HVOO in patients receiving a LL graft was significantly higher than in those receiving a RL graft (8.1% versus 1.5%; P = 0.001). The body weight and caliber of hepatic vein anastomosis in the HVOO group were significantly lower compared with the no HVOO group (P = 0.02 and P = 0.008, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that only LL graft was an independent risk factor for HVOO (OR, 4.782; 95% CI, 1.387-16.488; P = 0.01). Among 17 patients with HVOO, 7 patients were treated with single balloon angioplasty, and 9 patients who developed recurrence were treated with repeated interventions. Overall, 6 patients underwent stent placement: 1 at the initial procedure, 3 at the second procedure for early recurrence, and 2 following repeated balloon angioplasty (≥3 interventions). These 6 patients experienced no recurrence. Overall graft survival was not significantly different between the HVOO and no HVOO groups (P = 0.99). In conclusion, the use of a LL graft was associated with HVOO, and percutaneous interventions were effective for treating adult HVOO after LDLT. Liver Transplantation 22 785-795 2016 AASLD.

Is Systemic heparinization necessary during living donor hepatectomy?

Systemic heparinization has traditionally been performed during living donor hepatectomy (LDH) at most transplant centers because of the possibility of graft vascular thrombosis. However, no consensus on the use of systemic heparinization during LDH has yet emerged. The aims of the present study were to compare donor and recipient outcomes with reference to systemic heparinization and to determine whether or not systemic heparin needs to be administered to living donors. Via a retrospective review, we analyzed the outcomes of 137 LDHs performed at our institution from January 2011 to October 2013; 79 donors received systemic heparinization (group I), whereas 58 did not, but the liver graft was flushed with a heparinized perfusate (group II). Patient demographics, intraoperative parameters, laboratory data, postoperative complications, and survival rates were compared between the 2 groups. The overall complication rates did not differ significantly between the 2 groups, but postoperative bleeding requiring red blood cell transfusions occurred more frequently in group I versus group II (7.6% versus 0.0%, P = 0.03). The incidences of graft vascular thrombosis were similar in the 2 groups, and no graft loss caused by vascular thrombosis was evident during the early postoperative period. Moreover, no difference in either posttransplant graft function or survival was apparent between the 2 groups. The rates of decreases in donor hemoglobin, hematocrit, and platelet count levels during the early postoperative period were significantly higher in group I versus group II. In conclusion, the omission of systemic heparinization during LDH is both feasible and safe, with no adverse effects on donor or recipient outcomes.

Small-for-size syndrome in living-donor liver transplantation using a left lobe graft

In living-donor liver transplantation with a left lobe graft, which can reduce the burden on the donor compared to right lobe graft, the main problem is small-for-size (SFS) syndrome. SFS syndrome is a multifactorial disease that includes aspects related to the graft size, graft quality, recipient factors and even technical issues. The main pathophysiology of SFS syndrome is the sinusoidal microcirculatory disturbance induced by shear stress, which is caused by excessive portal inflow into the smaller graft. The donor age, the presence of steatosis of the graft and a poor recipient status are all risk factors for SFS syndrome. To resolve SFS syndrome, portal inflow modulation, splenectomy, splenic artery modulation and outflow modulation have been developed. It is important to establish strict criteria for managing SFS syndrome. Using pharmacological interventions and/or therapeutic approaches that promote liver regeneration could increase the adequate outcomes in SFS liver transplantation. Left lobe liver transplantation could be adopted in Western countries to help resolve the organ shortage.

"Small-for-flow" syndrome: shifting the "size" paradigm

The "small-for-size" syndrome and "post-hepatectomy liver failure" refers to the development of liver failure (hyperbilirubinemia, coagulopathy, encephalopathy and refractory ascites) resulting from the reduction of liver mass beyond a certain threshold. This complication is associated with a high mortality and is a major concern in liver transplantation involving reduced liver grafts from deceased and living donors as well as in hepatic surgeries involving extended resections of liver mass. The limiting threshold for liver resection or transplantation is currently predicted based on the mass of the remnant liver (or donor graft) in relation to the body weight of the patient, with a ratio above 0.8 being considered safe. This approach, however, has proved inaccurate, because some patients develop the "small-for-size" syndrome despite complying with the "safe" threshold while other patients who surpass the threshold do not develop it. We hypothesize that the development of the "small-for-size" syndrome is not exclusively determined by the ratio of the mass of the liver remnant (or graft) to the body weight, but it is instead strictly determined by the hemodynamic parameters of the hepatic circulation. This hypothesis is based in recent clinical and experimental reports showing that relative portal hyperperfusion is a critical factor in the development of the "small-for-size" syndrome and that maneuvers that manipulate the hepatic vascular inflow are able to prevent the development of the syndrome despite liver-to-body weight ratios well below the "limiting" threshold. Measurements of hepatic blood flow and pressure, however, are not routinely performed in hepatic surgeries. Focusing on the "flow" rather than in the "size" may improve our understanding of the pathophysiology of the "small-for-size" syndrome and "post-hepatectomy liver failure" and it would have important implications for the clinical management of patients at risk. First, hepatic hemodynamic parameters would have to be measured in hepatic surgeries. Second, these parameters (in addition to liver mass) would be the principal basis for deciding the "safe" threshold of viable liver parenchyma. Third, the hepatic hemodynamic parameters are amenable to manipulation and, consequently, the "safe" threshold may also be manipulated. Shifting the paradigm from "small-for-size" to "small-for-flow" syndrome would thus represent a major step for optimizing the use of donor livers, for expanding the indications of hepatic surgery, and for increasing the safety of these procedures.

Strategies for successful left-lobe living donor liver transplantation in 250 consecutive adult cases in a single center

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using left-lobe grafts was not generally recognized as feasible due to the problem of graft size.

STUDY DESIGN

We retrospectively evaluated strategies for successful left-lobe LDLT in 250 consecutive cases stratified into 2 eras: Era 1 (n = 121), in which surgical procedures were continually refined, and Era 2 (n = 129), in which established procedures were used.

RESULTS

Graft volume (GV) did not affect the incidence of graft function or survival. Era 2 patients had decreased portal vein (PV) pressure at closure (16.0 ± 3.5 mmHg vs 19.1 ± 4.6 mmHg, p < 0.01), increased PV flow/GV (301 ± 125 mL/min/100g vs 391 ± 142 mL/min/100g, p < 0.01), and improved graft survival rate (1-year: 90.6% vs 81.8%. p < 0.01) despite the smaller GV/standard volume (SLV) ratio (36.2% ± 5.2% vs 41.2% ± 8.8%, p < 0.01) compared with Era 1. Patients in Era 2 had lower PV pressure and greater PV flow (y = 598-5.7 x, p = 0.02) at any GV/SLV compared with cases in Era 1 (y = 480-4.3 x, p < 0.01), representing greater graft compliance. Univariate analysis for graft survival showed that Era 1, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score ≥ 20, inpatient status, closing portal venous pressure ≥ 20 mmHg, no splenectomy, and operative blood loss ≥ 10 L were the risk factors for graft loss, and multivariate analysis showed that Era 1 was the only significant factor (p < 0.01). During Era 2, development of primary graft dysfunction was associated with inpatient recipient status (p = 0.02) and donor age ≥ 45 years (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of left-lobe LDLT were improved by accumulated experience and technical developments.

Use of 3-dimensional computed hepatic venous visualization for graft outflow venoplasty in adult left living-donor liver transplant

OBJECTIVES

A surgeon must be aware of hepatic vascular variations to safely perform living-donor liver transplant. The ramification patterns of the hepatic veins with tributaries for left lobe graft outflow venoplasty should be evaluated preoperatively with 3-dimensional computed tomography of the donor.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-four potential donors were examined between October 1999 and July 2006 for living-donor liver transplant using the left lobe. They underwent triphasic helical computed tomography of the liver on a multidetector helical computed tomographic scanner. All images, including 2-dimensional reformation and 3-dimensional reconstructed models with maximum intensity projection and volume rendering, were sent to a workstation for postprocessing.

RESULTS

The ramification patterns of the left and middle hepatic vein were classified into 2 groups; they formed a common trunk (type 1), which had 3 variations; type 1A (13 cases): in which the left hepatic vein and the middle hepatic vein without any tributaries on their confluence; type 1B (8 cases): in which there was venous confluence in the left hepatic vein with the left superficial vein and middle hepatic vein; type 1C (2 cases): in which the hepatic venous confluence in the left hepatic vein and middle hepatic vein and the left superficial vein directly joining into the inferior vena cava; type 2 (1 case) had the left hepatic vein and middle hepatic vein joining into the inferior vena cava separately; type 1B underwent 2 venoplasty procedures, but the others underwent only a single venoplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated the anatomic interrelation of the hepatic veins for hepatic outflow venoplasty of adult left lobe living-donor liver transplant with 3-dimensional computed tomography scanning to help surgeons preoperatively determine the appropriate technique or form of reconstruction.

Left lobe living donor liver transplantation in adults

Adult left lobe (LL) living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has not generally been recognized as a feasible procedure because of the problem of graft size. The objectives of this study were to assess the feasibility and short- and long-term results of adult LL LDLT in comparison with right lobe (RL) LDLT. Data on 200 consecutive LL LDLTs, including five retransplants, were retrospectively compared with those of 112 RL LDLTs, in terms of survival, complications and donor morbidity. The mean graft weight to standard volume ratio of LL grafts was 38.7% whereas that of RL grafts was 47.6% (p < 0.0001). The 1-, 5- and 10-year patient survival rates of LL LDLT were 85.6%, 77.9% and 69.5%, respectively, which were comparable to those of RL LDLT (89.8%, 71.3% and 70.7%, respectively). The incidence of small-for-size syndrome was higher in LL LDLT (19.5%) than in RL LDLT (7.1%) (p < 0.01). The overall donor morbidity rates were comparable between LL (36.0%) and RL (34.8%), whereas postoperative liver function tests and hospital stay were significantly better (p < 0.0001) in LL donors. In conclusion, adult LL LDLT has comparable outcomes to that of RL LDLT. LL LDLT is viable and is the first choice in adult LDLT.

Standard hepatic vein reconstruction with patch plasty using the native portal vein in adult living donor liver transplantation

An outflow obstruction of the hepatic vein is a critical complication after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and occasionally leads to hepatic failure. Here we introduce a simple method for preventing outflow obstructions by patch plasty in adult LDLT. Between September 2001 and May 2010, 468 adult LDLT procedures were performed at Kyoto University Hospital. We harvested each recipient's portal vein (PV) from the extirpated liver for a patch. We intended to re-form several orifices of the hepatic veins into a single, large orifice. The patch was attached to the anterior wall of the re-formed orifice on the bench. After we put in the liver graft, the procedure for the hepatic vein anastomosis to the inferior vena cava was simple enough that the warm ischemia time was reduced. Three of the 468 cases were diagnosed with an outflow obstruction. All 3 cases underwent hepatic vein reconstruction without patch plasty. In contrast, none of the 159 cases that underwent LDLT with patch plasty suffered from an outflow obstruction, regardless of the liver graft type. The procedure for hepatic vein plasty using a patch from the native PV is simple and elegant and results in excellent outcomes. We propose this as the standard procedure for hepatic vein reconstruction in adult LDLT.

Difficulty in sustaining hepatic outflow in left lobe but not right lobe living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Hepatic outflow block is one of the major complications leading to severe graft dysfunction after left lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

Medical records of 46 recipients of a left lobe LDLT were reviewed. The method of outflow reconstruction and post-transplant morphological changes of hepatic veins were investigated. The subjects were followed up until September 2008, with a median follow-up period of 2.0 yr (range: 0.5-5.9 yr).

RESULTS

There were no multiple outflow tracts to be reconstructed, and the median caliber of the single orifices with or without venoplasty was 32.0 mm. The difference between the angle of hepatic veins to the sagittal plane measured on computed tomography was calculated for pre-operative donors and post-operative recipients a month after LDLT. Both left and middle hepatic veins showed a significantly greater change in angle than the right hepatic vein. Both left and middle hepatic veins more frequently showed a nearly flat wave form on Doppler study one month after LDLT. In the 46 recipients of left lobe grafts, three developed outflow block (6.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The middle and left hepatic veins tend to distort and stretch during graft regeneration. These characteristics seem to be associated with outflow disturbances.

The technical advance and impact of caudate lobe venous reconstruction in left liver: additional safety for living-related donor liver transplantation

The key to obtaining good overall outcomes in small-for-size liver-graft transplantation is ensuring sufficient blood flow to the graft during the initial period after surgery. In left lobe liver grafting, various reconstruction techniques have been devised to maximize the limited graft volume. The reconstructions of the caudate lobe (CL) vessels were one of the main streams. In this article, we focus on the clinical significance of CL vessel reconstructions after small-for-size liver-graft transplantation and discuss the roles of various techniques. These techniques contribute to the enlargement of the margin of safety with respect to small-for-size liver-graft transplantation.

Donor risk in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: impact of left lobe graft

BACKGROUND

To ensure donor safety in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation, we established a selection criterion for donors in which left lobe (LL) was the first choice of graft.

METHODS

Two hundred six consecutive donors were retrospectively studied. Donors were divided into two groups according to graft type: LL graft (n=137) and right lobe (RL) graft (n=69).

RESULTS

Although mean intraoperative blood loss of LL was significantly increased compared with RL, mean peak postoperative total bilirubin levels and duration of hospital stay after surgery were significantly less for LL than RL (P<0.05). No donor died or suffered a life-threatening complication during the study period. The overall complication rate was 34.0%, including biliary complications in 5.3%. The number of biliary complications was four (2.9%) in LL and seven (10.1%) in RL (P<0.05). Logistic regression analysis revealed that only graft type (LL vs. RL) is significantly related to the occurrence of biliary complications (odds ratio 0.11; P=0.0012). The cumulative overall graft survival rates in the recipients with LL were not significantly different from that in the recipients with RL.

CONCLUSIONS

LL grafting should be considered favorably when selecting donors for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation.

The right small-for-size graft results in better outcomes than the left small-for-size graft in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

The recent outcome of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT) using small-for-size grafts (SFSGs; GRWR <0.8%) has been excellent after right grafts were exclusively used in large-volume ALDLT centers.

METHODS

We compared the outcome of ALDLTs using 11 right SFSGs (group R) with that using 18 left SFSGs (group L) of our center. The dysfunction of graft was defined dysfunction as hyperbilirubinemia (>5 mg/dl), prolonged prothrombin time (>2 INR), or uncontrolled ascites (>1,000 ml/day) on 3 consecutive days in posttransplant 7 days, and the dysfunction score (DS; the sum of points given per each sign) of the graft was used to describe the SFSG dysfunction severity.

RESULTS

The pretransplant recipient status was similar between the groups, but the 1-year mortality rate was 0% in group R and 33.3% (n = 6) in group L (p = 0.038). The ICU stay was longer in group L (20 days) than in group R (11 days; p = 0.004). Hyperbilirubinemia in group R vs. L was noted in 54.5% vs. 50%, prolonged prothrombin time in 18.2% vs. 50%, and uncontrolled ascites in 54.5% vs. 100%. The DS was lower in group R than in group L (1.3 vs. 2; p = 0.007). The DS was zero in four right liver recipients. On multivariate analysis, the only factor affecting DS was the graft side.

CONCLUSION

The clinical signs of SFSG dysfunction were less arduous and there was no 1-year mortality in cases in group R. Therefore, the right SFSG may be used for ALDLT in the future base on the transplant center's experience.

Current concept of small-for-size grafts in living donor liver transplantation

The extended application of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has revealed the problem of graft size mismatching called "small-for-size (SFS) graft syndrome." The initial trials to resolve this problem involved increasing the procured graft size, from left to right, and even extension to include a right lobe graft. Clinical cases of living right lobe donations have been reported since then, drawing attention to the risks of increasing the liver volume procured from a living donor. However, not only other modes of increasing graft volume such as auxiliary or dual liver transplantation, but also control of the increased portal pressure caused by an SFS graft, such as a portosystemic shunt or splenectomy, have been trialed with some positive results. To establish an effective strategy for transplanting SFS grafts and preventing SFS graft syndrome, it is essential to have precise knowledge and tactics to evaluate graft quality and graft volume, when performing these LDLTs with portal pressure control. We reviewed the updated literature on the pathogenesis of and strategies for using SFS grafts.

Strategies for improving the outcomes of small-for-size grafts in adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation

Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been refined and accepted as a valuable treatment for patients with end-stage liver disease in order to overcome the shortage of organs and mortality on the waiting list. However, graft size problems, especially small-for-size (SFS) grafts, remain the greatest limiting factor for the expansion of LDLT, especially in adult-to-adult transplantation. Various attempts have been made to overcome the problems regarding SFS grafts, such as increasing the graft liver volume and/or controlling excessive portal inflow to a small graft, with considerable positive outcomes. Recent innovations in basic studies have also contributed to the treatment of SFS syndrome. Herein, we review the literature and assess our current knowledge of the pathogenesis and treatment strategies for the use of SFS grafts in adult-to-adult LDLT.

Impact of donor age and recipient status on left-lobe graft for living donor adult liver transplantation

Donor safety is the priority when performing a living donor adult liver transplantation (LDALT). We herein present our findings using left-lobe graft in LDALT. Data on 119 recipients who underwent the LDALT, and on 119 donors who underwent extended left lobectomy were reviewed. The recipients were divided into groups above (n = 19) and below (n = 100) 50 years of donor age, into groups above (n = 63) and below (n = 56) 40% of graft size (graft volume/standard liver volume, GV/SLV), and above (n = 25) and below (n = 94) 20 of pre-operative model for end-stage liver disease (MELD). Total bilirubin (TB), volume of ascites, prothrombin time international normalized ratio on postoperative day 14 or survival rates were compared. TB (mg/dl) or volume of ascites (ml) of the group in donor age < 50 years was better than that of the group in donor age > or = 50 years (7.4 vs. 14.7 or 788 vs. 1379, P < 0.001 or P < 0.005, respectively). The graft and patient survival rates of the lower MELD group tended to be better than that of the higher MELD group. LDALT can be safely performed using a left-lobe graft. However, when using the graft from the donor > or = 50 years, especially for the recipients with the MELD > or = 20, the indications should be carefully discussed.