Hepatic venous outflow obstruction in piggyback liver transplantation: single centre experience

Endovascular Treatment of Venous Outflow and Portal Venous Complications After Liver Transplantation

Liver transplantation continues to rapidly evolve, and in 2020, 8906 orthotopic liver transplants were performed in the United States. As a technically complex surgery with multiple vascular anastomoses, stenosis and thrombosis of the venous anastomoses are among the recognized vascular complications. While rare, venous complications may be challenging to manage and can threaten the graft and the patient. In the last 20 years, endovascular approaches have been increasingly utilized to treat post-transplant venous complications. Herein, the evaluation and interventional treatment of post-transplant venous outflow complications, portal vein stenosis, portal vein thrombosis, and recurrent portal hypertension with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) are reviewed.

Outflow obstruction after living donor liver transplantation managed with a temporary vena cava filter: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Outflow obstruction is a rare but critical vascular complication in liver transplantation, which may lead to graft loss and mortality. We report a case of caval vein outflow obstruction due to retrohepatic compression after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), which was managed by temporary implantation of a vena cava filter.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 63-year-old male with end stage liver disease presented with caval vein outflow obstruction and massive ascites 12 days after right lobe LDLT. We opted for a minimally invasive approach and implanted a vena cava filter at the compressed site through transjugular route. The patient's ascites drainage significantly decreased and graft function maintained stable after the intervention. On day 50 posttransplant, the filter was successfully removed and the patient was discharged without complications.

DISCUSSION

Outflow obstruction after liver transplantation can result from anastomotic stenosis, graft size mismatch, thrombosis or compression of the outflow tract. Various management strategies have been employed both peri- and posttransplant, ranging from surgical interventions to minimally-invasive techniques. The treatment strategy should be tailored to the individual case, considering the timing of presentation and the specific cause for the obstruction.

CONCLUSION

We successfully managed a case of compressive outflow obstruction by temporary implantation of a vena cava filter after LDLT. The vena cava filter was safely removed under angiography.

Stapled Anastomosis for Side-to-Side Cavo-Cavostomy in Orthotopic Liver Transplantation

In liver transplantation, a side-to-side anastomosis is one of the commonly performed techniques of the inferior vena cava reconstruction. The authors report a case of an application of an endoscopic vascular linear stapler for a side-to-side caval anastomosis during deceased-donor liver transplantation. The back table procedure was performed in a standard fashion for a side-to-side anastomosis. The linear vascular stapler was introduced during the temporary clamping of the recipient's inferior vena cava and the anastomosis was created without problems. Suturing of the resulting defect completed the anastomosis. The use of the stapler resulted in a shortening of the anastomosis time. The staple line after the reperfusion of the graft was completely sealed. The patient's postoperative course was uncomplicated and post-operative ultrasound and computed tomography confirmed the patency of the anastomosis. This case demonstrates a novel approach to a side-to-side caval reconstruction during liver transplantation that enables a shortening of the implantation time and may improve the quality of anastomoses.

Understanding Local Hemodynamic Changes After Liver Transplant: Different Entities or Simply Different Sides to the Same Coin?

Liver transplantation is an extremely complex procedure performed in an extremely complex patient. With a successful technique and acceptable long-term survival, a new challenge arose: overcoming donor shortage. Thus, living donor liver transplant and other techniques were developed. Aiming for donor safety, many liver transplant units attempted to push the viable limits in terms of size, retrieving smaller and smaller grafts for adult recipients. With these smaller grafts came numerous problems, concepts, and definitions. The spotlight is now aimed at the mirage of hemodynamic changes derived from the recipients prior alterations. This article focuses on the numerous hemodynamic syndromes, their definitions, causes, and management and interconnection with each other. The aim is to aid the physician in their recognition and treatment to improve liver transplantation success.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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.

Risk Factors for Hepatic Venous Outflow Obstruction in Piggyback Liver Transplantation: The Role of Recipient's Pattern of Hepatic Veins Drainage into the Inferior Vena Cava

Background

The recipient’s pattern of hepatic veins (HVs) drainage into the inferior vena cava (IVC) (drainage pattern, for short) may influence outflow reconstruction and thus hepatic venous outflow obstruction (HVOO) in piggyback liver transplantation (PBLT). However, no previous study has investigated this association.

Material/Methods

A retrospective analysis of 202 PBLT (2000–2016) was conducted. Based on drainage patterns, the patients were divided into Group A (common trunk of left and middle HVs), Group B (common trunk of right and middle HVs), and Group C (common trunk of 3 HVs). Patients’ demographic and surgical data were compared within the 3 groups, and risk factors for HVOO were tested using a multiple logistic regression model.

Results

A chi-square test revealed a significantly higher HVOO incidence in Group 1 compared with the other groups (23.5% vs. 9.6% vs. 7.1%, p=0.047). The demographics and surgical data except angle∠AOB between the reconstructed outflow and IVC in cross-section of 3D image (∠AOB), ratio of the length of reconstructed outflow and ∠AOB (LRO/∠AOB ratio), and types of HV ligation did not differ significantly within the 3 groups. ∠AOB and LRO/∠AOB ratio were used to assess the level of anastomosis twisting and compression, respectively. Among the 3 groups, the largest ∠AOB and highest LRO/∠AOB ratio were observed in Group A and B, respectively. In addition, multivariate analysis indicated that the ∠AOB (OR=1.016, 95%CI: 1.006–1.027) and LRO/∠AOB ratio (OR=2.254, 95% CI: 1.041–5.519) were risk factors for HVOO.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that drainage patterns were associated with HVOO. The best choice for outflow reconstruction is Group C. The patients in Group A and B were likely to develop HVOO due to anastomosis twisting and compression, respectively.