Improving graft survival by understanding the mechanism of segment 4 complications after split liver transplantation

The Importance of Segment 4 Anatomy on Outcomes Following Living Donor Left Lateral Segmentectomy

BACKGROUND

During left lateral section (LLS) resection for live liver donation, the vascular inflow and the bile drainage of segment 4 (S4) are compromised. We investigated the long-term changes of S4 after donation and their potential prognostic impact on living liver donors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 42 consecutive left lateral (LLS, S2/3) liver resections for living donation.

RESULTS

There were 25 female and 17 male donors. Median age was 33 y and median body mass index was 26. Median LLS, S2/3, volume was 262 cc, and median sS4 volume was 160 cc. Complications were encountered in three donors (7%). An independent extrahepatic S4 artery (S4A) (with a proximal left heptic artery or a right hepatic artery origin) was identified in 41% of the donors. Ligation of the independent S4A was not associated with the rate of post resection liver dysfunction, complications, or the degree of S4 atrophy. Having a dominant S4 portal triad pedicle feeding the right anterior sectors, segment 5/8, of the liver was associated with increased parenchymal damage as evidenced by a higher peak of alanine aminotransferase but was not associated with postoperative complications. The median degree of atrophy of S4 at 1 y post donation as noted on imaging was 66%. The presence of a dominant S4 portal triad pedicle and the peak alanine aminotransferase early postoperatively were both predictors of the degree of S4 atrophy post donation.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of an independent S4A or dominant S4 portal triad pedicle feeding the liver right anterior sectors, segment 5/8, should not be a contraindication for left lateral segment living donation.

Enhanced Recovery in Liver Transplantation: A Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programmes after surgery are effective in reducing length of stay, functional recovery and complication rates in liver surgery (LS) with the indirect advantage of reducing hospitalisation costs. Preoperative comorbidities, challenging surgical procedures and complex post-operative management are the points that liver transplantation (LT) shares with LS. Nevertheless, there is little evidence regarding the feasibility and safety of ERAS programmes in LT.

METHODS

We designed a pilot, small-scale, feasibility study to assess the impact on hospital stay, protocol compliance and safety of an ERAS programme tailored for LT. The ERAS arm was compared with a 1:2 match paired control arm with similar characteristics. All patients with MELD <25 were included. A dedicated LT-tailored protocol was derived from publications on ERAS liver surgery.

RESULTS

Ten patients were included in the Fast-Trans arm. It was observed a 47% reduction of the total LOS, as compared to the control arm: 9.5 (9.0-10.5) days versus 18.0 (14.3-24.3) days, respectively, p <0.001. The protocol achieved 72.9% compliance. No differences were observed in terms of post-operative complications or readmission rates after discharge between the two arms. Overall, it was observed a reduction of length of stay in ICU and surgical ward in the Fast-Trans arm compared with the control arm.

CONCLUSION

Considered the main points in common between LS and LT, this small-scale study suggests that the application of an ERAS programme tailored to the LT setting is feasible. Further testing will be appropriate to generalise these findings.