Conventional versus piggyback technique of caval implantation; without extra-corporeal veno-venous bypass. A comparative study

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.

Comparison of the modified piggyback with standard piggyback and conventional orthotopic liver transplantation techniques: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In conventional orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), the recipient's retrohepatic inferior vena cava (IVC) is completely clamped and replaced with the donor IVC. The piggyback technique has been used to preserve venous return, either via an end-to-side or standard piggyback (SPB), or via a side-to-side or modified piggyback (MPB) anastomosis, using a venous cuff from the recipient hepatic veins with partially clamping and preserves the recipient's inferior vena cava. However, whether these piggyback techniques improve the efficacy of OLT is unclear. To address the low quality of the available evidence, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of conventional, MPB, and SPB techniques.

METHODS

Literature was searched in Medline and Web of Science databases for relevant articles published until 2021 without any time restriction. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the intra- and postoperative outcomes of conventional OLT, MPB, and SPB techniques.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included, comprising 10,238 patients. MPB and SPB had significantly shorter operation times and fewer transfusions of red blood cell and fresh frozen plasma than conventional techniques. However, there were no differences between MPB and SPB in operation time and blood product transfusion. There were also no differences in primary non-function, retransplantation, portal vein thrombosis, acute kidney injury, renal dysfunction, venous outflow complications, length of hospital and intensive care unit stay, 90-day mortality rate, and graft survival between the three techniques.

CONCLUSION

MBP and SBP techniques reduce the operation time and need for blood transfusion compared with conventional OLT, but postoperative outcomes are similar. This indicates that all techniques can be implemented based on the experience and policy of the transplant center.

Intensive care management of liver transplant recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Liver transplantation remains the only definitive treatment for advanced liver disease and liver failure. Current allocation schemes utilized for liver transplantation mandate a 'sickest first' approach, thus most liver transplants occur in patients with severe systemic illness. For intensive care providers who care for liver transplant recipients, a foundation of knowledge of technical considerations of orthotopic liver transplantation, basic management considerations, and common complications is essential. This review highlights the authors' approach to intensive care management of the postoperative liver transplant recipient with a review of common issues, which arise in this patient population.

RECENT FINDINGS

The number of centers offering liver transplantation continues to increase globally and the number of patients receiving liver transplantation also continues to increase. The number of patients with advanced liver disease far outpaces organ availability and, therefore, patients undergoing liver transplant are sicker at the time of transplant. Outcomes for liver transplant patients continue to improve owing to advancements in surgical technique, immunosuppression management, and intensive care management of liver disease both pretransplant and posttransplant.

SUMMARY

Given a global increase in liver transplantation, an increasing number of intensive care professionals are likely to care for this patient population. For these providers, a foundational knowledge of the common complications and key management considerations is essential.

Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy after Liver Transplantation: Peri-Operative Associated Factors and Impact on Survival

Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) following orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is usually started for multifactorial reasons, with variable incidence among series. This paper presents a single-center retrospective observational study on the early use (within one week) of CRRT after consecutive cadaveric OLT from January 2008 to December 2016. Preoperative patient characteristics and intraoperative data were collected, and patients were divided into two groups (CRRT and no CRRT) to explore the factors associated with the use of CRRT. Repeated measurements of postoperative creatinine were analyzed with generalized estimating equation (GEE) models. Among 528 OLT patients, 75 (14.2%) were treated with CRRT at least once in the first week. Patients treated with CRRT showed lower survival in a Kaplan−Meier curve (log-rank p value < 0.01). Patients treated with CRRT had a more severe preoperative profile, with a significantly higher age, MELD, BUN, creatinine, and total bilirubin, as well as a longer surgery time and a higher number of transfusions of red blood cells, plasma, and platelets (all p values < 0.05). In a stepwise multiple analysis, the following characteristics remained independently associated with the use of CRRT: the MELD score OR 1.12 (95% CL: 1.07−1.16), p value < 0.001, and the preoperative value for blood urea nitrogen OR 1.016 (95% CL: 1.010−1.023), p value < 0.001. The early use of CRRT after OLT occurred at a low rate in this large cohort; however, it was associated with worse outcomes. Apart from the preoperative severity, repeated intraoperative hypotension episodes, which were likely modifiable or preventable, were associated with the increased use of CRRT and higher postoperative creatinine.

Left renal vein graft and in situ hepatic perfusion in hepatectomy for complete tumor invasion of hepatic veins: hemodynamic optimization and surgical technique

Purpose

Assessing hepatic vein reconstruction using a left renal vein graft and in situ hypothermic liver perfusion in an extended liver resection.

Methods

Patients included in this study were those with liver tumors undergoing curative surgery with resection and reconstruction of hepatic veins. Hepatic vein was reconstructed using a left renal vein graft. We describe the technical aspects of liver resection and vascular reconstruction, the key aspects of hemodynamic management, and the use of in situ hypothermic liver preservations during liver transection (prior to and during vascular clamping).

Results

The right hepatic vein was reconstructed with a median left renal venal graft length of 4.5 cm (IQR, 3.1–5.2). Creatinine levels remained within normal limits in the immediate postoperative phase and during follow-up. Median blood loss was 500 ml (IQR, 300–1500) and in situ perfusion with cold ischemia was 67 min (IQR, 60.5–77.5). The grafts remained patent during the follow-up with no signs of thrombosis. No major postoperative complications were observed.

Conclusion

Left renal vein graft for the reconstruction of a hepatic vein and in situ hypothermic liver perfusion are feasible during extended liver resection.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-022-02451-6.

An Alternative Surgical Technique of Native Hepatectomy in Liver Transplantation

Background

Orthotopic liver transplantation has become the procedure of choice for end-stage liver disease. There are 3 commonly used methods of vena cava anastomosis. Here, we report a new technique for native hepatectomy.

Material/Methods

The data of 12 patients who underwent orthotopic liver transplantation using a new surgical technique were retrospectively collected for analysis. The new separation and reconstruction surgical technique mainly involved the second portal isolation and hepatectomy that followed. We performed recipient liver resection without the occlusion of the inferior vena cava, which was then followed by classic, piggyback, modified piggyback, or side-to-side orthotopic liver transplantation. The graft function index and complications were collected after transplantation.

Results

The length of the anhepatic phase was 30.92±9.1 min. Alanine transaminase (ALT) levels were 138 to 2027 U/L, with a median of 361.5 U/L. The ALT levels of all patients gradually decreased to normal levels 7 to 10 days after surgery. Only 2 recipients had elevated levels of ALT higher than 1000 U/L. Four of 12 patients did not require red blood cell transfusion during surgery. Four patients appeared to have early allograft dysfunction, while others recovered smoothly.

Conclusions

This new surgical technique may shorten the anhepatic phase and decrease blood loss volume, aiding the success of liver transplant surgery. It can be used for most patients and does not increase the risk of complications or impair prognosis.

Multivisceral Transplantation for Diffuse Portomesenteric Thrombosis: Lessons Learned for Surgical Optimization

Background: Multivisceral transplantation entails the en-bloc transplantation of stomach, duodenum, pancreas, liver and bowel following resection of the native organs. Diffuse portomesenteric thrombosis, defined as the complete occlusion of the portal system, can lead to life-threatening gastrointestinal bleeding, malnutrition and can be associated with liver and intestinal failure. Multivisceral transplantation is the only procedure that offers a definitive solution by completely replacing the portal system. However, this procedure is technically challenging in this setting. The aim of this study is to describe our experience, highlight the challenges and propose technical solutions.

Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of our cohort undergoing multivisceral transplantation for diffuse portomesenteric thrombosis at our institution from 2000 to 2020. Donor and recipient demographics and surgical strategies were reviewed in detail and posttransplant complications and survival were analyzed.

Results: Five patients underwent MVTx. Median age was 47 years (23–62). All had diffuse portomesenteric thrombosis with life-threatening variceal bleeding. Major blood loss during exenteration was avoided by combining two techniques: embolization of the native organs followed by a novel, staged extraction. This prevented major perioperative blood loss [median intra-operative transfusion of 3 packed red blood cell units (0–5)]. Median CIT was 330 min (316–416). There was no perioperative death. One patient died due to invasive aspergillosis. Four others are alive and well with a median follow-up of 4.1 years (0.3–5.9).

Conclusions: Multivisceral transplantation should be considered in patients with diffuse portomesenteric thrombosis that cannot be treated by any other means. We propose a standardized surgical approach to limit the operative risk and improve the outcome.

Current update in domino liver transplantation

Orthotopic liver transplantation is an established treatment for end stage liver diseases as well as for some severe metabolic disorders. With increasing number of patients on the waiting list and the ongoing shortage of livers available, domino liver transplantation (DLT) became an option to further expand the organ donor pool. DLT utilizes the explanted liver of one liver transplant recipient as a donor graft in another patient. Despite being a surgically, and logistically demanding procedure, excellent results could be achieved in experienced high-volume transplant centers. In this review we present the current world status of DLT.

Weaning of Veno-venous Bypass in Liver Transplantation: A Single Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Veno-venous bypass (VVB) has been used in liver transplantation (LT) to minimize hemodynamic instability during caval anastomosis of anhepatic phase. With the introduction of the piggyback (PB) technique, which is a caval-sparing technique, the use of VVB progressively decreased over the world. The aim of this study was to introduce our experience using VVB with the focus on its weaning process.

METHODS

A total of 300 consecutive LT cases from May 1996 to November 2003 were examined. Except for pediatric LT, 242 LT cases were investigated to evaluate the trends in VVB use, surgical technique, the amount of transfusion requirements, and durations of operation and anhepatic phase.

RESULTS

For the early 100 LT cases, VVB was used in 97.5% of recipients, especially in all the recipients of deceased donor LT (DDLT). Then, the frequency of VVB use was decreased, and VVB was not used after the 268th recipient. In DDLT, the PB technique was first introduced in the 58th recipient and became a routine procedure of the DDLT since the 191th recipient. Living donor LT was increased, and the amount of transfusion requirement, duration of operation, and duration of anhepatic phase was reduced over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing experience and sophisticated surgical and anesthetic techniques were important factors responsible for the weaning of VVB. The advancement of the PB technique used in living donor LT might be a main factor of its weaning.

Liver Transplantation Without Venovenous Bypass: Does Surgical Approach Matter?

Background

The use of venovenous bypass in liver transplantation has declined over time. Few studies have examined the impact of surgical approach in cases performed exclusively without venovenous bypass. We hypothesized that advances in liver transplant anesthesia and perioperative care have minimized the importance of surgical approach in the modern era.

Methods

Deceased donor liver transplants at the University of Toronto from 2000 to 2015 were reviewed, all performed without venovenous bypass. First, an unadjusted analysis was performed comparing perioperative outcomes and graft/patient survival for 3 different liver transplant techniques (caval interposition, piggyback, side-to-side cavo-cavostomy). Second, a propensity-matched analysis was performed comparing caval interposition to caval-preserving techniques.

Results

One thousand two hundred thirty-three liver transplants were included in the study. On unadjusted analysis, blood loss, transfusion requirement, postoperative complications, and graft/patient survival were equivalent for the 3 different techniques. To account for possible confounding patient variables, propensity matching was performed. Analysis of the propensity-matched cohorts also demonstrated similar outcomes for caval interposition versus caval-preserving approaches.

Conclusions

In the modern era at centers with a multidisciplinary team, the importance of specific liver transplant technique is minimized. Full or partial cross-clamping of the inferior vena cava is feasible without the use of venovenous bypass.

Impact of non-oncological factors on tumor recurrence after liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary neoplasm of the liver and is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide. Liver transplantation (LT) has become one of the best curative therapeutic options for patients with HCC, although tumor recurrence after LT is a major and unaddressed cause of mortality. Furthermore, the factors that are associated with recurrence are not fully understood, and most previous studies have focused on the biological properties of HCC, such as the number and size of the HCC nodules, the degree of differentiation, the presence of hepatic vascular invasion, elevated serum levels of alpha-fetoprotein, and the tumor stage outside of the Milan criteria. Thus, little attention has been given to factors that are not directly related to HCC (i.e., “non-oncological factors”), which have emerged as predictors of tumor recurrence. This review was performed to assess the effects of non-oncological factors on tumor recurrence after LT. The identification of these factors may provide new research directions and clinical strategies for the prophylaxis and surveillance of tumor recurrence after LT, which can help reduce recurrence and improve patient survival.

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

BACKGROUND

Hepatic venous outflow obstruction (HVOO) is a rare but serious complication in liver transplantation (LT).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of HVOO with venography and gradient measurement in consecutive LT from a single centre.

RESULTS

Five hundred and six LTs were performed in 486 patients with a median age of 49 years (range 3 months to 71 years). Nineteen (3.8%) cases of HVOO were identified. Diagnosis was confirmed at a median of 26 days post-LT (1-2312). The incidence fell from 5.5% in the first 253 LT, to 2.0% in the second 253 (P = 0.03). Seventeen were due to narrowing at the anastomosis and two cases were due to thrombosis. In adult patients, reconstruction of the supra-hepatic donor inferior vena cava (IVC) onto two veins versus modified 2-3 hepatic veins did not alter the likelihood of HVOO. 17/19 cases were managed successfully by stenting or venoplasty. Two paediatric patients with early onset HVOO had attempted surgical thrombectomy, one was successful and the other required retransplantation.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of HVOO appears to fall with increasing experience and does not appear to be related to the number of veins the donor IVC is anastomosed to in adult recipients.

Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Hepatic Venous Outflow and Renal Function after Conventional versus Piggyback Liver Transplantation

Background

This randomized prospective clinical trial compared the hepatic venous outflow drainage and renal function after conventional with venovenous bypass (n = 15) or piggyback (n = 17) liver transplantation.

Methods

Free hepatic vein pressure (FHVP) and central venous pressure (CVP) measurements were performed after graft reperfusion. Postoperative serum creatinine (Cr) was measured daily on the first week and on the 14^th, 21^st and 28^th postoperative days (PO). The prevalence of acute renal failure (ARF) up to the 28th PO was analyzed by RIFLE-AKIN criteria. A Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach was used for comparison of longitudinal measurements of renal function.

Results

FHVP-CVP gradient > 3 mm Hg was observed in 26.7% (4/15) of the patients in the conventional group and in 17.6% (3/17) in the piggyback group (p = 0.68). Median FHVP-CVP gradient was 2 mm Hg (0–8 mmHg) vs. 3 mm Hg (0–7 mm Hg) in conventional and piggyback groups, respectively (p = 0.73). There is no statistically significant difference between the conventional (1/15) and the piggyback (2/17) groups regarding massive ascites development (p = 1.00). GEE estimated marginal mean for Cr was significantly higher in conventional than in piggyback group (2.14 ± 0.26 vs. 1.47 ± 0.15 mg/dL; p = 0.02). The conventional method presented a higher prevalence of severe ARF during the first 28 PO days (OR = 3.207; 95% CI, 1.010 to 10.179; p = 0.048).

Conclusion

Patients submitted to liver transplantation using conventional or piggyback methods present similar results regarding venous outflow drainage of the graft. Conventional with venovenous bypass technique significantly increases the harm of postoperative renal dysfunction.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01707810

Caval reconstruction techniques in orthotopic liver transplantation

There are several caval reconstruction techniques currently in use for orthotopic liver transplantation. These include caval replacement or the conventional technique, performed with or without venovenous bypass, piggyback technique with anastomosis with two or three hepatic veins with or without cavotomy and modifications of the piggyback technique including end-to-side and side-to-side cavocaval anastomosis. There are few randomized controlled trials comparing the use of these techniques and our knowledge of their comparability is based on a few multi- and many single-center retrospective and prospective reviews. Although there are advantages and disadvantages for each technique, it is advisable that the surgeon perform the technique with which they have the most the experience and at which they are the most skilled as excellent outcomes can be obtained with any of the caval reconstruction options discussed.

Bypass during Liver Transplantation: Anachronism or Revival? Liver Transplantation Using a Combined Venovenous/Portal Venous Bypass-Experiences with 163 Liver Transplants in a Newly Established Liver Transplantation Program

Introduction. The venovenous/portal venous (VVP) bypass technique has generally become obsolete in liver transplantation (LT) today. We evaluated our experience with 163 consecutive LTs that used a VVP bypass. Patients and Methods. The liver transplant program was started in our center in 2010. LTs were performed using an extracorporal bypass device. Results. Mean operative time was 269 minutes and warm ischemic time 43 minutes. The median number of transfusion of packed cells and plasma was 7 and 14. There was no intraoperative death, and the 30-day mortality was 3%. Severe bypass-induced complications did not occur. Discussion. The introduction of a new LT program requires maximum safety measures for all of the parties involved. Both surgical and anaesthesiological management (reperfusion) can be controlled very reliably using a VVP bypass device. Particularly when using marginal grafts, this approach helps to minimise both surgical and anaesthesiological complications in terms of less volume overload, less use of vasopressive drugs, less myocardial injury, and better peripheral blood circulation. Conclusion. Based on our experiences while establishing a new liver transplantation program, we advocate the reappraisal of the extracorporeal VVP bypass.

Conventional versus piggyback techniques: do they have different outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Conventional orthotopic liver transplant includes resection of the recipient's native liver, together with the retrohepatic inferior vena cava, whereas with the piggyback technique, the recipient's vena cava is preserved and the donor's vena cava is anastomosed with the recipient's hepatic veins. So the caval flow is maintained during explantation, but on the other hand, the cava must be dissected completely from the liver, prolonging hepatic excision.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of conventional versus piggyback techniques. Primary outcomes were serious adverse events or complications, and secondary outcomes were graft survival for 3 and 12 months, quality of life, days in the intensive care unit and in the hospital, and days spent receiving mechanical ventilation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 3, 2007, to December 31, 2008, 120 liver transplant patients were divided into 2 groups: conventional (n = 93) and piggyback (n = 27).

RESULTS

Intraoperative and postoperative complications, graft survival for 3 and 12 months, quality of life, and hospital stay did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. However, the stay in the intensive care unit (median, 2 vs 3 days; range, 1-101 vs 1-60 days) and the number of days on ventilatory support (median, 1 vs 2 days; range, 0-41 vs 1-60 days) were notably lower in the conventional group.

CONCLUSION

The conventional liver transplant technique had significantly better results than the piggyback technique in terms of length of stay in the intensive care unit and duration of mechanical ventilation.

A comparative study of the classic and piggyback techniques for orthotopic liver transplantation

Background:

The classic technique of hepatectomy with venovenous bypass may cause a longer anhepatic phase and increase the rate of some complications, such as post-operative renal failure and thromboembolic events. But, in some cases, such as tumors and anatomic difficulties, the surgeon is obligated to use the classic technique even though there is some controversy about the safety of this technique without venovenous bypass in liver transplantation. The aim of this study was to compare the results of using the classic technique without venovenous bypass and the piggyback technique for liver transplantation.

Methods:

A retrospective case-series study was conducted on 227 consecutive successful liver transplants, including 55 cases in which the classic technique was used and 172 cases in which the piggyback technique was used. The transplants were performed from March 2010 through June 2011 in the Visceral Transplantation Ward at Namazi Hospital in Shiraz, Iran. The piggyback method was the preferred approach for hepatectomy, but the classic technique without venovenous bypass was performed in cirrhotic cases with anatomic difficulties, when there was a tumor, or when the surgeon preferred it.

Results:

There were no significant differences in post-operative rise in creatinine, decreases in intraoperative blood pressure, transfused packed red blood cells (RBC), or survival rates between the groups. Warm ischemic time (duration that donor liver is out of ice until it’s blood reperfusion in the recipient) was approximately seven minutes longer in the classic group (P = 0), but it was less than 52 minutes, which is an acceptable time for this phase. Hospital stays were shorter in the classic group than in the piggyback group (P = 0.024).

Conclusion:

Although the piggyback technique is the preferred technique for hepatectomy in liver transplantation, the classic technique without venovenous bypass can be used safely in cirrhotic livers when necessary or if the physician prefers it.

Postoperative kidney injury does not decrease survival after liver transplantation

PURPOSE

To explore the effect of acute kidney injury (AKI) on long-term survival after conventional orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) without venovenous bypass (VVB).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was carried out on 153 patients with end-stage liver diseases transplanted by the Department of General Surgery and Liver Transplantation of the University of Pernambuco, from August, 1999 to December, 2009. The Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and log-rank test were applied to explore the association between AKI and long-term patient survival, and multivariate analyses were applied to control the effect of other variables.

RESULTS

Over the 12.8-year follow-up, 58.8% patients were alive with a median follow-up of 4.5-year. Patient 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year survival were 74.5%, 70.6%, 67.9% and 60.1%; respectively. Early postoperative mortality was poorer amongst patients who developed AKI (5.4% vs. 20%, p=0.010), but long-term 5-year survival did not significantly differed between groups (51.4% vs. 65.3%; p=0.077). After multivariate analyses, AKI was not significantly related to long-term survival and only the intraoperative transfusion of red blood cells was significantly related to this outcome (non-adjusted Exp[b]=1.072; p=0.045).

CONCLUSION

The occurrence of postoperative acute kidney injury did not independently decrease patient survival after orthotopic liver transplantation without venovenous bypass in this data from northeast Brazil.

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.

Liver transplantation with preservation of the inferior vena cava: lessons learned through 2,000 cases

BACKGROUND

We aim to demonstrate the utility and efficacy of the "piggyback technique" (PBT); liver transplant (LT) with caval preservation.

STUDY DESIGN

Adult LTs were performed with intent to use the PBT except in cases of juxtacaval malignancy or technical difficulty. Hepatic venous outflow was established between the donor suprahepatic cava and the joined ostia of all recipient suprahepatic veins. Technical variants with the donor cava and recipient retrohepatic cava were used as needed. The experience was divided into 2 eras: E1 (1994-2002), E2 (2002-2010).

RESULTS

We completed 945 of 1080 LTs in E1 (87.5%) and 851 of 920 LTs in E2 (92.5%) using the PBT. Thirty day mortality was 4.6% in E1, 3% in E2 (p = 0.02) with 2 intra-operative deaths in E1. One, 3, 5 year patient survival was 83.7, 75.6, 69.3% in E1 vs. 86, 78.4, 73.8% in E2 (p = 0.057). Graft survival was 77.7, 69, 62.3% in E1 vs. 84, 76.2, 71.2% in E2 (p < 0.0001). Median operative time and hospital length of stay improved in E2 (p < 0.0001, 0.0001). Outflow variants were used more frequently in E2 (11.3% vs. 6.1%). Nine patients (0.5%) developed outflow obstruction, 6 in E1, and 3 in E2. Twice, it was recognized and corrected intraoperatively. Seven patients presented with refractory ascites. Six were successfully treated (4 balloon dilatation, 2 surgical revision), one patient died after attempted dilatation.

CONCLUSIONS

The PBT can be used as the preferred technique in adult LT. With experience, the technique was used more frequently, with more variants, with improved outcomes. Outflow obstruction was a rare complication.

Orthotopic liver transplantation without venovenous bypass using the conventional and piggyback techniques

INTRODUCTION

Orthotopic liver transplantation is a widely used procedure for the treatment of irreversible liver diseases for which there is no possibility of medical treatment. When this procedure is performed by the conventional technique, the retrohepatic vena cava is removed along with the native liver. The inferior vena cava (IVC) remains clamped until the revascularization of the graft, and in this period there is a reduction in the venous return, which may induce a fall by up to 50% in the cardiac output with hemodynamic instability and a fall in renal perfusion pressure. The use of a portal-femoral-axillary venovenous bypass system, in which the blood from the femoral and portal veins returns to the heart via the axillary vein propelled by a centrifugal pump, is intended to minimize the effects of the IVC clamping. In the piggyback (PB) technique, the native liver is removed and the IVC of the recipient is preserved and only partially clamped. We have employed both techniques without the use of venovenous bypass for 10 years. The objective of this study was to compare the results obtained from the use of the two techniques.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of 195 patients transplanted between 1999 and 2008: 125 by the conventional technique and 70, the PB technique. The intraoperative parameters were analyzed (surgical time, ischemia time, use of blood products, and diuresis), as well as intensive care support (duration of stay in intensive care unit and use of vasoactive drugs), period of intubation, length of hospital stay, renal function, graft function, postoperative complications, retransplantation, and patient survival.

RESULTS

The PB group showed a reduction in surgical time, warm ischemia time, the use of packed red blood cells concentrates, and fresh frozen plasma, as well as mortality at 30 days (P<.05). There were no differences in relation to cold ischemia time, intraoperative diuresis; length of stay and use of vasoactive drugs in the intensive care unit; the period of intubation; the duration of hospital stay; the renal function; the graft function; the need for reoperation; the incidence of sepsis, biliary complications, vascular complications; need for retransplantation; and 1-year mortality. The cumulative survival rate at 1 year was significantly better among the PB patients.

CONCLUSION

Orthotopic liver transplantation can be performed without venovenous bypass with good results, using either the conventional technique or the PB technique. Provided that there is no technical contraindication and a long ischemia period is not foreseen, the PB technique should be the technique of choice.

Comparison of surgical methods in liver transplantation: retrohepatic caval resection with venovenous bypass (VVB) versus piggyback (PB) with VVB versus PB without VVB

Use of piggyback technique (PB) and elimination of venovenous bypass (VVB) have been advocated in adult liver transplantation (LT). However, individual contribution of these two modifications on clinical outcomes has not been fully investigated. We performed a retrospective review of 426 LTs within a 3-year period, when three different surgical techniques were employed per the surgeons' preference: retrohepatic caval resection with VVB (RCR+VVB) in 104 patients, PB with VVB (PB+VVB) in 148, and PB without VVB (PB-Only) in 174. The primary outcomes were intraoperative blood transfusion and the patient and graft survivals. Demographic profiles were similar, except younger recipient age in RCR+VVB and fewer number of grafts with cold ischemic time over 16 h in PB-Only. PB-Only required lesser intraoperative red blood cells (P=0.006), fresh frozen plasma (P=0.005), and cell saver return (P=0.007); had less incidence of acute renal failure (P=0.001), better patient survival (P=0.039), and graft survival (P=0.003). The benefits of PB+VVB were only found in shortened total surgical time (P=0.0001) and warm ischemic time (P=0.0001), and less incidence of acute renal failure (P=0.001) than RCR+VVB. PB-Only method seemed to provide the best clinical outcome. The benefit of PB was not fully achieved when it was used with VVB.

Four hundred and twenty-three consecutive adults piggy-back liver transplantations with the three suprahepatic veins: was the portal systemic shunt required?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study is to analyze a single-center experience in orthotopic liver transplantation with the piggy-back technique (PB) realized with a cuff of three veins without temporary portacaval shunt. Outcome parameters were graft and patient survival and the surgical complications.

METHODS

The records of 423 liver transplantation in 396 adult recipients were reviewed. PB was performed in all cases also in patients with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts and redo transplants without temporary portacaval shunt. No hemodynamic instability was observed during venous reconstruction.

RESULTS

Operation time, cold ischemia time and anhepatic phase were, respectively, 316, 606 and 82 min, respectively. The mean intraoperative transfusion of packed red blood cells was 3.2 (range 1-48). Surgical complications were observed in 25% of the orthotopic liver transplantation and 2% of these was related to caval anastomosis. No case of caval thrombosis was observed; a stenosis was noted in seven patients, always treated with an endovascular approach. A postoperative ascites was observed in seven cases. Retransplantation was required in 6.3% patients. Overall in-hospital mortality was 5.3%, but no patient died through technical problems or complications related to PB procedure. One-, 3- and 5-year grafts and patients were 94%, 83% and 75%, and 92%, 86% and 79%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This experience indicates that our approach is feasible with a low specific risk and can be performed without portacaval shunt, with minimal outflow venous complications.

The influence of the explant technique on the hemodynamic profile during sequential domino liver transplantation in familial amyloid polyneuropathy patients

Familial amyloidotic polyneuropathy (FAP) patients present adrenergic cardiac input blockade secondary to amyloid deposits and sympathetic neuropathy. Consequently, their capacity to compensate for hemodynamic changes is limited. To avoid hemodynamic disturbances in sequential liver transplants, a standard procedure with venovenous bypass or inferior vena cava preservation is contemplated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of both techniques on the hemodynamic management and outcome of patients affected by FAP and scheduled for a domino liver transplantation program. We evaluated 36 FAP patients. Venovenous bypass was performed for 20 patients (the venovenous bypass group), whereas the vena cava preservation technique was used for the remaining 16 patients (the cava preservation group). The time that elapsed from FAP diagnosis to liver transplantation was 3.2 +/- 2.7 years. Peripheral neuropathy was present in all patients, autonomic dysfunction was present in 71%, and cardiac involvement was present in 69%. Renal and gastrointestinal manifestations were reported in 19% and 53% of patients, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 97%, 93%, and 93%, respectively. Intraoperative hemodynamic and cardiac disorders, need for vasoactive drugs, blood loss, and transfusion requirements were recorded. Postoperative outcome and cardiac and renal complications were also recorded. No significant differences in disease severity or demographic characteristics were observed. Among all the variables studied, only the total ischemia time and time in surgery were significantly longer in the venovenous bypass group patients (P < or = 0.05). During the postoperative period, the incidence of minor cardiovascular events, incidence of acute renal dysfunction, and outcomes were similar in the 2 groups. In conclusion, either preservation of the vena cava or the standard technique with venovenous bypass can be safely used in FAP patients during liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 15:869-875, 2009. (c) 2009 AASLD.

A single-center experience of 500 liver transplants using the modified piggyback technique by Belghiti

Over the past 4 decades, the surgical techniques of liver transplantation (LTx) have permanently evolved and been modified. Among these, the modified piggyback (MPB) technique by Belghiti offers specific advantages. The objective of this study was to present our single-center experience with the MPB technique in 500 cases. Recipients' perioperative data were prospectively collected and evaluated. Postoperative and specific complications, stay in the intensive and intermediate care unit, and the mortality rate with cause of death were analyzed. Most recipients were classified as Child C (49.1%). For the patients who underwent LTx for the first time, alcoholic (23.9%) and viral (22.2%) cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (15.1%) were the prevalent indications. The overall median warm ischemia time, anastomosis duration, and operative time were 45, 108, and 320 minutes, respectively. The median intraoperative blood loss was 1500 mL. A venovenous bypass was never needed to maintain hemodynamic stability. Only in a few cases was temporary inferior vena cava clamping necessary. Most prominent surgical complications were hemorrhage, hematoma, and wound dehiscence. Renal failure occurred in 6.2% of patients. The overall median stay in the intensive and intermediate care unit was 14 days. The mortality rates within 30 and 90 days were 6.3% and 13.3%, respectively. No technique-related death occurred. The MPB technique by Belghiti is a feasible and simple LTx technique. The caval flow is preserved during the anhepatic phase, and this minimizes the need for venovenous bypass or portocaval shunt. This technique requires only 1 caval anastomosis, which is easy to perform with a short anhepatic phase. To minimize the risk of outflow obstruction, attention should be paid by doing a wide cavocavostomy cranially to the donor inferior vena cava in a door-lock manner. This technique can be applied in almost all patients undergoing LTx for the first time and liver retransplantation as well.

The need for venovenous bypass in liver transplantation

Since introduction of the conventional liver transplantation (CLTx) by Starzl, which was based on the resection of recipient inferior vena cava (IVC) along the liver, the procedure has undergone several refinements. Successful use of venovenous bypass (VVB) was first introduced by Shaw et al., although in recent decades there has been controversy regarding the routine use of VVB during CLTx. With development of piggyback liver transplantation (PLTx), the use of caval clamping and VVB is avoided, leading to fewer complications related to VVB. However, some authors still advocate VVB in PLTx. The great diversity among centers in their use of VVB during CLTx, or even along the PLTx technique, has led to confusion regarding the indication setting for VVB. For this reason, we present an overview of the use of VVB in CLTx, the target of patients for whom VVB could be beneficial, and the needs assessment of VVB for patients undergoing PLTx. Recent studies have shown that with the advancement of surgical skills, refinement of surgical techniques, and improvements in anesthesiology, there are only limited indications for doing CLTx with VVB routinely. PLTx with preservation of IVC can be performed in almost all primary transplants and in the majority of re-transplantations without the need for VVB. Nevertheless, in a few selective cases with severe intra-operative hemodynamic instability, or with a failed test of transient IVC occlusion, the application of VVB is still justifiable. These indications should be judged intra-operatively and the decision is based on each center's preference.