Living-donor right hepatectomy with or without inclusion of middle hepatic vein: comparison of morbidity and outcome in 56 patients

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.

Novel Benchmark for Adult-to-Adult Living-donor Liver Transplantation: Integrating Eastern and Western Experiences

OBJECTIVE

To define benchmark values for adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

BACKGROUND

LDLT utilizes living-donor hemiliver grafts to expand the donor pool and reduce waitlist mortality. Although references have been established for donor hepatectomy, no such information exists for recipients to enable conclusive quality and comparative assessments.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LDLT were analyzed in 15 high-volume centers (≥10 cases/year) from 3 continents over 5 years (2016-2020), with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Benchmark criteria included a Model for End-stage Liver Disease ≤20, no portal vein thrombosis, no previous major abdominal surgery, no renal replacement therapy, no acute liver failure, and no intensive care unit admission. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of all centers' medians.

RESULTS

Of 3636 patients, 1864 (51%) qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cutoffs, including posttransplant dialysis (≤4%), primary nonfunction (≤0.9%), nonanastomotic strictures (≤0.2%), graft loss (≤7.7%), and redo-liver transplantation (LT) (≤3.6%), at 1-year were below the deceased donor LT benchmarks. Bile leak (≤12.4%), hepatic artery thrombosis (≤5.1%), and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI ® ) (≤56) were above the deceased donor LT benchmarks, whereas mortality (≤9.1%) was comparable. The right hemiliver graft, compared with the left, was associated with a lower CCI ® score (34 vs 21, P < 0.001). Preservation of the middle hepatic vein with the right hemiliver graft had no impact neither on the recipient nor on the donor outcome. Asian centers outperformed other centers with CCI ® score (21 vs 47, P < 0.001), graft loss (3.0% vs 6.5%, P = 0.002), and redo-LT rates (1.0% vs 2.5%, P = 0.029). In contrast, non-benchmark low-volume centers displayed inferior outcomes, such as bile leak (15.2%), hepatic artery thrombosis (15.2%), or redo-LT (6.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Benchmark LDLT offers a valuable alternative to reduce waitlist mortality. Exchange of expertise, public awareness, and centralization policy are, however, mandatory to achieve benchmark outcomes worldwide.

Lumped parameter liver simulation to predict acute haemodynamic alterations following partial resections

Partial liver resections are routinely performed in living donor liver transplantation and to debulk tumours in liver malignancies, but surgical decisions on vessel reconstruction for adequate inflow and outflow are challenging. Pre-operative evaluation is often limited to radiological imaging, which fails to account for post-resection haemodynamic alterations. Substantial evidence suggests post-surgical increase in local volume flow rate enhances shear stress, signalling hepatic regeneration, but excessive shear stress has been postulated to result in small for size syndrome and liver failure. Predicting haemodynamic alterations throughout the liver is particularly challenging due to the dendritic architecture of the vasculature, spanning several orders of magnitude in diameter. Therefore, we developed a mathematical lumped parameter model with realistic heterogeneities capturing inflow/outflow of the human liver to simulate acute perfusion alterations following surgical resection. Our model is parametrized using clinical measurements, relies on a single free parameter and accurately captures established perfusion characteristics. We quantify acute changes in volume flow rate, flow speed and wall shear stress following variable, realistic liver resections and make comparisons with the intact liver. Our numerical model runs in minutes and can be adapted to patient-specific anatomy, providing a novel computational tool aimed at assisting pre- and intra-operative surgical decisions for liver resections.

Pure laparoscopic versus open right donor hepatectomy including the middle hepatic vein: a comparison of outcomes and safety

Purpose

Analyses on pure laparoscopy in donor hepatectomies, including the middle hepatic vein (MHV), are still scarce. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of donor right hepatectomy, including the MHV, when performed laparoscopically with conventional open surgery.

Methods

Data from living donors who underwent donor right hepatectomy between January 2012 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The intraoperative and postoperative complication rates of the pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) with MHV inclusion (PLDRHM) group were compared with the conventional open donor right hepatectomy with MHV inclusion (CDRHM) group and the PLDRH without MHV inclusion [PLDRHM(–)] group.

Results

Compared to the CDRHM group, the PLDRHM group had a longer bench time (P < 0.001) and higher Δ%, calculated as [(preoperative value – postoperative value)/preoperative value] × 100, of AST (P < 0.001), ALT (P < 0.001), and total bilirubin (P = 0.023), but shorter hospital stay (P = 0.004) and a lower rate of complications (P = 0.005). Compared to the PLDRHM(–) group, the PLDRHM group had fewer male donors (P < 0.001) and a lower body mass index (P < 0.001), estimated total liver volume (P < 0.001), and real graft weight (P < 0.001). Results of laboratory changes, hospital stays, and complication rates were similar between the 2 groups.

Conclusion

PLDRH with the inclusion of the MHV in selected donors and recipients is feasible and safe when performed by surgeons experienced in laparoscopic surgery, with favorable complication rates compared to CDRHM and PLDRHM(–).

Assessment of the global practice of living donor liver transplantation

Criteria that drive the selection and utilization of living liver donors are limited. Herein, the global availability of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and components of donor selection and utilization were assessed via an international survey. There were 124 respondents representing 41 countries, including 47 from Asia/Middle East (A/ME), 20 from Europe, and 57 from the Americas. Responses were obtained from 94.9% of countries with ≥10 LDLT cases/year. Most centers (82.3%) have defined donor age criteria (median 18-60 years), while preset recipient MELD cutoffs (median 18-30) were only reported in 54.8% of programs. Overall, 67.5% of programs have preset donor BMI (body mass index) ranges (median 18-30), and the mean acceptable macrosteatosis was highest for A/ME (20.2 ± 9.2%) and lowest for Americas (16.5 ± 8.4%, P = 0.04). Americas (56.1%) and European (60.0%) programs were more likely to consider anonymous donors versus A/ME programs (27.7%, P = 0.01). There were no differences in consideration of complex anatomical variations. Most programs (75.9%) perform donor surgery via an open approach, and A/ME programs are more likely to use microscopic arterial reconstruction. Despite variations in practice, key aspects of living donor selection were identified. These findings provide a contemporary reference point as LDLT continues to expand into areas with limited access to liver transplantation.

Superior Outcomes and Reduced Wait Times in Pediatric Recipients of Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Background

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is increasingly used to bridge the gap between the current supply and demand imbalance for deceased donor organs to provide lifesaving liver transplantation.

Methods

Outcomes of 135 children who underwent LDLT were compared with 158 recipients of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) at the largest pediatric liver transplant program in Canada.

Results

Recipients of LDLT were significantly younger than deceased donor recipients (P ≤ 0.001), less likely to require dialysis pretransplant (P < 0.002) and had shorter wait time duration when the primary indication was cholestatic liver disease (P = 0.003). The LDLT donors were either related genetically or emotionally (79%), or unrelated (21%) to the pediatric recipients. One-, 5-, and 10-year patient survival rates were significantly higher in LDLT (97%, 94%, and 94%) compared with DDLT (92%, 87%, and 80%; log-rank P = 0.02) recipients, as were graft survival rates (96%, 93%, and 93% for LDLT versus 89%, 81.4%, and 70%, respectively, for DDLT; log-rank P = 0.001). Medical and surgical complications were not statistically different between groups. Graft failure was higher in recipients of DDLT (odds ratio, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.02, 6.58) than in the LDLT group after adjustment for clinical characteristics and propensity score.

Conclusions

Living donor liver transplantation provides superior outcomes for children and is an excellent and effective strategy to increase the chances of receiving a liver transplant.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation Using Selected Grafts With 2 Bile Ducts Compared With 1 Bile Duct Does Not Impact Patient Outcome

The outcome after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using grafts with multiple bile ducts (BDs) remains unclear. We analyzed 510 patients who received an adult-to-adult right lobe LDLT between 2000 and 2015 and compared outcome parameters of those receiving grafts with 2 BDs (n = 169) with patients receiving grafts with 1 BD (n = 320). Additionally, patients receiving a graft with 3 BDs (n = 21) were analyzed. Demographic variables and disease severity were similar between the groups. Roux-en-Y reconstruction was significantly more common in the 2 BD group (77% versus 38%; P < 0.001) compared with the 1 BD group. No difference was found in biliary complication rates within 1 year after LDLT (1 BD versus 2 BD groups, 18% versus 21%, respectively; P = 0.46). In the 2 BD group, 82/169 (48.5%) patients were reconstructed with 2 anastomoses. The number of anastomoses did not negatively impact biliary complication rates. Recipients' major complication rate (Clavien ≥ 3b) was similar between both groups (1 BD versus 2 BD groups, 21% versus 24%, respectively; P = 0.36). Furthermore, no difference could be found between the 1 BD, the 2 BD, and the 3 BD groups in the frequency of developing biliary complications within 1 year (18%, 21%, 14%, respectively; P = 0.64), BD strictures (15%, 15%, 5%, respectively; P = 0.42), or BD leaks (10%, 11%, 10%, respectively; P = 0.98). In addition, the 1-year (90% versus 91%), 5-year (82% versus 77%), and 10-year (70% versus 66%) graft survival rates as well as the 1-year (92% versus 93%), 5-year (84% versus 80%), and 10-year (75% versus 76%) patient survival rates were comparable between the 1 BD and the 2 BD groups (P = 0.41 and P = 0.54, respectively). In conclusion, this study demonstrates that selected living donor grafts with 2 BDs can be used safely without negatively impacting biliary complication rates and graft or patient survival rates.

Splenectomy as Flow Modulation Strategy and Risk Factors of De Novo Portal Vein Thrombosis in Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a severe complication after liver transplantation that can result in increased morbidity and mortality. Few data are available regarding risk factors, classification, and treatment of PVT after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Between January 2004 and November 2014, 421 adult-to-adult LDLTs were performed at our institution, and they were included in the analysis. Perioperative characteristics and outcomes from patients with no-PVT (n = 393) were compared with those with de novo PVT (total portal vein thrombosis [t-PVT]; n = 28). Ten patients had early portal vein thrombosis (e-PVT) occurring within 1 month, and 18 patients had late portal vein thrombosis (l-PVT) appearing later than 1 month after LDLT. Analysis of perioperative variables determined that splenectomy was associated with t-PVT (hazard ratio [HR], 3.55; P = 0.01), e-PVT (HR, 4.96; P = 0.04), and l-PVT (HR, 3.84; P = 0.03). In contrast, donor age was only found as a risk factor for l-PVT (HR, 1.05; P = 0.01). Salvage rate for treatment in e-PVT and l-PVT was 100% and 50%, respectively, without having an early event of rethrombosis. Mortality within 30 days did not show a significant difference between groups (no-PVT, 2% versus e-PVT, 10%; P = 0.15). No significant differences were found regarding 1-year (89% versus 92%), 5-year (79% versus 82%), and 10-year (69% versus 79%) graft survival between the t-PVT and no-PVT groups, respectively (P = 0.24). The 1-year (89% versus 96%), 5-year (82% versus 86%), and 10-year (79% versus 83%) patient survival was similar for the patients in the no-PVT and t-PVT groups, respectively (P = 0.70). No cases of graft loss occurred as a direct consequence of PVT. In conclusion, the early diagnosis and management of PVT after LDLT can lead to acceptable early and longterm results without affecting patient and graft survival.

Live donor liver transplantation with older donors: Increased long-term graft loss due to HCV recurrence

Using our prospectively collected database all adult hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive patients receiving an adult-to-adult LDLT between October 2000 and May 2014 were identified. Outcome of LDLT with grafts from younger (<50 years=128) vs older donors (≥50 years=31) was compared. Post-transplant graft function, postoperative complications and incidence of HCV recurrence were evaluated. Long-term graft and patient survival was calculated. No difference in graft function was observed between younger and older grafts. Overall complications were similar between both groups. The severity of complications determined by the Dindo-Clavien score was similar. Graft loss from HCV recurrence was significantly less frequent in younger grafts (18% vs 62%, P = 0.001). Young vs older livers had a trend toward improved 1-, 5-, and 10-year graft survival (89% vs 87%, 77% vs 69%, 70% vs 55%, P = 0.096), while patient survival was comparable between both groups (91% vs 90%, 78% vs 69%, 71% vs 60%, P = 0.25). In conclusion, LDLT with older vs younger grafts are more frequently associated with long-term graft loss due to HCV recurrence. Differences in graft survival might be more prominent with prolonged (≥5-year) follow-up. Living donor-recipient matching is particularly important for younger HCV-positive recipients.

Expanding the donor pool: Donation after circulatory death and living liver donation do not compromise the results of liver transplantation

Because of the shortfall between the number of patients listed for liver transplantation (LT) and the available grafts, strategies to expand the donor pool have been developed. Donation after circulatory death (DCD) and living donor (LD) grafts are not universally used because of the concerns of graft failure, biliary complications, and donor risks. In order to overcome the barriers for the implementation of using all 3 types of grafts, we compared outcomes after LT of DCD, LD, and donation after brain death (DBD) grafts. Patients who received a LD, DCD, or DBD liver graft at the University of Toronto were included. Between January 2009 through April 2017, 1054 patients received a LT at our center. Of these, 77 patients received a DCD graft (DCD group); 271 received a LD graft (LD group); and 706 received a DBD graft (DBD group). Overall biliary complications were higher in the LD group (11.8%) compared with the DCD group (5.2%) and the DBD group (4.8%; P < 0.001). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival rates were similar between the groups with 88.3%, 83.2%, and 69.2% in the DCD group versus 92.6%, 85.4%, and 84.7% in the LD group versus 90.2%, 84.2%, and 79.9% in the DBD group (P = 0.24). Furthermore, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival was comparable, with 92.2%, 85.4%, and 71.6% in the DCD group versus 95.2%, 88.8%, and 88.8% in the LD group versus 93.1%, 87.5%, and 83% in the DBD group (P = 0.14). Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that the type of graft did not impact graft survival. In conclusion, DCD, LD, and DBD grafts have similar longterm graft survival rates. Increasing the use of LD and DCD grafts may improve access to LT without affecting graft survival rates. Liver Transplantation 24 779-789 2018 AASLD.

Kinetics of liver regeneration in donors after living donor liver transplantation: A retrospective analysis of "2/3rd partial hepatectomy" model at 3 months

BACKGROUND/AIM

Right lobe living donor (2/3rd partial hepatectomy) model is the best way to accurately study liver regeneration process in human beings. We aimed to study the kinetics of liver regeneration after 2/3rd partial hepatectomy in donors.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained volumetric recovery data in donors was performed in 23 donors, who underwent 29 contrast-enhanced computed tomography within 3 months for various clinical indications.

RESULTS

The absolute volumetric growth percentages were as follows: 37.60 ± 21.74 at 1st week, 92 ± 53.27 at 2nd week, 115.55 ± 59.65 at 4th week, and 110.79 ± 64.47 at 3 months. On sub-group analysis of our cohort, we found that 4.3%, 17%, 30.4%, and 39% donors attended ≥ 90% volumetric recovery at 1st, 2nd, 4th week, and 3 months, respectively. One patient at 4th week revealed 128% volumetric recovery. There was one more patient who exceeded original total liver volumes (TLV) (111% of TLV) at 2.5 months. The serum bilirubin and INR values peaked at postoperative day (POD) 3rd and then started showing a downward trend from POD 5th onwards.

CONCLUSION

Our study is the first to document complete volumetric recovery in donors as early as 3 weeks. Two of the donors overshot their original TLV during the early regenerative phase.

Avoiding ICU Admission by Using a Fast-Track Protocol Is Safe in Selected Adult-to-Adult Live Donor Liver Transplant Recipients

Background

We evaluated patient characteristics of live donor liver transplant (LDLT) recipients undergoing a fast-track protocol without intensive care unit (ICU) admission versus LDLT patients receiving posttransplant ICU care.

Methods

Of the 153 LDLT recipients, 46 patients were included in our fast-track protocol without ICU admission. Both, fast-tracked patients and ICU-admitted patients were compared regarding donor and patient characteristics, perioperative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes and complications. In a subgroup analysis, we compared fast-tracked patients with patients who were admitted in the ICU for less than 24 hours.

Results

Fast-tracked versus ICU patients had a lower model for end-stage liver disease score (13 ± 4 vs 18 ± 7; P < 0.0001), lower preoperative bilirubin levels (51 ± 50 μmol/L vs 119.4 ± 137.3 μmol/L; P < 0.001), required fewer units of packed red blood cells (1.7 ± 1.78 vs 4.4 ± 4; P < 0.0001), and less fresh-frozen plasma (2.7 ± 2 vs 5.8 ± 5; P < 0.0001) during transplantation. Regarding postoperative outcomes, fast-tracked patients presented fewer bacterial infections within 30 days (6.5% [3] vs 29% [28]; P = 0.002), no episodes of pneumonia (0% vs 11.3% [11]; P = 0.02), and less biliary complications within the first year (6% [3] vs 26% [25]; P = 0.001). Also, fast-tracked patients had a shorter posttransplant hospital stay (10.8 ± 5 vs 21.3 ± 29; P = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis, fast-tracked vs ICU patients admitted for less than 24 hours had lower requirements of packed red blood cells (1.7 ± 1.78 vs 3.9 ± 4; P = 0.001) and fresh-frozen plasma (2.7 ± 2 vs 5.8 ± 4.5; P = 0.0001).

Conclusions

Fast-track of selected patients after LDLT is safe and feasible. An objective score to perioperatively select LDLT recipients amenable to fast track is yet to be determined.

Early Intervention With Live Donor Liver Transplantation Reduces Resource Utilization in NASH: The Toronto Experience

Background

In parallel with the obesity epidemic, liver transplantation for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is increasing dramatically in North America. Although survival outcomes are similar to other etiologies, liver transplantation in the NASH population has been associated with significantly increased resource utilization. We sought to compare outcomes between live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) at a high volume North American transplant center, with a particular focus on resource utilization.

Methods

The study population consists of primary liver transplants performed for NASH at Toronto General Hospital from 2000 to 2014. Recipient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, graft and patient survivals, and resource utilization were compared for LDLT versus DDLT.

Results

A total of 176 patients were included in the study (48 LDLT vs 128 DDLT). LDLT recipients had a lower model for end-stage liver disease score and were less frequently hospitalized prior to transplant. Estimated blood loss and early markers of graft injury were lower for LDLT. LDLT recipients had a significantly shorter hospitalization (intensive care unit, postoperative, and total hospitalization).

Conclusions

LDLT for NASH facilitates transplantation of patients at a less severe stage of disease, which appears to promote a faster postoperative recovery with less resource utilization.

Small-for-size syndrome in live donor liver transplantation-Pathways of injury and therapeutic strategies

Due to the severe organ shortage and the increasing gap between the supply and demand for donor grafts, live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become an accepted and alternative technique for the expansion of the donor pool. However, donor safety and good recipient outcomes must be balanced regarding risk stratification and decision-making within this patient population. Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) is one of the complications encountered after LDLT, thus increasing the burden of optimizing donor graft selection and effective treatments during its occurrence. A graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) <0.8 predisposes the graft to SFSS. However, other factors may induce this complication even without a graft-to-patient size mismatch. Several strategies to prevent this complication include portal vein flow and liver outflow modulation, as well as pharmacological treatment. Also, as an entity with a multifactorial etiology, outcomes vary between right-lobe, left-lobe, and posterior-lobe donation among series encountered in the literature. In this review, we analyze the pathophysiology and classification of this complication, the state-of-the-art on management of SFSS, and the outcomes regarding the best treatment strategy on this patient population.

Live Donor Liver Transplantation With Older (≥50 Years) Versus Younger (<50 Years) Donors: Does Age Matter?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcome of adult live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) with grafts from older versus younger donors.

INTRODUCTION

Using older donor grafts for adult LDLT may help expand the donor pool. However, the risks of LDLT with older donors remain controversial, and many centers are reluctant to use live donors aged 45 years or older for adult LDLT.

METHODS

Outcomes of patients receiving a LDLT graft from donors aged 50 years or older (n = 91) were compared with those receiving a live donor graft from donors younger than 50 years (n = 378).

RESULTS

Incidences of biliary (LDLT <50: 24% vs LDLT ≥50: 23%; P = 0.89) and major complications (LDLT <50: 24% vs LDLT ≥50: 24%; P = 1) were similar between both groups of recipients. No difference was observed in 30-day recipient mortality (LDLT <50: 3% vs LDLT ≥50: 0%; P = 0.13). The 1- (90% vs 90%), 5- (82% vs 73%), and 10- (71% vs 58%) year graft survival was statistically similar between both groups (P = 0.075). Likewise, patient survival after 1- (92% vs 96%), 5- (83% vs 79%), and 10- (76% vs 69%) years was also similar (P = 0.686). Overall, donors rate of major complications (Dindo-Clavien ≥3b) within 30 days was low (n = 2.3%) and not different in older versus younger donors (P = 1). Donor median hospital stay in both groups was identical [LDLT <50: 6 (4-17) vs LDLT ≥50: 6 (4-14) days; P = 0.65]. No donor death occurred and all donors had full recovery and returned to baseline activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Right lobe LDLT with donors aged 50 years or older results in acceptable recipient outcome without increased donor morbidity or mortality. Potential live donors should not be declined on the basis of age alone.

Right lobe living-donor hepatectomy-the Toronto approach, tips and tricks

Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a well-established treatment for end-stage liver disease. Nevertheless, it has not been extensively accepted in North America or Europe as it has been in Asia. At the University of Toronto we initiated our LDLT program in 2000 and since then our program has grown each year, representing today the largest LDLT program in North America. Our right-lobe LDLT experience from 2000-2014 includes 474 right lobes. Only 30% of our grafts have included the middle hepatic vein. We present excellent outcomes in terms of graft and patient survival which is not different to that achieved with deceased donor liver transplantation. In the present study we will discuss the evolution, challenges and current practices of our LDLT program. We will discuss what is and has been the program philosophy. We will also discuss how we evaluate our donors and the extensive workup we do before a donor is accepted for live donation. Furthermore we will discuss some tips and tricks of how we perform the right hepatectomy for live donation.

Comparative accuracy of CT, dual-echo MRI and MR spectroscopy for preoperative liver fat quantification in living related liver donors

Background:

It is of significant importance to assess the extent of hepatic steatosis in living donor liver transplant (LDLT) surgery to ensure optimum graft regeneration as well as donor safety.

Aim:

To establish the accuracy of non-invasive imaging methods including computed tomography (CT), dual-echo in- and opposed-phase magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and MR spectroscopy (MRS) for quantification of liver fat content (FC) in prospective LDLT donors with histopathology as reference standard.

Settings and Design:

This retrospective study was conducted at our institution on LDLT donors being assessed for biliary and vascular anatomy depiction by Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and CT scan, respectively, between July 2013 and October 2014.

Materials and Methods:

Liver FC was measured in 73 donors by dual-echoT1 MRI and MRS. Of these, CT liver attenuation index (LAI) values were available in 62 patients.

Statistical Analysis:

CT and MRI FC were correlated with histopathological reference standard using Spearman correlation coefficient. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predicative value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals were obtained.

Results:

CT LAI, dual-echo MRI, and MRS correlated well with the histopathology results (r = 0.713, 0.871, and 0.882, respectively). An accuracy of 95% and 96% was obtained for dual-echo MRI and MRS in FC estimation with their sensitivity being 97% and 94%, respectively. False-positive rate, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predicative value (NPV) were 0.08, 0.92, and 0.97, respectively, for dual-echo MRI and 0.03, 0.97, and 0.95, respectively, for MRS. CT LAI method of fat estimation has a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 73%, 77.7%, 70.4%, and 80%, respectively.

Conclusion:

Dual-echo MRI, MRS, and CT LAI are accurate measures to quantify the degree of hepatic steatosis in LDLT donors, thus reducing the need for invasive liver biopsy and its associated complications. Dual-echo MRI and MRS results correlate better with histological results in the study, as compared to CT LAI method for fat quantification.

Ad Integrum Functional and Volumetric Recovery in Right Lobe Living Donors: Is It Really Complete 1 Year After Donor Hepatectomy?

The partial liver's ability to regenerate both as a graft and remnant justifies right lobe (RL) living donor liver transplantation. We studied (using biochemical and radiological parameters) the rate, extent of, and predictors of functional and volumetric recovery of the remnant left liver (RLL) during the first year in 91 consecutive RL donors. Recovery of normal liver function (prothrombin time [PT] ≥70% of normal and total bilirubin [TB] ≤20 µmol/L), liver volumetric recovery, and percentage RLL growth were analyzed. Normal liver function was regained by postoperative day's 7, 30, and 365 in 52%, 86%, and 96% donors, respectively. Similarly, mean liver volumetric recovery was 64%, 71%, and 85%; whereas the percentage liver growth was 85%, 105%, and 146%, respectively. Preoperative PT value (p = 0.01), RLL/total liver volume (TLV) ratio (p = 0.03), middle hepatic vein harvesting (p = 0.02), and postoperative peak TB (p < 0.01) were predictors of early functional recovery, whereas donor age (p = 0.03), RLL/TLV ratio (p = 0.004), and TLV/ body weight ratio (p = 0.02) predicted early volumetric recuperation. One-year post-RL donor hepatectomy, though functional recovery occurs in almost all (96%), donors had incomplete restoration (85%) of preoperative total liver volume. Modifiable predictors of regeneration could help in better and safer donor selection, while continuing to ensure successful recipient outcomes.

Should We Exclude Live Donor Liver Transplantation for Liver Transplant Recipients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation and Intensive Care Unit Care?

Patients with acute and chronic liver disease often require admission to intensive care unit (ICU) and mechanical ventilation support before liver transplantation (LT). Rapid disease progression and high mortality on LT waiting lists makes live donor LT (LDLT) an attractive option for this patient population.

Biliary complications in pediatric liver transplantation: Incidence and management over a decade

This study analyzed how features of a liver graft and the technique of biliary reconstruction interact to affect biliary complications in pediatric liver transplantation. A retrospective analysis was performed of data collected from 2001 to 2011 in a single high-volume North American pediatric transplant center. The study cohort comprised 173 pediatric recipients, 75 living donor (LD) and 98 deceased donor (DD) recipients. The median follow-up was 70 months. Twenty-nine (16.7%) patients suffered a biliary complication. The majority of leaks (9/12, 75.0%) and the majority of strictures (18/22, 81.8%) were anastomotic. There was no difference in the rate of biliary complications associated with DD (18.4%) and LD (14.7%) grafts (P = 0.55). Roux-en-Y (RY) reconstruction was associated with a significantly lower rate of biliary complications compared to duct-to-duct reconstruction (13.3% versus 28.2%, respectively; P = 0.048). RY anastomosis was the only significant factor protecting from biliary complications in our population (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.85). The leaks were managed primarily by relaparotomy (10/12, 83.3%), and the majority of strictures were managed by percutaneous biliary intervention (14/22, 63.6%). Patients suffering biliary complications had inferior graft survival (P = 0.04) at 1, 5, and 10 years compared to patients without biliary complications. Our analysis demonstrates a lower incidence of biliary complications with RY biliary reconstruction, and patients with biliary complications have decreased graft survival.

Management of the middle hepatic vein in right lobe living donor liver transplantation: A meta-analysis

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a curative treatment for end stage liver disease. It is advantageous due to the shortage of deceased donors. However, in LDLT, whether the middle hepatic vein (MHV) should be preserved in donors remains controversial. We conducted searches in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Ovid, and Google Scholar using the key words "living donor liver transplantation" and "middle hepatic vein". Due to ethical issues, there were no randomized control trails focusing on MHV in LDLT. The majority of reports were retrospective studies. We examined the reference lists to identify related investigations. Google Scholar was then used to obtain full texts. Nine observational studies were analyzed. There were no significant differences in liver function (WMD, -5.51; P=0.12) and complications (RR, 0.98; P=0.89) in donors with or without MHV. However, the liver function in recipients was greatly improved after LDLT with MHV (WMD, -78.32; P=0.01). No definite conclusion was obtained in terms of the liver regeneration indices between LDLT with or without MHV. It was conclude that grafts with MHV in LDLT favor recipient outcomes and do not harm the living donor if a careful preoperative evaluation is performed.

Live donor liver transplantation: a valid alternative for critically ill patients suffering from acute liver failure

We report the outcome of live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for patients suffering from acute liver failure (ALF). From 2006 to 2013, all patients with ALF who received a LDLT (n = 7) at our institution were compared to all ALF patients receiving a deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT = 26). Groups were comparable regarding pretransplant ICU stay (DDLT: 1 [0-7] vs. LDLT: 1 days [0-10]; p = 0.38), mechanical ventilation support (DDLT: 69% vs. LDLT: 57%; p = 0.66), inotropic drug requirement (DDLT: 27% vs. LDLT: 43%; p = 0.64) and dialysis (DDLT: 2 vs. LDLT: 0 patients; p = 1). Median evaluation time for live donors was 24 h (18-72 h). LDLT versus DDLT had similar incidence of overall postoperative complications (31% vs. 43%; p = 0.66). No difference was detected between LDLT and DDLT patients regarding 1- (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%), 3- (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%), and 5- (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%) year graft and patient survival (p = 0.63). No severe donor complication (Dindo-Clavien ≥3 b) occurred after live liver donation. ALF is a severe disease with high mortality on liver transplant waiting lists worldwide. Therefore, LDLT is an attractive option since live donor work-up can be expedited and liver transplantation can be performed within 24 h with excellent short- and long-term outcomes.

Risk of venous congestion in live donors of extended right liver graft

AIM: To investigate middle hepatic vein (MHV) management in adult living donor liver transplantation and safer remnant volumes (RV).

METHODS: There were 59 grafts with and 12 grafts without MHV (including 4 with MHV-5/8 reconstructions). All donors underwent our five-step protocol evaluation containing a preoperative protocol liver biopsy Congestive vs non-congestive RV, remnant-volume-body-weight ratios (RVBWR) and postoperative outcomes were evaluated in 71 right graft living donors. Dominant vs non-dominant MHV anatomy in total liver volume (d-MHV/TLV vs nd-MHV/TLV) was constellated with large/small congestion volumes (CV-index). Small for size (SFS) and non-SFS remnant considerations were based on standard cut-off- RVBWR and RV/TLV. Non-congestive RVBWR was based on non-congestive RV.

RESULTS: MHV and non-MHV remnants showed no significant differences in RV, RV/TLV, RVBWR, total bilirubin, or INR. SFS-remnants with RV/TLV < 30% and non-SFS-remnants with RV/TLV ≥ 30% showed no significant differences either. RV and RVBWR for non-MHV (n = 59) and MHV-containing (n = 12) remnants were 550 ± 95 mL and 0.79 ± 0.1 mL vs 568 ± 97 mL and 0.79 ± 0.13, respectively (P = 0.423 and P = 0.919. Mean left RV/TLV was 35.8% ± 3.9%. Non-MHV (n = 59) and MHV-containing (n = 12) remnants (34.1% ± 3% vs 36% ± 4% respectively, P = 0.148. Eight SFS-remnants with RVBWR < 0.65 had a significantly smaller RV/TLV than 63 non-SFS-remnants with RVBWR ≥ 0.65 [SFS: RV/TLV 32.4% (range: 28%-35.7%) vs non-SFS: RV/TLV 36.2% (range: 26.1%-45.5%), P < 0.009. Six SFS-remnants with RV/TLV < 30% had significantly smaller RVBWR than 65 non-SFS-remnants with RV/TLV ≥ 30% (0.65 (range: 0.6-0.7) vs 0.8 (range: 0.6-1.27), P < 0.01. Two (2.8%) donors developed reversible liver failure. RVBWR and RV/TLV were concordant in 25%-33% of SFS and in 92%-94% of non-SFS remnants. MHV management options including complete MHV vs MHV-4A selective retention were necessary in n = 12 vs n = 2 remnants based on particularly risky congestive and non-congestive volume constellations.

CONCLUSION: MHV procurement should consider individual remnant congestive- and non-congestive volume components and anatomy characteristics, RVBWR-RV/TLV constellation enables the identification of marginally small remnants.

Long-term follow-up of biliary complications after adult right-lobe living donor liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Long-term biliary complications after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) are not well described in the literature. This study was undertaken to determine the long-term impact of biliary complications after adult right-lobe LDLT.

METHODS

This retrospective review analyzed an 11-yr experience of 344 consecutive right-lobe LDLTs with at least two yr of follow-up.

RESULTS

Biliary leaks occurred in 50 patients (14.5%), and strictures occurred in 67 patients (19.5%). Cumulative biliary complication rates at 1, 2, 5, and 10 yr were 29%, 32%, 36%, and 37%, respectively. Most early biliary leaks were treated with surgical drainage (N = 29, 62%). Most biliary strictures were treated first with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (42%). There was no association between biliary strictures and the number of ducts (hazard ratio [HR] 1.017 [0.65-1.592], p = 0.94), but freedom from biliary stricture was associated with a more recent era (2006-2010) (HR 0.457 [0.247-0.845], p = 0.01). Long-term graft survival did not differ between those who had or did not have biliary complications (66% vs. 67% at 10 yr).

CONCLUSIONS

Biliary strictures are common after LDLT but may decline with a center's experience. With careful follow-up, they can be successfully treated, with excellent long-term graft survival rates.

Living vs. deceased donor liver transplantation provides comparable recovery of renal function in patients with hepatorenal syndrome: a matched case-control study

Outcomes of living versus deceased donor liver transplantation in patients with chronic liver disease and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) was compared using a matched pair study design. Thirty patients with HRS receiving a live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and 90 HRS patients receiving a full graft deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) were compared. LDLT versus DDLT of patients with HRS was associated with decreased peak aspartate aminotransferase levels (339 ± 214 vs. 935 ± 1253 U/L; p = 0.0001), and similar 7-day bilirubin (8.42 ± 7.89 vs. 6.95 ± 7.13 mg/dL; p = 0.35), and international normalized ratio levels (1.93 ± 0.62 vs. 1.78 ± 0.78; p = 0.314). LDLT vs. DDLT had a decreased intensive care unit (2 [1-39] vs. 4 [0-93] days; p = 0.004), and hospital stay (17 [4-313] vs. 26 [0-126] days; p = 0.016) and a similar incidence of overall postoperative complications (20% vs. 27%; p = 0.62). No difference was detected between LDLT and DDLT patients regarding graft survival at 1 (80% vs. 82%), at 3 (69% vs. 76%) and 5 years (65% vs. 76%) (p = 0.63), as well as patient survival at 1 (83% vs. 82%), 3 (72% vs. 77%) and 5 years (72% vs. 77%) (p = 0.93). The incidence of chronic kidney disease post-LT (10% vs. 6%; p = 0.4) was similar between both groups. LDLT results in identical long-term outcome when compared with DDLT in patients with HRS.

Adult right living-donor liver transplantation with special reference to reconstruction of the middle hepatic vein

Two hundred fifty-three consecutive living-donor liver transplant recipients with a right liver graft (RLG) were divided into three groups: an extended right liver graft (ERLG) group (n = 47) in which the middle hepatic vein (MHV) trunk was included in the graft, a modified right liver graft (MRLG) group (n = 114) in which the MHV tributaries were reconstructed with cryopreserved homologous veins and a simple RLG group (n = 92) in which the MHV tributaries were sacrificed. The volume of the anterior sector was significantly impaired in the RLG group compared to the other two groups, whereas the volume of the posterior sector was significantly improved in the RLG group, indicating that the impaired anterior sector regeneration by MHV deprivation was compensated by the posterior sector regeneration. The regeneration rate of the anterior sector was highest in the ERLG group (92%), moderate in the MRLG group (71%) and lowest in the RLG group (52%). The whole graft regeneration rate of the ERLG group was significantly higher than that of the other two groups. Poor regeneration, however, was not correlated with delayed functional recovery or long-term outcome. Short-term, the patency of reconstructed MHV tributaries was over 90%, but occlusion occurred frequently over the long-term, especially in V5.

Reconstructing middle hepatic vein tributaries in right-lobe living donor liver transplantation

AIMS

To investigate the effectiveness of our technique and policy in reconstructing middle hepatic vein (MHV) tributaries of patients undergoing right-lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

From January 2001 to December 2010, 186 adult patients underwent right-lobe LDLT without the MHV. Patients were divided into two groups: group A (n = 71) and group B (n = 115) without or with the MHV tributaries reconstruction. We evaluated the serum liver function markers after transplantation and monitored vascular flow in the graft and interpositional vein by Doppler ultrasonography.

RESULTS

The cumulative 1-, 3-, 5-year graft and patient survival rates were not significant between group A and group B (p = 0.287 and p = 0.258). Biliary complications appeared to be more frequent in group A than in group B (16.9 vs. 5.2%, p = 0.009). Liver function impairment was found in patients without MHV reconstruction and those with occluded interpositional vessels early after transplantation. The cumulative 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-month patency rate of the interpositional veins was 81.51, 79.60, 74.69 and 72.68%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The reconstruction technique based on our policy ensures excellent outflow drainage and favorable recipient outcome, while better criteria for MHV reconstruction should be established.

Reduced hepatic arterial perfusion impairs the recovery from focal hepatic venous outflow obstruction in liver-resected rats

BACKGROUND

Extended partial hepatectomy (PH) in patients is leading to portal hyperperfusion but reduced hepatic arterial perfusion (HAP), and is invariably causing focal hepatic venous outflow obstruction (FHVOO). We observed in a rat model that PH in combination with right median hepatic vein ligation (RMHV-L) caused confluent parenchymal necrosis interspersed with viable portal tracts in the obstructed territory and large sinusoidal vascular canals in the border zone. Lack of HAP impaired the spontaneous course of recovery in terms of enlarged parenchymal necrosis, delayed regeneration, and the absence of draining vascular canals. We aimed to investigate whether pharmacological intervention modulates the imbalance between portal venous and hepatic arterial inflow, aggravates the liver damage, and delays the recovery process after FHVOO in liver-resected rats.

METHODS

Male Lewis rats were subjected to 70% PH and RMHV-L. Molsidomine or NG-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME) or saline were applied daily. Hepatic damage, microcirculation, regeneration, and vascular remodeling were evaluated at postoperative days 1, 2, and 7. Animals subjected to RMHV-L only were used as "no HAP" control.

RESULTS

Significant increase of portal venous inflow with a concomitant decrease in HAP was observed in all groups after PH. Molsidomine treatment did neither affect hepatic hemodynamics nor the spontaneous recovery. In contrast, L-NAME treatment further decreased HAP which impaired hepatic microcirculation, aggravated parenchymal damage, decelerated recovery, and impaired the formation of sinusoidal canals.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduction of HAP through inhibition of nitric oxide production worsened the recovery from FHVOO. Drugs increasing HAP need to be evaluated to reverse the hyperperfusion-induced impairment of the spontaneous course after FHVOO.

Live liver donors' risk thresholds: risking a life to save a life

BACKGROUND

There is still some controversy regarding the ethical issues involved in live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and there is uncertainty on the range of perioperative morbidity and mortality risks that donors will consider acceptable.

METHODS

This study analysed donors' inclinations towards LDLT using decision analysis techniques based on the probability trade-off (PTO) method. Adult individuals with an emotional or biological relationship with a patient affected by end-stage liver disease were enrolled. Of 122 potential candidates, 100 were included in this study.

RESULTS

The vast majority of participants (93%) supported LDLT. The most important factor influencing participants' decisions was their wish to improve the recipient's chance of living a longer life. Participants chose to become donors if the recipient was required to wait longer than a mean ± standard deviation (SD) of 6 ± 5 months for a cadaveric graft, if the mean ± SD probability of survival was at least 46 ± 30% at 1 month and at least 36 ± 29% at 1 year, and if the recipient's life could be prolonged for a mean ± SD of at least 11 ± 22 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential donors were risk takers and were willing to donate when given the opportunity. They accepted significant risks, especially if they had a close emotional relationship with the recipient.

Outcomes of long storage times for cryopreserved vascular grafts in outflow reconstruction in living donor liver transplantation

The outflow reconstruction of the right anterior sector in a right liver graft (RLG) with cryopreserved vascular grafts (CVGs) is crucial for preventing graft congestion in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The impact of the duration of cryopreservation has not been evaluated so far. From 2006 to 2009, 250 LDLT were performed: 47 of these patients (group 1) received CVGs stored for ≦1 year, and 33 patients (group 2) received CVGs stored for >1 year. Single or multiple segment 8 hepatic veins were reconstructed. The number of anastomoses did not affect vascular graft patency (P = 0.21). The length of the cryopreservation time did not affect the histological findings for CVGs. The preoperative and postoperative liver graft volumes were 783.8 ± 129.7 and 1102 ± 194.7 cc, respectively, for group 1 and 753.7 ± 158.5 and 1097.2 ± 178.7 cc, respectively, for group 2. The regeneration indices for liver grafts in the whole patient group, group 1, and group 2 were 48.9%, 47.4%, and 51.05%, respectively. In conclusion, the storage duration has no impact on the patency of CVGs in outflow reconstruction or on the regeneration of RLGs in LDLT. CVGs stored for >1 year can be safely used for the outflow reconstruction of RLGs in LDLT.

Liver function impairment in liver transplantation and after extended hepatectomy

Extended hepatectomy, or liver transplantation of reduced-size graft, can lead to a pattern of clinical manifestations, namely “post-hepatectomy liver failure” and “small-for-size syndrome” respectively, that can range from mild cholestasis to irreversible organ non-function and death of the patient. Many mechanisms are involved in their occurrence but in the recent past, high portal blood flow through a relatively small liver vascular bed has taken a central role. Therefore, several techniques of inflow modulation have been attempted in cases of portal hyperperfusion first in liver transplantation, such as portocaval shunt, mesocaval shunt, splenorenal shunt, splenectomy or ligation of the splenic artery. However, high portal flow is not the only factor responsible, and before major liver resections, preoperative assessment of the residual liver function is necessary. Techniques such as portal vein embolization or portal vein ligation can be adopted to increase the future liver volume, preventing post-hepatectomy liver failure. More recently, a new surgical procedure, that combines in situ splitting of the liver and portal vein ligation, has gradually come to light, inducing remarkable hypertrophy of the healthy liver in just a few days. Further studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis and overcome one of the biggest issues in the field of liver surgery.

Selection and outcomes of living donors with a remnant volume less than 30% after right hepatectomy

The evidence for defining a safe minimal remnant volume after living donor hepatectomy is insufficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of living donors with a remnant/total volume ratio (RTVR) < 30% after right hepatectomy according to the following selection criteria: the preservation of the middle hepatic vein (MHV), an age < 50 years, and no or mild fatty changes in healthy adults. All living donors who underwent right hepatectomy preserving the MHV at our institution between January 2005 and September 2011 were divided into 2 groups: group A with an RTVR < 30% and group B with an RTVR ≥ 30%. Perioperative data, complications by the Clavien classification, and outcomes with at least 15.1 months' follow-up were compared. Twenty-eight donors were enrolled in group A, and 260 were enrolled in group B. The estimated liver volume was strongly correlated with the actual graft weight (R(2)  = 0.608, P < 0.001). The calculated donation liver volume and the RTVR were significantly different between the 2 groups (P = 0.03 and P < 0.001, respectively). The peak postoperative aspartate aminotransferase levels, alanine aminotransferase levels, and international normalized ratios did not differ between the 2 groups. The peak total bilirubin level was higher for group A versus group B (P = 0.04). The hospital stay was longer for group A versus group B (P < 0.001). All donors recovered completely, and there were no significant differences in overall complications between the 2 groups. In conclusion, right hepatectomy preserving the MHV with an RTVR < 30% can be safely indicated for carefully selected living donors less than 50 years old with no or mild fatty changes.

Estimation of the congestion area volume in potential living donor remnant livers

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation is widely performed in adult patients. One of the problems in this setting is a small-for-size graft, which results in dysfunction and poor prognosis of a transplantation. A right liver graft was devised to overcome this problem; furthermore, inclusion of the middle hepatic vein (MHV) has been suggested to greatly improve recipient outcomes. However, extended right hepatectomy involves a surgical risk for the living donor in terms of congestion of the left paramedian sector. The volume of the venoocclusive region of a living donor liver possibly varies depending on the collateral patterns of veins draining the cranial part of segment 4 (S4).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We were analyzed the normal livers of 50 patients who underwent triphasic contrast-enhanced multidetector row computed tomography during preoperative and postoperative examinations. The patient pathologies consisted of gastric cancer (n = 25), colon cancer (n = 1), or renal cancer (n = 24). We calculated the volume of the entire liver as well as those of the right graft and left remnant lobes for comparison with the drainage volume of each hepatic vein and its branches.

RESULTS

On the basis of the anatomic venous drainage of the cranial part of S4 (V4sup), we classified hepatic veins as group A (n = 31), the V4sup joined the left hepatic vein or the MHV distal to the vein draining S8 area (MV8), or group B (n = 19), V4sup joined the MHV proximal to MV8. The mean volume of the congested area was 6.9% in group A and 15.9% in group B. The venoocclusive areas in the remnant livers were estimated to be larger in group B (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The collateral pattern of V4sup and MV8 as well as preoperative volumetric analysis are important for graft selection to decide the line of transection.

Metabolic disorders, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and major liver resection: an underestimated perioperative risk

INTRODUCTION

Despite increasing evidence of an association of metabolic syndrome and liver degeneration, little is known about the results of major hepatic resection in patients with metabolic disorders. Following the observation of some unexplained perioperative deaths following uncomplicated right hepatectomy in patients presenting metabolic disorders, we analyzed the perioperative mortality in such population.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of immediate outcome was performed of patients undergoing right hepatectomy and affected by two or more metabolic disorders (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity/overweight) without any other known cause of liver disease from January 2001 to May 2010.

RESULTS

Among 151 patients undergoing right hepatectomy, 30 patients presented two or more metabolic disorders. Perioperative mortality in this group reached 30 % (nine patients). In patients presenting MS (≥3 disorders), mortality reached 54 %. Univariate analysis identified four criteria associated with poor prognosis: MS, perioperative bleeding ≥1,000 mL, middle hepatic vein resection and primary hepatic malignancy. At multivariate analysis, middle hepatic vein resection and underlying primary hepatic malignancy resulted as being related to mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting with multiple metabolic disorders should be carefully evaluated before major liver resection, especially when the procedure is planned for hepatocellular carcinoma and when a middle hepatic vein resection is required.

Checking the harness: safety for living liver donors

1. Expertise in hepatobiliary surgery. 2. Donor selection criteria. 3. Selective liver biopsy in donors. 4. Accurate determination of hepatic volumes and anatomy. 5. Extent of donor hepatectomy. 6. Donor psychosocial evaluation. 7. Catastrophic events. 8. Long-term follow up.

Right lobe living-donor liver transplantation with or without middle hepatic vein: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare outcomes after right-lobe living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) with or without the middle hepatic vein (MHV).

METHODS

Studies were identified through a computerized search of Pubmed, Embase, Ovid, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Library database, and the Web of Science. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of each study and abstracted outcome data. We extracted data for liver functional recovery in donors, donor hospital stay, donor complications and liver functional recovery in recipients. We synthesized published data using random-effects and fixed-effect models, expressing results as weighted mean differences (WMD) or relative risk (RR).

RESULTS

The 11 included eligible studies came from medical centers worldwide. Significant differences between "with MHV" versus "without MHV" groups were not observed for liver functional recovery (P=.08; WMD=-2.88), donor hospital stay (P=.00; WMD=0.00), or donor complications (P=.90; RR=1.02). However, our meta-analysis showed a significant benefit for recipients liver functional recovery favoring the MHV group (P=.02; WMD=-33.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis discovered that right lobes with MHV not only experienced better liver functional recovery in recipients, but also caused no greater harm or risk to donors.

Living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparable survival and recurrence

Several studies have reported higher rates of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) versus deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). It is unclear whether this difference is due to a specific biological effect unique to the LDLT procedure or to other factors such as patient selection. We compared the overall survival (OS) rates and the rates of HCC recurrence after LDLT and DDLT at our center. Between January 1996 and September 2009, 345 patients with HCC were identified: 287 (83%) had DDLT and 58 (17%) had LDLT. The OS rates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method, whereas competing risks methods were used to determine the HCC recurrence rates. The LDLT and DDLT groups were similar with respect to most clinical parameters, but they had different median waiting times (3.1 versus 5.3 months, P = 0.003) and median follow-up times (30 versus 38.1 months, P = 0.02). The type of transplant did not affect any of the measured cancer outcomes. The OS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were equivalent: 91.3%, 75.2%, and 75.2%, respectively, for the LDLT group and 90.5%, 79.7%, and 74.6%, respectively, for DDLT (P = 0.62). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year HCC recurrence rates were also similar: 8.8%, 10.7%, and 15.4%, respectively, for the LDLT group and 7.5%, 14.8%, and 17.0%, respectively, for the DDLT group (P = 0.54). A regression analysis identified microvascular invasion (but not the graft type) as a predictor of HCC recurrence. In conclusion, in well-matched cohorts of LDLT and DDLT recipients, LDLT and DDLT provide similarly low recurrence rates and high survival rates for the treatment of HCC.

Living donor hepatectomy: the importance of the residual liver volume

Living liver donation is a successful treatment for patients with end-stage liver disease. Most adults are provided with a right lobe graft to ensure a generous recipient liver volume. Some centers are re-exploring the use of smaller left lobe grafts to potentially reduce the donor risk. However, the evidence showing that the donor risk is lower with left lobe donation is inconsistent, and most previous studies have been limited by potential learning curve effects, small sample sizes, or poorly matched comparison groups. To address these deficiencies, we conducted a case-control study. Forty-five consecutive patients who underwent left hepatectomy (LH; n = 4) or left lateral segmentectomy (LLS; n = 41) were compared with matched controls who underwent right hepatectomy (RH) or extended right hepatectomy (ERH). The overall complication rates of the 3 groups were similar (31%-37%). There were no grade 4 or 5 complications. There were more grade 3 complications for the RH patients (13.3%) and the ERH patients (15.6%) versus the LH/LLS patients (2.2%). The extent of the liver resection significantly correlated with the peak international normalized ratio (INR), the days to INR normalization, and the peak bilirubin level. A univariate analysis demonstrated that hepatectomy, the spared volume percentage, and the peak bilirubin level were strongly associated with grade 3 complications. A higher peak bilirubin level, which correlated with a lower residual liver volume, was associated with grade 3 complications in a multivariate analysis (P = 0.005). RH and grade 3 complications were associated with an increased length of stay (>7 days) in a multivariate analysis. In conclusion, this analysis demonstrates a significant correlation between the residual liver volume and liver dysfunction, serious adverse postoperative events, and longer hospital stays. Donor safety should be the first priority of all living liver donor programs. We propose that the surgical procedure removing the smallest amount of the liver required to provide adequate recipient graft function should become the standard of care for living liver donation.

Surgical revision of biliary strictures following adult live donor liver transplantation: patient selection, morbidity, and outcomes

Biliary strictures after live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) are frequent and difficult to manage. The outcomes of surgical correction of biliary anastomotic complications remain unclear. Clinical outcomes of patients requiring surgical revision of their biliary anastomosis following LDLT were analyzed. Of 296 consecutive right lobe LDLTs, approximately 21% of patients developed biliary strictures. Of these patients, twelve required surgical revision of a biliary anastomotic stricture. For patients who had operative repair, the average time from transplantation to stricture diagnosis was 7.6 months. Mean time to surgical correction was 8.2 months from the time of stricture diagnosis. Eight of 12 (67%) patients no longer require any intervention with a mean follow-up of 43.7 months. Two of 12 patients require intermittent medical treatment for presumed cholangitis, but have not required biliary interventions. Two patients have required chronic PTC catheter drainage. The 30-day postoperative morbidity was 58%, with four serious (Grade 3) complications occurring in three patients. Early stricture repair (<6 months from diagnosis of stricture) and younger donor grafts were associated with better surgical outcomes. Timely surgical correction of biliary strictures is successful and durable in appropriately selected patients. However, operative repair is associated with significant postoperative morbidity.

Hepatic arterial perfusion is essential for the spontaneous recovery from focal hepatic venous outflow obstruction in rats

We previously observed that focal hepatic venous outflow obstruction recovered spontaneously by the formation of sinusoidal canals in a rat model of portal hyperperfusion. We aimed to investigate whether the lack of hepatic arterial perfusion aggravates parenchymal damage, decelerates recovery and influences the formation of sinusoidal canals after focal hepatic venous outflow obstruction. Rats were subjected to arterialized versus nonarterialized syngeneic liver transplantation after ligating the right median hepatic vein in the donor. Hepatic damage, microcirculation, regeneration and vascular remodeling were evaluated. In arterialized-recipients, confluent necrosis interspersed with viable periportal islands of hepatocytes, and vascularized sinusoidal canals with visible blood flow, surrounded by normal sinusoidal structure, were visible on postoperative day (POD) 2. Complete parenchymal recovery was consequently established by resorption of necrosis and hepatocyte proliferation, detected in viable portal islands and border zone. Lack of hepatic arterial perfusion caused complete necrosis in the obstruction zone without viable hepatocytes in the periportal area on POD2. Hepatocyte proliferation was only visible in the border zone. On POD28, perfused vascular structures, without neighboring normal sinusoidal structures, were observed in the scar-like area. Hepatic arterial perfusion determined the extent of hepatic necrosis, the formation of vascularized sinusoidal canals and the parenchymal recovery, after focal hepatic venous outflow obstruction.

Utilization of elderly donors in living donor liver transplantation: when more is less?

An accepted definition of donor exclusion criteria has not been established for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The use of elderly donors to expand the living donor pool raises ethical concerns about donor safety. The aims of this study were (1) the comparison of the postoperative outcomes of living liver donors by age (≥ 50 versus < 50 years) and (2) the evaluation of the impact of the extent of right hepatectomy on donor outcomes. The study group included 150 donors who underwent donor right hepatectomy between October 2004 and April 2009. Extended criteria surgery (ECS) was defined as right hepatectomy with middle hepatic vein (MHV) harvesting or right hepatectomy resulting in an estimated remnant liver volume (RLV) less than 35%. The primary endpoints were donor outcomes in terms of donor complications graded according to the Clavien classification. Group 1 consisted of donors who were 50 years old or older (n = 28), and group 2 consisted of donors who were less than 50 years old (n = 122). At least 1 ECS criterion was present in 74% of donors: 57% had 1 criterion, and 17% had 2 criteria. None of the donors had grade 4 complications or died. The overall and major complication rates were similar in the 2 donor age groups [28.6% and 14.3% in group 1 and 32% and 8.2% in group 2 for the overall complication rates (P = 0.8) and the major complication rates (P = 0.2), respectively]. However, there was a significant correlation between the rate of major complications and the type of surgery in donors who were 50 years old or older. In LDLT, extending the limits of surgery comes at the price of more complications in elderly donors. Right hepatectomy with MHV harvesting and any procedure causing an RLV less than 35% should be avoided in living liver donors who are 50 years old or older.

Liver transplantation for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma using poor tumor differentiation on biopsy as an exclusion criterion

BACKGROUND

Liberal acceptance criteria are used when offering liver transplantation (LTx) for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at our center. This provides a unique opportunity to assess outcomes in a large North American series of patients with advanced tumors.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that acceptable survival rates can be achieved with LTx for any size or number of HCC provided that (a) imaging studies ruled out vascular invasion; (b) the HCC was confined to the liver; and (c) the HCC was not poorly differentiated on biopsy.

METHODS

Survival, based on pretransplant imaging staging, was compared between 189 Milan Criteria (M) and 105 beyond Milan Criteria (M+) HCC patients who received an LTx between 1996 and 2008.

RESULTS

Imaging understaged 30% of the M group and over staged 23% of the M+ group. There was no difference in the 5-year overall survival in the M (72%) and M+ (70%) groups or 5-year disease-free survival in the M (70%) and M+ (66%) groups. The introduction of a protocol for a biopsy to exclude patients with poorly differentiated tumors and use of aggressive bridging therapy improved overall survival in the M+ group (P = 0.034). Serum alpha-fetoprotein more than 400 at LTx was associated with poorer disease-free survival (hazard ratio: 2.3; P = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Cross-sectional imaging did not reliably stage patients with HCC for LTx. A protocol using a biopsy to exclude poorly differentiated tumors and aggressive bridging therapy achieved excellent survival rates with LTx for otherwise incurable advanced HCC, irrespective of tumor size and number.

Adult living liver donors have excellent long-term medical outcomes: the University of Toronto liver transplant experience

Right lobe living donor liver transplantation is an effective treatment for selected individuals with end-stage liver disease. Although 1 year donor morbidity and mortality have been reported, little is known about outcomes beyond 1 year. Our objective was to analyze the outcomes of the first 202 consecutive donors performed at our center with a minimum follow-up of 12 months (range 12-96 months). All physical complications were prospectively recorded and categorized according to the modified Clavien classification system. Donors were seen by a dedicated family physician at 2 weeks, 1, 3 and 12 months postoperatively and yearly thereafter. The cohort included 108 males and 94 females (mean age 37.3 +/- 11.5 years). Donor survival was 100%. A total of 39.6% of donors experienced a medical complication during the first year after surgery (21 Grade 1, 27 Grade 2, 32 Grade 3). After 1 year, three donors experienced a medical complication (1 Grade 1, 1 Grade 2, 1 Grade 3). All donors returned to predonation employment or studies although four donors (2%) experienced a psychiatric complication. This prospective study suggests that living liver donation can be performed safely without any serious late medical complications and suggests that long-term follow-up may contribute to favorable donor outcomes.

Live donor liver transplantation in high MELD score recipients

BACKGROUND

In 2002, the New York State Committee on Quality Improvement in Living Liver Donation prohibited live liver donation for potential recipients with Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores greater than 25. Despite the paucity of evidence to support this recommendation, many centers in North America remain reluctant to offer living donor (LD) to patients with moderate to high MELD scores.

METHODS

We analyzed 271 consecutive adult-to-adult right lobe LD liver transplants performed at our institution between 2002 and 2008 to study the relationship, between recipient MELD scores and the outcome of LD liver transplantation. The recipients were categorized according to their MELD score into a low (Low: <25)and high (Hi: >or=25) MELD group. We compared short-term donor morbidity, graft loss within 30 days, length of hospital stay, biochemical markers of hepatocyte injury and graft function, and 90 day posttransplant complications including infection, rejection, bleeding, and renal failure. Long-term posttransplant outcome was measured by graft and patient survival after 1-, 3-, and 5-years.

RESULTS

Donor and recipient characteristics were similar between groups. Donor outcomes were similar in both groups. Peak recipient aspartat aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and length of hospital stay were similar between both groups. The proportional decrease in postoperative INR and creatinine within the first week was greater in the high versus low MELD score group. High MELD score recipients had more frequent postoperative pneumonia (Low: 2.2% vs. Hi: 14%, P = 0.003), while no differences were observed in rates of biliary complications, rejection, renal failure, or overall infections. Recipients with a MELD <25 versus >or=25 had a similar 1-year (Low: 92% vs. Hi: 83%), 3-year (Low: 86% vs. Hi: 80%), and 5-year (Low: 78% vs. Hi: 80%) graft survival after LD liver transplantation (P = 0.51).

CONCLUSION

LD liver transplantation can provide excellent graft function and survival rates in high MELD score recipients. Thus, when deceased donor organs are scare, a high MELD score alone should not be an absolute contraindication to living liver donation.

A graft to body weight ratio less than 0.8 does not exclude adult-to-adult right-lobe living donor liver transplantation

Many centers require a minimal graft to body weight ratio (GBWR) >or= 0.8 as an arbitrary threshold to proceed with right-lobe living donor liver transplantation (RL-LDLT), and there is often hesitancy about transplanting lower volume living donor (LD) liver grafts into sicker patients. The data supporting this dogma, based on the early experience with RL-LDLT at Asian centers, are weak. To determine the effect of LD liver volume in the modern era, we investigated the impact of GBWR on the outcome of RL-LDLT with a GBWR as low as 0.6 at the University of Toronto. Between April 2000 and September 2008, 271 adult-to-adult RL-LDLT procedures and 614 deceased donor liver transplants were performed. Twenty-two living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) cases with a GBWR of 0.59 to 0.79 (group A) were compared with 249 LDLT cases with a GBWR >or= 0.8 (group B) and with 66 full-graft deceased donor liver transplants (group C), who were matched 3:1 according to donor and recipient age, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and presence of hepatitis C and hepatocellular carcinoma with the low-GBWR group. Portal vein shunts were not used. Markers of reperfusion injury [aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT)], graft function (international normalized ratio and bilirubin), complications graded by the Clavien score, and graft and patient survival were compared. As expected, LD recipients had a significantly shorter cold ischemia time (94 +/- 43 minutes for A, 96 +/- 57 minutes for B, and 453 +/- 152 minutes for C, P = 0.0001). However, the peak AST, peak ALT, absolute decrease in the international normalized ratio, day 7 bilirubin level, postoperative creatinine clearance, complication rate graded by the Clavien score, and median hospital stay were similar in all groups. The rate of biliary complications was higher with LD grafts than deceased donor grafts (19% for A versus 10% for B and 0% for C, P = 0.2). Patient survival was similar in all groups at 1, 3, and 5 years (91% for A versus 89% for B and 93% for C at 1 year, 87% for A versus 81% for B and 89% for C at 3 years, and 83% for A versus 81% for B and 87% for C at 5 years, P = 0.63). A Cox proportional regression analysis revealed only hepatitis C virus as a risk factor for poorer graft survival and not GBWR as a continuous or categorical variable. In conclusion, we found no evidence of inferior outcomes with smaller size grafts versus larger size LD grafts or full-size deceased donor grafts. Further studies are warranted to examine the factors affecting the function of smaller grafts for living liver donation and thereby define the safe lower limits for transplantation.