Improved survival after live donor adult liver transplantation (LDALT) using right lobe grafts: program experience and lessons learned

Outcomes of Living Donor Liver Transplantation Compared with Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation

Improved surgical techniques and revolutionary immunosuppressive agents have enhanced the long-term outcomes for liver transplantation, with more patients seeking the benefits of liver transplantation, and demand is high. In this review, we hope to delineate where the current data supporting favorable outcomes in using live donation to expand the donor pool compared with the outcomes seen in deceased donor liver transplants. Advances in surgery, transplant and center comfort has made live donor transplantation an asset with favorable patient outcomes in comparison to decease donor data.

Outcomes in Living Donor Compared With Deceased Donor Primary Liver Transplantation in Lower Acuity Patients With Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Scores <30

Although recent studies have reported favorable outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), it remains unclear which populations benefit most from LDLT. This study aims to evaluate LDLT outcomes compared with deceased donor LT (DDLT) according to Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score categories. Using data from the United Network for Organ Sharing registry, outcomes were compared between 1486 LDLTs; 13,568 donation after brain death (DBD)-DDLTs; and 1171 donation after circulatory death (DCD)-DDLTs between 2009 and 2018. Because LDLT for patients with MELD scores >30 was rare, all patients with scores >30 were excluded to equalize LDLT and DDLT cohorts. Risk factors for 1-year graft loss (GL) were determined separately for LDLT and DDLT. Compared with LDLT, DBD-DDLT had a lower risk of 30-day (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.60; P < 0.001) and 1-year GL (aHR, 0.57; P < 0.001). The lower risk of GL was more prominent in the mid-MELD score category (score 15-29). Compared with LDLT, DCD-DDLT had a lower risk of 30-day GL but a comparable risk of 1-year GL, regardless of MELD score category. In LDLT, significant ascites was an independent risk for GL in patients with mid-MELD scores (aHR, 1.68; P = 0.02), but not in the lower-MELD score group. The risk of 1-year GL in LDLT patients with ascites who received a left liver was higher than either those who received a right liver or those without ascites who received a left liver. In LDLT, combinations of MELD scores of 15 to 29, moderate/severe ascites, and the use of a left liver are associated with worse outcomes. These findings help calibrate appropriate patient and graft selection in LDLT.

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.

Current status of adult liver transplantation: utilization of living donor versus deceased donor graft

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article will summarize prior and recent studies comparing outcomes between living donor and deceased donor liver transplantation (LT) in adults and provide a rationale and framework for expanding living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in Western countries to address the growing critical organ shortage.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating superior survival outcomes in LDLT in addition to a multitude of other advantages including shorter cold ischemia times, opportunity for pretransplant medical optimization, and expansion of transplant eligibility. Additionally, these outcomes continue to improve with center volume and experience.

SUMMARY

LDLT in adults emerged in response to an effective donor organ shortage created by the critical discrepancy between donor graft supply and demand. Overcoming this organ shortage and an increasing waitlist mortality requires a liver transplant framework that fully integrates LDLT into liver disease management although continuing to fully maximize deceased donor graft utilization at experience, capable centers. Optimizing both living and deceased donor graft utilization will drastically increase patients' access to LT.

Outcomes of hemi- versus whole liver transplantation in patients from mainland china with high model for end-stage liver disease scores: a matched analysis

Background

Adult hemiliver transplantation (AHLT) is an important approach given the current shortage of donor livers. However, the suitability of AHLT versus adult whole liver transplantation (AWLT) for recipients with high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores remains controversial.

Methods

We divided patients undergoing AHLT and AWLT into subgroups according to their MELD scores (≥ 30: AHLT, n = 35; AWLT, n = 88; and < 30: AHLT, n = 323; AWLT, n = 323). Patients were matched by demographic data and perioperative conditions according to propensity scores. A cut-off value of 30 for MELD scores was determined by comparing the overall survival data of 735 cases of nontumor liver transplantation.

Results

Among patients with an MELD score ≥ 30 and < 30, AHLT was found to be associated with increased warm ischemia time, operative time, hospitalization time, and intraoperative blood loss compared with AWLT (P < 0.05). In the MELD ≥ 30 group, although the 5-year survival rate was significantly higher for AWLT than for AHLT (P = 0.037), there was no significant difference between AWLT and AHLT in the MELD < 30 group (P = 0.832); however, we did not observe a significant increase in specific complications following AHLT among patients with a high MELD score (≥ 30). Among these patients, the incidence of complications classified as Clavien-Dindo grade III or above was significantly higher in patients undergoing AHLT than in those undergoing AWLT (25.7% vs. 11.4%, P = 0.047). For the MELD < 30 group, there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications classified as Clavien-Dindo grade III or above for patients undergoing AHLT or AWLT.

Conclusion

In patients with an MELD score < 30, AHLT can achieve rates of mortality and overall survival comparable to AWLT. In those with an MELD score ≥ 30, the prognosis and incidence of complications classified as Clavien-Dindo III or above are significantly worse for AHLT than for AWLT; therefore, we may need to be more cautious regarding the conclusion that patients with a high MELD score can safely undergo AHLT.

Prospective study on changes in the donor gallbladder contraction function after left lateral lobe hepatectomy

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of donor gallbladder preservation in liver transplantation. Conventional removal of the donor gallbladder is applied in a majority of pediatric liver transplantation. A total of 42 donors who underwent gallbladder preservation in liver transplantation from October 2013 to December 2015 at the Beijing Friendship Hospital, China, were enrolled for the study. The changes in gallbladder volume and the gallbladder EF of donors before and after surgery were measured through ultrasound, and the changes in the donor gallbladder contraction function before and after surgery were evaluated to help verify the feasibility of gallbladder preservation in living donor left lateral lobe hepatectomy. The gallbladder emptying index dropped to 42.67% in 2 weeks after surgery and gradually increased with the length of recovery time, which could reach 69.14% in 3 months after surgery. At that time, 97.6% of the donors were considered to have recovered their gallbladder contraction function. The gallbladder contraction function at an early stage after gallbladder preservation in liver transplantation is not obviously improved, but it can recover to a normal level in 1 month after surgery, indicating that the gallbladder preservation in hepatectomy of living donor can effectively guarantee the gallbladder contraction function.

Current Status of Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was introduced in response to the shortage of deceased donor liver grafts. The number of adult living donor transplants is increasing due to improved outcomes and increasing need. Advantages of LDLT include optimization of the timing of transplant, better organ quality, and lower rates of recipient mortality compared to staying on the wait list for deceased donor liver transplant. Donor safety remains the major focus when considering LDLT. Recent advancements have supported the increased use of LDLT to help decrease wait list death and improve long-term survival of transplant recipients.

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.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation in South Asia: Single Center Experience on Intermediate-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

There is paucity of data on intermediate-term post liver transplant outcomes from South Asia. The objective of this study was to determine survival outcomes in patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in a busy liver transplant center in Pakistan.

METHODS

This study was a review of patients who underwent LDLT between 2012 and 2016. A total of 321 patients were included in this study. Early (within 90 days) and late (>90 days) morbidity and mortality was assessed. Estimated 1- and 4-year survival was determined.

RESULTS

Median age was 48 (18-73) years. Male to female ratio was 4.5:1. Out of total 346 complications, 184 (57.3%) patients developed 276 (79.7%) complications in early post-transplant period, whereas there were 70 (21.3%) late complications. Most common early complication was pleural effusion in 46 (16.6%) patients. Biliary complications were the most common late complication and were seen in 31/70 (44.2%) patients. Overall 21.4% patients had a biliary complication. The 3-month mortality was 14%. The estimated 1- and 4-year OS for a MELD cutoff of 30 was 84.5 versus 72 and 80 versus 57% (P = 0.01). There was no donor mortality.

CONCLUSION

Acceptable intermediate-term post-transplant outcomes were achieved with LDLT. There is a need to improve outcomes in high-MELD patients.

A nationwide analysis of re-exploration after liver transplant

BACKGROUND

A retrospective review to investigate rate and outcomes of re-exploration following liver transplantation in the United States.

METHODS

The NIS database was used to examine outcomes of patients who underwent re-exploration following liver transplantation from 2002 to 2012. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to compare outcomes of patients with and without reoperation.

RESULTS

We sampled a total of 12,075 patients who underwent liver transplantation. Of these, 1505 (12.5%) had re-exploration during the same hospitalization. Hemorrhagic (67.9%) and biliary tract anastomosis complication (14.8%) were the most common reasons for reoperation. Patients with reoperation had a significantly higher mortality than those who did not (11.6% vs. 3.8%, AOR: 3.01, P < 0.01). Preoperative coagulopathy (AOR: 1.71, P < 0.01) and renal failure (AOR: 1.57, P < 0.01) were associated with hemorrhagic complications. Peripheral vascular disorders (AOR: 2.15, P < 0.01) and coagulopathy (AOR: 1.32, P < 0.01) were significantly associated with vascular complications. Risk of wound disruption was significantly higher in patients with chronic pulmonary disease (AOR: 1.50, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Re-exploration after liver transplantation is relatively common (12.5%), with hemorrhagic complication as the most common reason for reoperation. Preoperative coagulation disorders significantly increase hemorrhagic and vascular complications. Further clinical trails should investigate prophylactic strategies in high risk patients to prevent unplanned reoperation.

The International Liver Transplantation Society Living Donor Liver Transplant Recipient Guideline

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been increasingly embraced around the world as an important strategy to address the shortage of deceased donor livers. The aim of this guideline, approved by the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS), is to provide a collection of expert opinions, consensus, and best practices surrounding LDLT. Recommendations were developed from an analysis of the National Library of Medicine living donor transplantation indexed literature using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Writing was guided by the ILTS Policy on the Development and Use of Practice Guidelines (www.ilts.org). Intended for use by physicians, these recommendations support specific approaches to the diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive aspects of care of living donor liver transplant recipients.

Compared to cadaveric liver transplantation, live donor LT (LDLT) is challenged by ethical, medical and surgical considerations, many of which are still unresolved. The aim of this guideline is to provide a collection of expert opinions, consensus, and best practices surrounding LDLT.

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.

Complications and Their Resolution in Recipients of Deceased and Living Donor Liver Transplants: Findings From the A2ALL Cohort Study

The purpose of this study was to explore long-term complications in recipients of deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) and living donor liver transplant (LDLT) in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL). We analyzed 471 DDLTs and 565 LDLTs from 1998 to 2010 that were followed up to 10 years for 36 categories of complications. Probabilities of complications and their resolutions were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and predictors were tested in Cox proportional hazards models. Median follow-up for DDLT and LDLT was 4.19 and 4.80 years, respectively. DDLT recipients were more likely to have hepatocellular carcinoma and higher disease severity, including Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. Complications occurring with higher probability in LDLT included biliary-related complications and hepatic artery thrombosis. In DDLT, ascites, intra-abdominal bleeding, cardiac complications and pulmonary edema were significantly more probable. Development of chronic kidney disease stage 4 or 5 was less likely in LDLT recipients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.41, p = 0.02). DDLT and LDLT had similar risk of grade 4 complications (HR 0.89, p = 0.60), adjusted for other risk factors. Once a complication occurred, the time to resolution did not differ between LDLT and DDLT. Future efforts should be directed toward reducing the occurrence of complications after liver transplantation.

Defining long-term outcomes with living donor liver transplantation in North America

OBJECTIVES

To compare long-term survival of living donor liver transplant (LDLT) at experienced transplant centers with outcomes of deceased donor liver transplant and identify key variables impacting patient and graft survival.

BACKGROUND

The Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study is a prospective multicenter National Institutes of Health study comparing outcomes of LDLT and deceased donor liver transplant and associated risks.

METHODS

Mortality and graft failure for 1427 liver recipients (963 LDLT) enrolled in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study who received transplant between January 1, 1998, and January 31, 2014, at 12 North American centers with median follow-up 6.7 years were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox models.

RESULTS

Survival probability at 10 years was 70% for LDLT and 64% for deceased donor liver transplant. Unadjusted survival was higher with LDLT (hazard ratio = 0.76, P = 0.02) but attenuated after adjustment (hazard ratio = 0.98, P = 0.90) as LDLT recipients had lower mean model for end-stage liver disease (15.5 vs 20.4) and fewer received transplant from intensive care unit, were inpatient, on dialysis, were ventilated, or with ascites. Posttransplant intensive care unit days were less for LDLT recipients. For all recipients, female sex and primary sclerosing cholangitis were associated with improved survival, whereas dialysis and older recipient/donor age were associated with worse survival. Higher model for end-stage liver disease score was associated with increased graft failure. Era of transplantation and type of donated lobe did not impact survival in LDLT.

CONCLUSIONS

LDLT provides significant long-term transplant benefit, resulting in transplantation at a lower model for end-stage liver disease score, decreased death on waitlist, and excellent posttransplant outcomes. Recipient diagnosis, disease severity, renal failure, and ages of recipient and donor should be considered in decision making regarding timing of transplant and donor options.Clinical Trials ID: NCT00096733.

The travails of setting up a living donor liver transplant program: Experience from Pakistan and lessons learned

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the only treatment option for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) where cadaveric donors are not available. In developing countries, the inception of LDLT programs remains a challenge. The first successful liver transplantation program in Pakistan started transplantation in 2012. The objective of this study was to report outcomes of 100 LDLT recipients in a developing country and to highlight the challenges encountered by a new LDLT program in a resource-limited setting. We retrospectively reviewed recipients who underwent LDLT between April 2012 and August 2014. Demographics, etiology, graft characteristics, and operative variables were assessed. Outcome was assessed on the basis of morbidity and mortality. All complications of ≥ 3 on the Clavien-Dindo grading system were included as morbidity. Estimated 1-year survival was calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves, and a Log-rank test was used to determine the significance. Outcomes between the first 50 LDLTs (group 1) and latter 50 LDLTs (group 2) were also compared. Median age was 46.5 (0.5-72) years, whereas the median MELD score was 15.5 (7-37). The male to female ratio was 4:1. ESLD secondary to hepatitis C virus was the most common indication (73% patients). There were 52 (52%) significant (≥ grade 3) complications. The most common morbidities were bile leaks in 9 (9%) and biliary strictures in 14 (14%) patients. Overall mortality in patients who underwent LDLT for ESLD was 10.6%. Estimated 1-year survival was 87%. Patients who underwent transplantation in the latter period had a significantly lower overall complication rate (36% versus 68%; P = 0.01). Comparable outcomes can be achieved in a new LDLT program in a developing country. Outcomes improve as experience increases.

Feasibility of liver graft procurement with donor gallbladder preservation in living donor liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE

Cholecystectomy is routinely performed at most transplant centers during living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study was performed to evaluate the feasibility of liver graft procurement with donor gallbladder preservation in LDLT.

METHODS

Eighty-nine LDLTs (from June 2006 to Dec 2012) were retrospectively analyzed at our hospital. The surgical approach for liver graft procurement with donor gallbladder preservation was assessed, and the anatomy of the cystic artery, the morphology and contractibility of the preserved gallbladder, postoperative symptoms, and vascular and biliary complications were compared among donors with or without gallbladder preservation.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight donors (15 right and 13 left-liver grafts) successfully underwent liver graft procurement with gallbladder preservation. Among the 15 right lobectomy donors, for 12 cases (80.0 %) the cystic artery originated from right hepatic artery. From the left hepatic artery and proper hepatic artery accounted for 6.7 % (1/15), respectively. Postoperative symptoms among these 28 donors were slight, although donors with cholecystectomy often complained of fatty food aversion, dyspepsia, and diarrhea during an average follow-up of 58.6 (44-78) months. The morphology and contractibility of the preserved gallbladders were comparable with normal status; the rate of contraction was 53.8 and 76.7 %, respectively, 30 and 60 min after ingestion of a fatty meal. Biliary and vascular complications among donors and recipients, irrespective of gallbladder preservation, were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that for donors compliant with anatomical requirements, liver graft procurement with gallbladder preservation for the donor is feasible and safe. The preserved gallbladder was assessed as functioning well and postoperative symptoms as a result of cholecystectomy were significantly reduced during long-term follow-up.

Impact of early reoperation following living-donor liver transplantation on graft survival

BACKGROUND

The reoperation rate remains high after liver transplantation and the impact of reoperation on graft and recipient outcome is unclear. The aim of our study is to evaluate the impact of early reoperation following living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) on graft and recipient survival.

METHODS

Recipients that underwent LDLT (n = 111) at the University of Tokyo Hospital between January 2007 and December 2012 were divided into two groups, a reoperation group (n = 27) and a non-reoperation group (n = 84), and case-control study was conducted.

RESULTS

Early reoperation was performed in 27 recipients (24.3%). Mean time [standard deviation] from LDLT to reoperation was 10 [9.4] days. Female sex, Child-Pugh class C, Non-HCV etiology, fulminant hepatitis, and the amount of intraoperative fresh frozen plasma administered were identified as possibly predictive variables, among which females and the amount of FFP were identified as independent risk factors for early reoperation by multivariable analysis. The 3-, and 6- month graft survival rates were 88.9% (95%confidential intervals [CI], 70.7-96.4), and 85.2% (95%CI, 66.5-94.3), respectively, in the reoperation group (n = 27), and 95.2% (95%CI, 88.0-98.2), and 92.9% (95%CI, 85.0-96.8), respectively, in the non-reoperation group (n = 84) (the log-rank test, p = 0.31). The 12- and 36- month overall survival rates were 96.3% (95%CI, 77.9-99.5), and 88.3% (95%CI, 69.3-96.2), respectively, in the reoperation group, and 89.3% (95%CI, 80.7-94.3) and 88.0% (95%CI, 79.2-93.4), respectively, in the non-reoperation group (the log-rank test, p = 0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Observed graft survival for the recipients who underwent reoperation was lower compared to those who did not undergo reoperation, though the result was not significantly different. Recipient overall survival with reoperation was comparable to that without reoperation. The present findings enhance the importance of vigilant surveillance for postoperative complication and surgical rescue at an early postoperative stage in the LDLT setting.

Living donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation: a surgeon-matched comparison of recipient morbidity and outcomes

Informed consent for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) requires that patients are provided with accurate information on the relative benefits and risks of this procedure compared with deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). There is strong evidence to suggest that LDLT facilitates timely transplantation to patients; however, information on the relative morbidity and death risks after LDLT as compared with DDLT is limited. A matched cohort comparison was performed matching recipients for age, MELD, date of transplant, gender, primary diagnosis, and recipient surgeon. A total of 145 LDLT were matched with 145 DDLT. LDLT had a higher overall rate of perioperative surgical complications (P = 0.009). Most of this difference was caused by a higher rate of biliary complications. However, the complications that occurred in the DDLT group tended to be more serious (P = 0.037), and these complications were strongly associated with graft loss in multivariate analysis. The 3- and 5-year graft and patient survivals were similar. In conclusion, DDLT and LDLT have different complication profiles, but comparable hospital stays and survival rates. In areas of deceased donor organ shortages, LDLT offers an excellent alternative to DDLT because it facilitates access to a liver transplant without compromising short- or medium-term recipient outcomes.

Incidence of death and potentially life-threatening near-miss events in living donor hepatic lobectomy: a world-wide survey

The incidence of morbidity and mortality after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is not well understood because reporting is not standardized and relies on single-center reports. Aborted hepatectomies (AHs) and potentially life-threatening near-miss events (during which a donor's life may be in danger but after which there are no long-term sequelae) are rarely reported. We conducted a worldwide survey of programs performing LDLT to determine the incidence of these events. A survey instrument was sent to 148 programs performing LDLT. The programs were asked to provide donor demographics, case volumes, and information about graft types, operative morbidity and mortality, near-miss events, and AHs. Seventy-one programs (48%), which performed donor hepatectomy 11,553 times and represented 21 countries, completed the survey. The average donor morbidity rate was 24%, with 5 donors (0.04%) requiring transplantation. The donor mortality rate was 0.2% (23/11,553), with the majority of deaths occurring within 60 days, and all but 4 deaths were related to the donation surgery. The incidences of near-miss events and AH were 1.1% and 1.2%, respectively. Program experience did not affect the incidence of donor morbidity or mortality, but near-miss events and AH were more likely in low-volume programs (≤50 LDLT procedures). In conclusion, it appears that independently of program experience, there is a consistent donor mortality rate of 0.2% associated with LDLT donor procedures, yet increased experience is associated with lower rates of AH and near-miss events. Potentially life-threatening near-miss events and AH are underappreciated complications that must be discussed as part of the informed consent process with any potential living liver donor.

Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a leading cause of hospital-associated gastrointestinal illness and places a high burden on our health-care system. Patients with CDI typically have extended lengths-of-stay in hospitals, and CDI is a frequent cause of large hospital outbreaks of disease. This guideline provides recommendations for the diagnosis and management of patients with CDI as well as for the prevention and control of outbreaks while supplementing previously published guidelines. New molecular diagnostic stool tests will likely replace current enzyme immunoassay tests. We suggest treatment of patients be stratified depending on whether they have mild-to-moderate, severe, or complicated disease. Therapy with metronidazole remains the choice for mild-to-moderate disease but may not be adequate for patients with severe or complicated disease. We propose a classification of disease severity to guide therapy that is useful for clinicians. We review current treatment options for patients with recurrent CDI and recommendations for the control and prevention of outbreaks of CDI.

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.

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.

Ambivalence in living liver donors

All right hepatic lobe (RHL) donors in our program are asked to participate in a longitudinal quality-of-life study that begins at their evaluation and continues throughout the first postdonation year. Here we report the characteristics of donor candidates who completed the donation process despite ambivalence. In all, 183 RHL candidates consented, and 133 became donors. Ambivalent donors (ADs; n = 45) identified themselves through verbal statements or written comments, or they were identified by staff during the evaluation. ADs were predominantly male (73.3%), were older than unambivalent donors (UADs; >35 years: 76% of ADs versus 53% of UADs, P = 0.008), and were well educated (college graduate: 60% of ADs versus 17% of UADs, P = 0.01). Brother-to-brother and son-to-father combinations were most common among ADs. Alcohol (22% versus 11%, P = 0.04) and hepatitis C virus (51% versus 27%, P = 0.008) were more common as disease etiologies for recipients with ADs versus recipients with UADs. More ADs than UADs considered themselves to be religious (68.9% versus 43.2%, P = 0.007). Ambivalence about RHL donation was present in 33.8% of the candidates who completed the donation process. These results suggest that ambivalence should not be the sole reason for disqualifying a potential donor who otherwise satisfies program requirements.

Liver transplantation in the 21st century: expanding the donor options

Over the past decade, use of ECD organs for OLT has allowed many transplant programs to afford patients access to an otherwise scarce resource and to maintain center volume. Although overall posttransplant outcomes are inferior to results with optimal, whole-liver grafts, aggressive utilization of ECD and DCD organs significantly lowers median wait-times for OLT, MELD score at OLT, and death while awaiting transplantation. It is incumbent on the transplant community to provide continued scrutiny of the many factors involved in ECD organ utilization, evaluate the degree of risk and benefit such allografts may impart on particular recipients, and thereby provide suitable “matching” to maximize favorable outcomes. Transplant caregivers need to provide patients with evidence-based care decisions, be good stewards of a scarce resource, and maintain threshold survival results for their programs. This requires balancing the urgency with which a transplant is needed and the utility of such a transplant. There is a clear necessity to pursue additional donor research to improve use of these marginal grafts and assess interventions that enhance the safety of ECD livers.

Outcomes of adult living donor liver transplantation: comparison of the Adult-to-adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study and the national experience

The study objectives were to determine whether the findings of the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) reflect the U.S. national experience and to define risk factors for patient mortality and graft loss in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). A2ALL previously identified risk factors for mortality after LDLT, which included early center experience, older recipient age, and longer cold ischemia time. LDLT procedures at 9 A2ALL centers (n = 702) and 67 non-A2ALL centers (n = 1664) from January 1998 through December 2007 in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database were analyzed. Potential predictors of time from transplantation to death or graft failure were tested using Cox regression. No significant difference in overall mortality between A2ALL and non-A2ALL centers was found. Higher hazard ratios (HRs) were associated with donor age (HR = 1.13 per 10 years, P = 0.0002), recipient age (HR = 1.20 per 10 years, P = 0.0003), serum creatinine levels (HR = 1.52 per loge unit increase, P < 0.0001), hepatocellular carcinoma (HR = 2.12, P<0.0001) or hepatitis C virus (HR = 1.18, P = 0.026), intensive care unit stay (HR = 2.52, P< 0.0001) or hospitalization (HR = 1.62, P < 0.0001) versus home, earlier center experience (LDLT case number 15: HR = 1.61, P < 0.0001, and a cold ischemia time >4.5 hours (HR = 1.79, P = 0.0006). Except for center experience, risk factor effects between A2ALL and non-A2ALL centers were not significantly different. Variables associated with graft loss were identified and showed similar trends. In conclusion, mortality and graft loss risk factors were similar in A2ALL and non-A2ALL centers. These analyses demonstrate that findings from the A2ALL consortium are relevant to other centers in the U.S. performing LDLT, and conclusions and recommendations from A2ALL may help to guide clinical decision making.

Outcomes of surgical repair of bile leaks and strictures after adult-to-adult living donor liver transplant

We sought to determine factors that predict the successful surgical repair of biliary complications after adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT).

METHODS

Records of 82 consecutive ALDLT right lobe recipients were reviewed. Operations were performed on 19 recipients for biliary complications. Post-operative biliary complications were analyzed. Fisher's exact test was used to identify variables that correlated with successful surgical repair.

RESULTS

A total of 29 recipients had biliary complications, of which 19 had a surgical repair. The five recipients, operated on for a stricture without history of leaks, did not develop further complications. However, nine of 14 with a history of a leak developed further complications after surgical repair (p-value = 0.044). All five who presented with a biliary complication more than 100 d after transplant had successful surgical repair; however, nine out of 13 who presented within 57 d had additional complications after repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Operations for strictures after ALDLT are more successful than operations for leaks. Recipients with isolated biliary strictures after ALDLT can be managed surgically; however, recipients with history of a leak often require additional interventions after surgical repair.

Partial liver transplantation

Partial liver transplantation, including reducedsize liver transplantation, split liver transplantation, and living donor liver transplantation, has been developed with several innovative techniques because of donor shortage. Reduced-size liver transplantation is based on Couinaud's anatomical classification, benefiting children and small adult recipients but failing to relieve the overall donor shortage. Split liver transplantation provides chances to two or even more recipients when only one liver graft is available. The splitting technique must follow stricter anatomical and physiological criteria either ex situ or in situ to ensure long-term quality. The first and most important issue involving living donor liver transplantation is donor safety. Before surgery, a series of donor evaluations-including anatomical, liver volume, and liver function evaluations-is indispensable, followed by ethnic agreement. At different recipient conditions, auxiliary liver transplantation and auxiliary partial orthotopic liver transplantation, which employ piggyback techniques, are good alternatives. Partial liver transplantation enriches the practice and knowledge of the transplant society.

Comparison of biliary complications in adult living-donor liver transplants performed at two busy transplant centers

Adult living-donor liver transplantation (ALDLT) has a high rate of biliary complications. We identified risk factors that correlate with biliary leaks and strictures by combining data from two centers. Records of ALDLT right lobe recipients (n = 156) at two centers between December 1998 and February 2005 were reviewed. Leak rate was analyzed in 144 recipients after we excluded those with hepatic artery thrombosis or death within 30 d of transplant. Stricture rate was also analyzed in 132 recipients after we excluded those with graft survival or follow-up <180 d. Biliary reconstructions were performed using either duct-to-duct (DD) or Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy and were subclassified by anatomic type, number of anastomoses performed, and stent use. Prevalence of a leak and/or a stricture was 39%; 11% of recipients developed both. Single DD anastomoses between the graft right hepatic duct to the recipient common duct had significantly lower incidence of leaks compared to all other anastomotic types. Early leak was predictive of late stricture development (p = 0.006), but recipient demographics, diagnosis, warm ischemia time, anastomosis type, duct number, year of transplant, stent use, and transplant center were not. The results suggest donors with a single right hepatic duct reconstructed to the recipient common bile duct are the most likely to avoid biliary problems after ALDLT.

Gender-specific differences associated with living donor liver transplantation: a review study

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has developed into an important therapeutic option for liver diseases. For living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT), gender-specific differences have been observed among both donors (two-thirds being women and one-third being men) and recipients (two-thirds being men and one-third being women). The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a gender disparity for LDLT. We contacted 89 national and international transplantation registries, single transplant centers, and coordinators. In addition, a sample of 274 articles dealing with LDLT and its outcomes was reviewed and compared with the registry data. The data included the gender of the donors and recipients, the country of transplantation, and the donor-recipient relationship. The investigation showed that overall there were slightly more men among the donors (53% male and 47% female). As for the recipients, 59% of the organs were distributed to males, and 41% were distributed to females. Differences in the gender distribution were observed with respect to individual countries. Worldwide, 80% of the donors were blood-related, 11% were not blood-related, and 9% were spouses. The data acquired from the publications were similar to the registry data. Our research has shown that there are hardly any registry data published, a lot of countries do not have national registries, or the access to these data is difficult. Even widely ranging published studies often do not give information on the gender distribution or the donor-recipient relationship. Further investigations are needed to understand the possible medical, psychosocial, or cultural reasons for gender distribution in LDLT and the differences in comparison with LDKT.

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Increased recurrence but improved survival

In regions with a limited deceased donor pool, living donor adult liver transplantation (LDALT) has become an important treatment modality for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cirrhosis. Studies have shown higher recurrence rates of HCC after LDALT in comparison with deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The aim of our study was to examine the outcome results and recurrence rates for patients with HCC who underwent LDALT at our center. During an 8-year period, 139 patients underwent LDALT, of whom 28 (20.1%) had HCC in their explanted livers. The median follow-up was 40.8 months. The mean explant tumor size was 3.3 +/- 1.2, and the mean number of tumors was 1.5 +/- 0.8. Twenty-one patients (75%) had tumors within the Milan criteria, 5 patients had tumors outside the Milan criteria but within the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) criteria, and 2 patients were beyond the UCSF criteria. The overall 1- and 5-year patient and graft survival rates were 96% and 81%, respectively. Survival following LDALT was significantly better than survival following DDLT for HCC during the same time period (P = 0.02). Eight patients (28.6%) developed tumor recurrence. Poor differentiation of tumor cells was the most significant determinant of recurrence. Despite high recurrence rates of HCC following LDALT, overall 5-year survival appears to be excellent.

Complications of right lobe living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Right lobar living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been controversial because of donor deaths and widely variable reports of recipient and donor morbidity. Our aims were to ensure full disclosure to donors and recipients of the risks and benefits of this procedure in a large University center and to help explain reporting inconsistencies.

METHODS

The Clavien 5-tier grading system was applied retrospectively in 121 consecutive adult right lobe recipients and their donors. The incidence was determined of potentially (Grade III), actually (Grade IV), or ultimately fatal (Grade V) complications during the first post-transplant year. When patients had more than one complication, only the seminal one was counted, or the most serious one if complications occurred contemporaneously.

RESULTS

One year recipient/graft survival was 91%/84%. Within the year, 80 (66%) of the 121 recipients had Grade III (n=54) Grade IV (n=16), or Grade V (n=10) complications. The complications involved the graft's biliary tract (42% incidence), graft vasculature (15%), or non-graft locations (9%). Complications during the first year did not decline with increased team experience, and adversely affected survival out to 5 years. All 121 donors survive. However, 13 donors (10.7%) had Grade III (n=9) or IV (n=4) complications of which five were graft-related.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the satisfactory recipient and graft survival at our and selected other institutions, and although we have not had a donor mortality to date, the role of right lobar LDLT is not clear because of the recipient morbidity and risk to the donors.

Report of the Paris consensus meeting on expanded criteria donors in liver transplantation

Because of organ shortage and a constant imbalance between available organs and candidates for liver transplantation, expanded criteria donors are needed. Experience shows that there are wide variations in the definitions, selection criteria, and use of expanded criteria donors according to different geographic areas and different centers. Overall, selection criteria for donors have tended to be relaxed in recent years. Consensus recommendations are needed. This article reports the conclusions of a consensus meeting held in Paris in March 2007 with the contribution of experts from Europe, the United States, and Asia. Definitions of expanded criteria donors with respect to donor variables (including age, liver function tests, steatosis, infections, malignancies, and heart-beating versus non-heart-beating, among others) are proposed. It is emphasized that donor quality represents a continuum of risk rather than "good or bad." A distinction is made between donor factors that generate increased risk of graft failure and factors independent of graft function, such as transmissible infectious disease or donor-derived malignancy, that may preclude a good outcome. Updated data concerning the risks associated with different donor variables in different recipient populations are given. Recommendations on how to safely expand donor selection criteria are proposed.

Recipient morbidity after living and deceased donor liver transplantation: findings from the A2ALL Retrospective Cohort Study

Patients considering living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) need to know the risk and severity of complications compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). One aim of the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) was to examine recipient complications following these procedures. Medical records of DDLT or LDLT recipients who had a living donor evaluated at the nine A2ALL centers between 1998 and 2003 were reviewed. Among 384 LDLT and 216 DDLT, at least one complication occurred after 82.8% of LDLT and 78.2% of DDLT (p = 0.17). There was a median of two complications after DDLT and three after LDLT. Complications that occurred at a higher rate (p < 0.05) after LDLT included biliary leak (31.8% vs. 10.2%), unplanned reexploration (26.2% vs. 17.1%), hepatic artery thrombosis (6.5% vs. 2.3%) and portal vein thrombosis (2.9% vs. 0.0%). There were more complications leading to retransplantation or death (Clavien grade 4) after LDLT versus DDLT (15.9% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.023). Many complications occurred more commonly during early center experience; the odds of grade 4 complications were more than two-fold higher when centers had performed <or=20 LDLT (vs. >40). In summary, complication rates were higher after LDLT versus DDLT, but declined with center experience to levels comparable to DDLT.

Live donor adult liver transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Because the gap between liver organ supply and demand continues to increase, adult living-donor liver transplantation continues to represent a significant pool of organs.

RECENT FINDINGS

With this in mind, we discuss recent issues in adult living-donor liver transplantation, including issues with donor evaluation and selection, donor liver biopsy, orphan organ allocation, donor morbidity and mortality, outcomes compared with deceased donor liver transplant from time of evaluation, death on the waiting list, and evolving recipient indications for living-donor liver transplantation.

SUMMARY

Increasing the number of living-donor liver transplants would allow us to expedite transplant, avoid death on the waitlist, and possibly save more lives by expanding the criteria for transplant. These benefits must always be weighed against the potential risks and complications to the donor, which can be significant.

Analysis of surgical and perioperative complications in seventy-five right hepatectomies for living donor liver transplantation

AIM: To present an analysis of the surgical and perioperative complications in a series of seventy-five right hepatectomies for living-donation (RHLD) performed in our center.

METHODS: From January 2002 to September 2007, we performed 75 RHLD, defined as removal of a portion of the liver corresponding to Couinaud segments 5-8, in order to obtain a graft for adult to adult living-related liver transplantation (ALRLT). Surgical complications were stratified according to the most recent version of the Clavien classification of postoperative surgical complications. The perioperative period was defined as within 90 d of surgery.

RESULTS: No living donor mortality was present in this series, no donor operation was aborted and no donors received any blood transfusion. Twenty-three (30.6%) living donors presented one or more episodes of complication in the perioperative period. Seven patients (9.33%) out of 75 developed biliary complications, which were the most common complications in our series.

CONCLUSION: The need to define, categorize and record complications when healthy individuals, such as living donors, undergo a major surgical procedure, such as a right hepatectomy, reflects the need for prompt and detailed reports of complications arising in this particular category of patient. Perioperative complications and post resection liver regeneration are not influenced by anatomic variations or patient demographic.

Portal vein segmentation of a 3D-planning system for liver surgery--in vivo evaluation in a porcine model

BACKGROUND

Computer systems allow the planning of complex liver operations. The segmentation of intrahepatic vessels builds the basis for the calculation of liver segments and resection proposals. For surgical use, it is essential to know the capabilities and limitations of the segmentation. The aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity and precision of the portal vein segmentation of a computer planning system for liver surgery in vivo.

METHODS

Segmentations were performed with the software system HepaVision on computed tomography (CT) scan data of domestic pigs. An in situ corrosion cast of the portal vein served as the gold standard. The segmentation results of the portal vein and the corrosion cast were compared with regard to sensitivity, precision, and amount of short-circuit segmentations.

RESULTS

The methodology demonstrated high resolution ex situ. The in vivo sensitivity of the portal vein segmentation was 100% for vessels of more than 5 mm in diameter and 82% for vessels of 3-4 mm. All segment branches were detected as well as 84% of the first subsegment branches with a diameter of more than 3 mm. The precision of the system was 100% for segment branches and 89% for the first subsegment vessels. The amount of internal short-circuit segmentations was less than 3.0%. No external short-circuits were found.

CONCLUSION

The system has a high precision and sensitivity under clinical conditions. The segmentation is suitable for portal vein branches of the first and second order and for vessels of >/=3 mm in diameter.

Successful algorithm for selective liver biopsy in the right hepatic lobe live donor (RHLD)

Routine versus selective predonation liver biopsy (LBx) remains controversial for assuring the safety of right hepatic lobe live donor (RHLD). Between December 1999 and March 2007, 403 potential RHLD were evaluated; 142 donated. Indications for selective LBx were: abnormal liver function tests or imaging studies, body mass index (BMI) >28, history of substance abuse or family history of immune mediated liver disease. All donors had a LBx at the time of surgery. Of 403 potential RLD, 149(36.9%) were accepted as donors, 25(6.3%) had their recipient receive a deceased donor graft, 94(23.4%) were rejected, 52(12.9%) stopped the evaluation process, 76(18.8%) withdrew from the process and 7(1.7%) are currently completing evaluation. Eighty-seven (21.5%) met criteria and were biopsied. Seventy-three (83.9%) had either normal (n = 24) or macrosteatosis <10% (n = 49); 51 of these donated. Abnormal LBx eliminated 15 potential donors. No significant abnormalities were found in donation biopsies of donors not meeting algorithm criteria. Three of 87 (3.4%) had complications requiring overnight admission (2 for pain, 1 for bleeding; transfusion not required). Use of this algorithm resulted in 78% of potential donors avoiding biopsy and potential complications. No significant liver pathology was identified in donors not meeting criteria for evaluation LBx. Routine predonation LBx is unnecessary in potential RHLD.

Adult to adult living-related liver transplant: report on an initial experience in Italy

INTRODUCTION

Living-related liver transplantation has become the treatment of choice for many liver diseases. We present our initial analysis of 53 cases of adult to adult living-related liver transplantation performed in a single institute in Italy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2002 to September 2006, we performed 53 adult to adult living-related liver transplantations. The donors (age 18-53) all had genetic or emotional relationships; they were all ABO identical or compatible. Recipients (ages 18-68) suffered from cirrhosis secondary to viral etiology (18), hepatocellular carcinoma with viral cirrhosis (24), cystic fibrosis (2), primary biliary cirrhosis (2), hepatocellular carcinoma with non-viral cirrhosis (2), alcoholic cirrhosis (1), ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency (OTC), (1) criptogenic cryptogenic cirrhosis, (1) primary sclerosing cholangitis, (1) biliary atresia and metastatic carcinoid (1). Donor liver resection resulted in 51 right hepatectomies and two left hepatectomies. Graft body weight ratio was always above 0.8%; graft implantation was performed with the piggy back technique and, in 43 cases, with the use of veno-venous bypass.

RESULTS

There was neither donor mortality nor need of blood transfusion. Actuarial recipient survival rate at 3 years was 82.66% and graft survival rate was 75.34%. Six patients underwent retransplantation: in four cases due to hepatic artery thrombosis, and in two, due to graft dysfunction. Three patients had one episode each of acute cellular rejection.

CONCLUSION

Adult to adult living-related liver transplantation represents a resource to be used in confronting organ shortage, and is a valuable option for decreasing mortality and drop out from the waiting list.

Recurrent primary sclerosing cholangitis: Clinical diagnosis and long-term management issues

1. Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) in the nontransplant setting is a chronic, progressive liver disease characterized by diffuse stricturing of the biliary tree, cholestatic liver enzymes, and a compatible liver biopsy. 2. Cholangiography reveals irregularity of the bile duct wall, strictures, beading, and diverticula. 3. The typical biopsy reveals inflammation and fibrosis of the interlobular and septal bile ducts, often with obliteration or biliary-type cirrhosis. 4. The precise pathogenetic mechanism remains elusive but is assumed to be an autoimmune phenomenon. 5. For patients with end-stage complications of PSC, such as liver failure, recurrent bacterial cholangitis, and intractable pruritus, liver transplantation is an acceptable treatment option.

Hepatobiliary Surgery: Lessons Learned from Live Donor Hepatectomy

The liver is unique in the rapid tissue regeneration occurs after resection or injury, and affords the surgeon the opportunity to safely remove up to 60% to 70% of the liver volume for treatment of cancer or for use as a live donor graft for transplantation. The complex development of the liver and biliary system in utero results in multiple and complicated anatomic variations. The hepatobiliary surgeon of today must be able to integrate a broadening array of radiologic and liver resection techniques that may improve patient safety and surgical outcome. Equally important is the ability to quickly recognize postoperative complications so that prompt intervention can be instituted. Successful outcome requires a balance between sound judgement, technical acumen, and attention to detail. Herein, we provide lessons learned from live donor liver transplantation that are directly applicable to any patient undergoing major hepatic resection.

Developments in clinical islet, liver thoracic, kidney and pancreas transplantation in the last 5 years

Although organ transplantation has matured into a proven therapy for end-stage organ failure, the many notable developments of the past 5 years speak to the multitude of remaining challenges. Two new procedures, islet transplantation and adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation, have emerged to enlarge our therapeutic armamentarium for Type 1 diabetes mellitus and end-stage liver disease, respectively. In cardiac transplantation, the acceptance of ventricular assist devices as destination therapy is a notable event in light of critical shortage of deceased donor organs. Both liver and lung allocation policies have made a dramatic paradigm shift away from waiting time toward the survival benefit of transplantation. Finally, primary threats to post-transplant longevity have gained an increasing share of the spotlight. Recognition of the impact of renal insufficiency for all nonrenal transplant recipients, of recurrent hepatitis C virus for liver recipients, and of accelerated vasculopathy for cardiac have identified novel end points for clinical trials.