Right lobe donor hepatectomy: is it safe? A retrospective study

Analysis of donor morbidity in 177 donor hepatectomies for living donor liver transplant: Experience from a high-volume centre in western India

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplant (LDLT) is based on the principle of double equipoise. Organ shortage in Asian countries has led to development of high-volume LDLT programs with good outcomes. Safety of live liver donor is the Achilles heel of LDLT program and every effort should be made to achieve low morbidity and near zero mortality rates.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed our prospectively maintained donor morbidity data (outcomes) of 177 donors in a new transplant program setup in western India by an experienced surgeon. The primary end point was to analyze the morbidity rates and the factors associated with it.

RESULTS

None of the donors in our cohort of 177 donors developed grade IV or V complication (Clavien-Dindo classification). One-fourth (1/4th) of the donors developed complications ranging from grade I to grade III(b). The rate of complications according to modified Clavien-Dindo classification is as follows: (1) grade I in 5.6% (n = 10), (2) grade II in 14.6% (n = 26), (3) grade III(a) in 3.9% (n = 7), (4) grade III(b) in 2.2% (n = 4). Three donors (1.6%) developed post-hepatectomy intra-abdominal bleeding and required re-exploration (grade IIIb). All of them recovered well post-surgery and are doing well in follow-up. The mean follow-up of the entire cohort was 2871 ± 521 days (range 1926-3736 days).

CONCLUSION

Donor safety (outcome) is determined by meticulous donor surgery and good-quality remnant.

Hepatic Duct Division During Robotic Living Donor Hepatectomy: A Comparison Between the Novel Triple C (Clip-Clamp-Cut) and the Cut-Suture Techniques

Background: In robotic donor hepatectomy (RDH), hepatic duct division (HDD) and its stump closure technique are of paramount importance in avoiding postoperative biliary complications in both donors and recipients. We describe our novel triple C ("clip-clamp-cut") technique of HDD. Methods: Out of 4016 living donor liver transplant (LDLT) (2004-October 2023), we have performed 208 RDH cases since December 2019. This study is a retrospective analysis of the first 160 RDH cases. After excluding the first 20 RDH cases (learning curve) and 3 left-sided RDH cases, 137 cases with no exclusion criteria were included. We divided these 137 donors into the "cut and suture" (CS) group (n = 33) and the "triple C" technique group (n = 104). We compared intraoperative details and postoperative outcomes. Results: All 137 robotic donors and 128/137 recipients are currently well. Donor biliary leak rate was significantly lower among the triple C group (n = 3, 2.9%) compared to the CS group (n = 5, 15.2%) (p=0.009). No other differences in postdonation morbidity were observed among the two groups. Recipient biliary complication rate was lower in the triple C group than in the CS group although not statistically significant (10.6% vs. 15.1%; p=0.537), despite more multiple biliary anastomoses in the former. No significant differences in post-transplant recipient morbidity and mortality were observed. Conclusions: Our simple yet novel triple C technique enables clean, precise, bloodless HDD resulting in lower donor and potentially recipient biliary complication rates. The ease and reproducibility make it ideal for widespread adoption.

Advocating for a "shift-to-left" in transplant oncology: left grafts, RAPID and dual graft

The extension of liver transplantation to new oncologic indications might exacerbate the shortage of grafts. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) may emerge as a viable resource, although its diffusion in the Western world is still very limited. Several groups have advocated for minimizing the impact on donors by reducing the extent of donor hepatectomy, i.e., shifting from right-lobe to left-lobe or left-lateral segment donation ("shift-to-left"). This is particularly relevant when dealing with non-established indications and could make it more acceptable both for potential donors and for the recipients. Left grafts can be transplanted straightforward, despite a higher risk of small-for-size syndrome, or they can be used in the setting of dual-graft LDLT or RAPID procedures, despite technical complexity. This review will expose the most relevant features of each technique, highlighting their strengths and pitfalls and focusing on outcomes. This wide set of tools should be available at high-volume transplant centers, to propose the best technique to adapt to donor-recipient matching.

Hilar Anatomy in 3035 Living Liver Donors: A Novel Classification for Donor Surgery and Suitability, Hepatic Surgeries, and Hepatobiliary Interventions

BACKGROUND

This study examines the vascular and biliary variations in 3035 liver donors. We propose a novel classification of hepatic arteries, portal veins, and bile ducts and clinically relevant donor classification.

METHODS

Preoperative imaging and operative details of 3035 donors from 2005 to 2020 were reviewed. Hilar anatomical variations were identified and grouped on the basis of incidence and clinical relevance.

RESULTS

Hilar structures are classified according to the numbers supplying or draining the graft: for the hepatic artery, right (R) and left (L), RA1/LA1 (1 artery), RA2/LA2 (2 arteries), and RA3/LA3 (3 arteries), respectively, further defined on the basis of the inflow trunk into C (for common hepatic artery), S (for superior mesenteric artery), and L (for left gastric artery); for the portal vein, RP1 (1 vein) and RP2 (2 veins) for the right lobe; and for the hepatic duct, RB1/LB1 (1 duct), RB2/LB2 (2 ducts), RB3 (3 right ducts), and RB4 (4 right ducts). Donors were classified on the basis of anatomical variations into 3 groups: class 1 and class 2 donors, who can donate liver with acceptable risks, and class 3 donors, who are high-risk donors because they are anatomically unacceptable ( Figures S1 to S4, SDC , http://links.lww.com/TP/C918 ).

CONCLUSIONS

Defining hilar anatomical variations and donor grouping into anatomy-based clinical classes helps in operative planning of donors, hepatobiliary surgeries, and interventional procedures.

Selection of Safe Donors for Living Donor Liver Transplant Using Extended Right Lobe Graft

Extended right lobectomy (ERL) for living donor liver transplant (LDLT) is selectively performed in many transplant centers and has shown excellent recipient outcomes as reported in previous studies. Yet, there is no universally accepted indication for ERL in respect to donor safety. Current study was designed to stratify risk factors of adverse donor outcome after ERL. A total of 79 living donors who underwent ERL for LDLT were included in analysis. Donors were classified as safety and hazard donor groups according to postoperative findings relevant to posthepatectomy liver failure classification by the International Study Group for Liver Surgery. On multivariable analysis, left lateral section volume <20% of total liver volume and nonpreservation of segment 4a venous drainage were the independent risk factors impairing postoperative outcomes. Despite the short-term impairment of liver function in hazard donor groups, all donors recovered and showed satisfactory remnant liver regeneration. However, these findings have implications in establishing selection criteria of donors eligible for ERL donation. In conclusion, LDLT using ERL graft can be safely performed provided so that left lateral section volume/total donor liver is ≥20% besides conventional donor selection criteria. Also, efforts to preserve segment 4a vein must be made in performing ERL graft procurement in LDLT donors.

Right Lobe Versus Left Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Donor and Recipient Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an established treatment for advanced liver disease. Whether right lobe (RL) or left lobe (LL) LDLT provides the best outcomes for donors and recipients remains contentious.

METHODS

MedLine, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central were searched to identify studies comparing RL- and LL-LDLT and reporting donor and/or recipient outcomes. Effect sizes were pooled using random-effect meta-analysis. Meta-regressions were used to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies were included. RL donors were more likely to experience major complications (relative risk [RR] = 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30-2.05; I2 = 19%) than LL donors; however, no difference was observed in the risk of any biliary complication (RR = 1.41; 95% CI = 0.91-2.20; I2 = 59%), bile leaks (RR = 1.56; 95% CI = 0.97-2.51; I2 = 52%), biliary strictures (RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.43-1.88; I2 = 27%), or postoperative death (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.25-1.05; I2 = 0%). Among recipients, the incidence of major complications (RR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.68-1.06; I2 = 21%), biliary complications (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 0.91-1.33; I2 = 8%), and vascular complications (RR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.44-1.43; I2 = 0%) was similar. Although the rate of small for size syndrome (RR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30-0.74; I2 = 0%) and postoperative deaths (RR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.44-0.87; I2 = 0%) was lower among RL-LDLT recipients, no differences were observed in long-term graft (hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.55-1.38; I2 = 74%) and overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.60-1.22; I2 = 44%).

CONCLUSIONS

LL donors experience fewer complications than RL donors, and LL-LDLT recipients had similar outcomes to RL-LDLT recipients. These findings suggest that LL-LDLT offers the best outcomes for living donors and similar outcomes for recipients when measures are taken to prevent small for size syndrome.

Donor Morbidity Is Equivalent Between Right and Left Hepatectomy for Living Liver Donation: A Meta-Analysis

Maximizing liver graft volume benefits the living donor liver recipient. Whether maximizing graft volume negatively impacts living donor recovery and outcomes remains controversial. Patient randomization between right and left hepatectomy has not been possible due to anatomic constraints; however, a number of published, nonrandomized observational studies summarize donor outcomes between 2 anatomic living donor hepatectomies. This meta-analysis compares donor-specific outcomes after right versus left living donor hepatectomy. Systematic searches were performed via PubMed, Cochrane, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar databases to identify relevant studies between January 2005 and November 2019. The primary outcomes compared overall morbidity and incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo >III) between right and left hepatectomy in donors after liver donation. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to derive summary risk estimates of outcomes. A total of 33 studies (3 prospective and 30 retrospective cohort) were used to identify 7649 pooled patients (5993 right hepatectomy and 1027 left hepatectomy). Proportion of donors who developed postoperative complications did not significantly differ after right hepatectomy (0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.40) and left hepatectomy (0.23; 95% CI, 0.17-0.29; P = 0.19). The overall risk ratio (RR) did not differ between right and left hepatectomy (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.83-1.63; P = 0.36). The relative risk for a donor to develop severe complications showed no differences by hepatectomy side (Incidence rate ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.67-1.40; P = 0.86). There is no evidence that the overall morbidity differs between right and left lobe donors. Publication bias reflects institutional and surgeon variation. A prospective, standardized, multi-institutional study would help quantify the burden of donor complications after liver donation.

Incorporating Tumor Biology to Predict Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence in Patients Undergoing Living Donor Liver Transplantation Using Expanded Selection Criteria

Conventional selection criteria for liver transplantation (LT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are based on tumour size/number only, and do not consider vital surrogates of tumor biology such as alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and tumor [¹⁸ F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ([¹⁸ F]FDG PET) avidity. We analyzed survival outcomes, and predictors of HCC recurrence in 405 patients with cirrhosis and HCC (HCC-cirr) who underwent living donor LT (LDLT) using our expanded selection criteria: no extrahepatic disease or major vascular invasion, irrespective of tumor size/number. Fifty-one percent patients had tumours beyond Milan, and 43% beyond the University of California San Francisco [UCSF] criteria. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were 64% and 70%, respectively. Three preoperatively available factors predicted recurrence: pre-LT AFP ≥100 ng/mL (P = 0.005; hazard ratio [HR], 2.190), tumor burden beyond the UCSF criteria (P = 0.001; HR, 2.640), and [¹⁸ F]FDG PET avidity (P = 0.004; HR, 2.442). A prognostic model based on the number and combination of the aforementioned preoperative risk factors was developed using a competing-risk RFS model. Three risk groups were identified: low (none or a single risk factor present, 9.3% recurrence), moderate (AFP ≥100 ng/mL and [¹⁸ F]FDG PET avidity, or beyond UCSF tumor and [¹⁸ F]FDG PET avidity, 25% recurrence), and high (AFP ≥100 ng/mL and beyond UCSF, or presence of all 3 risk factors, 46% recurrence). Acceptable long-term outcomes were achieved using our expanded selection criteria. Our prognostic model to predict recurrence based on preoperative biological and morphological factors could guide pretransplant management (downstaging versus upfront LDLT) with the aim of reducing post-LDLT recurrence.

Live Liver Donors: Is Right Still Right?

BACKGROUND

Conventional wisdom dictates that a larger hepatectomy is more prone to complications. Consequently, with the donor safety as paramount, the transplant community has intuitively been proponents of left lobe donation in live donor liver transplantation (LDLT), thereby satisfying the tenet of double equipoise. More recently some data suggest that this may not always be the case, especially in established centres. Our aim was to compare right and left lobe donor outcomes in LDLT from a centre with cumulative experience.

METHODS

Review of a prospectively collected database of right and left lobe liver donors operated between August 2009 and July 2017 was performed. Their preoperative demographics, operative and post-operative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Of 904 liver transplantations, 458 were right lobe donors [379 without middle hepatic vein (MHV), 79 with MHV] and 58 left lobe donors. There was a significant difference in GRWR and functional liver remnant between the right and left lobe donors (1.27 ± 0.45 vs. 1.03 ± 0.28 p = 0.004, and 63.2 ± 7.9 vs. 37.7 ± 16.3, respectively, p value). The end portal pressure (7 vs. 8 mmHg p = <0.001), peak bilirubin (1.6 ± 0.8 vs. 2.9 ± 1.5 p = <0.001) and day 5 bilirubin (0.8 ± 0.3 vs. 1.4 ± 0.9 p = <0.001) were significantly higher in right lobe donors. There was no difference in blood loss, duration of surgery or peak lactate between the groups. Complications (20.7% vs. 25.9% p = 0.48), including serious complications (Clavien-Dindo > III) (6.9% vs. 8.1% p = 0.95), duration of ICU and hospital stay, were comparable between the groups. Subgroup analysis between left lobe and right lobe with and without MHV donor was also comparable.

CONCLUSION

Though biochemical differences exist between the groups, no difference in outcomes was noted. Despite larger liver mass loss in right lobe donors, a strict protocol-based approach to donor selection leads to comparable outcomes between left lobe and right lobe donations.

Indian National Association for the Study of Liver Consensus Statement on Acute Liver Failure (Part-2): Management of Acute Liver Failure

Acute liver failure (ALF) is not an uncommon complication of a common disease such as acute hepatitis. Viral hepatitis followed by antituberculosis drug-induced hepatotoxicity are the commonest causes of ALF in India. Clinically, such patients present with appearance of jaundice, encephalopathy, and coagulopathy. Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and cerebral edema are central and most important clinical event in the course of ALF, followed by superadded infections, and determine the outcome in these patients. The pathogenesis of encephalopathy and cerebral edema in ALF is unique and multifactorial. Ammonia plays a crucial role in the pathogenesis, and several therapies aim to correct this abnormality. The role of newer ammonia-lowering agents is still evolving. These patients are best managed at a tertiary care hospital with facility for liver transplantation (LT). Aggressive intensive medical management has been documented to salvage a substantial proportion of patients. In those with poor prognostic factors, LT is the only effective therapy that has been shown to improve survival. However, recognizing suitable patients with poor prognosis has remained a challenge. Close monitoring, early identification and treatment of complications, and couseling for transplant form the first-line approach to manage such patients. Recent research shows that use of dynamic prognostic models is better for selecting patients undergoing liver transplantation and timely transplant can save life of patients with ALF with poor prognostic factors.

Living donor liver transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As experience grows, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become an effective treatment option to overcome the deceased donor organ shortage.

RECENT FINDINGS

Donor safety is the highest priority in LDLT. Strict donor selection according to structured protocols and center experience are the main factors that determine donor safety. However, with increased experience, many centers have explored increasing organ availability within living donation by means of ABO incompatible LDLT, dual graft LDLT, and anonymous living donation. Also, this growing experience in LDLT has allowed the transplant community to cautiously explore the role of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma outside of Milan criteria and patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases.

SUMMARY

LDLT has become established as a viable strategy to ameliorate the organ shortage experienced by centers around the world. Improved understanding of this technique has allowed the improved utilization of live donor graft resources, without compromising donor safety. Moreover, LDLT may offer some advantages over deceased donor liver transplantation and a unique opportunity to assess the broader applicability of liver transplantation.

Comparison of liver regeneration in laparoscopic versus open right hemihepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation

Backgrounds/Aims

This study aims to compare differences between laparoscopic donor right hemihepatectomy (LDRH) and open donor right hemihepatectomy (ODRH) in the quality of the operation, postoperative complications, and liver regeneration measured via volumetry.

Methods

This study included 119 patients who underwent living donor right hemihepatectomy at Samsung Medical Center from January 2016 to December 2017. We compared several aspects of LDRH and ODRH and analyzed the results using the independent t-test, chi-square test and Fisher's exact test.

Results

Among 119 enrolled patients, 66 patients (55.5%) underwent open surgery, and 53 patients (44.5%) underwent laparoscopic surgery. The mean operation time was significantly shorter for ODRH (290.57±54.04 minutes) than LDRH (312.28±53.5 minutes) (p=0.031). Estimated blood loss was significantly less in LDRH (258.49±119.99 ml) than ODRH (326.52±157.68 ml) (p=0.011). The remnant liver recovered to 83.35±10.71% of the preoperative estimate whole liver volume (pre-EWLV) in the ODRH group and 84.04±8.98% of the pre-EWLV in the LDRH group (p=0.707). The percentage of increased estimated liver volume to postoperative estimate remnant liver volume (post-ERLV) was 137.62±40.34% in the ODRH group and 130.56±36.78% in the LDRH group, and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p=0.326). An analysis of postoperative complications showed no significant differences.

Conclusions

LDRH is safe, and there is no significant difference in hepatic regeneration compared with ODRH. Therefore, LDRH can be applied for living donation of liver.

Organ Procurement in the Brain Dead Donors Without In Vivo Cold Perfusion: A Novel Technique

INTRODUCTION

We describe our technique of ex vivo organ perfusion and procurement in donation after deceased brain death (DBD) donors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This technique comprises warm dissection of liver, kidneys, and heart, in hemodynamically stable DBD donors and perfusing them ex vivo. The cardiac and abdominal dissection can take place simultaneously. As a precaution, the iliac arteries and the abdominal aorta are dissected and kept ready for rapid cannulation and perfusion, should the donor become unstable at any stage.The liver dissection is in principle similar to living donor hepatectomy, where portal dissection is combined with supra and infrahepatic caval dissection to completely mobilize liver to allow it to be removed and perfused ex vivo. The renal dissection is done after hepatic dissection is complete. The sequence of recovery of organ was modified where kidneys were procured first followed by hepatic and cardiac procurement simultaneously.

RESULTS

Twelve multivisceral (liver and kidneys in all and heart in four) procurements have been performed. The average perfusion fluid volume for liver was 3.4 L. All recipients had uneventful postoperative course.

CONCLUSION

Our technique has not affected recipient outcomes and with benefits of less use of preservation solution, shortening bench surgery time, and decreasing the propensity of procurement injuries by avoiding cold-phase dissection.

Is Portal Inflow Modulation Always Necessary for Successful Utilization of Small Volume Living Donor Liver Grafts?

Although the well-accepted lower limit of the graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) for successful living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains 0.80%, many believe grafts with lower GRWR may suffice with portal inflow modulation (PIM), resulting in equally good recipient outcomes. This study was done to evaluate the outcomes of LDLT with small-for-size grafts (GRWR <0.80%). Of 1321 consecutive adult LDLTs from January 2012 to December 2017, 287 (21.7%) had GRWR <0.80%. PIM was performed (hemiportocaval shunt [HPCS], n = 109; splenic artery ligation [SAL], n = 14) in 42.9% patients. No PIM was done if portal pressure (PP) in the dissection phase was <16 mm Hg. Mean age of the cohort was 49.3 ± 9.1 years. Median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was 14, and the lowest GRWR was 0.54%. A total of 72 recipients had a GRWR <0.70%, of whom 58 underwent HPCS (1 of whom underwent HPCS + SAL) and 14 underwent no PIM, whereas 215 had GRWR between 0.70% and 0.79%, of whom 51 and 14 underwent HPCS and SAL, respectively. During the same period, 1034 had GRWR ≥0.80% and did not undergo PIM. Small-for-size syndrome developed in 2.8% patients. Three patients needed shunt closure at 1 and 4 weeks and 60 months. The 1-year patient survival rates were comparable. In conclusion, with PIM protocol that optimizes postperfusion PP, low-GRWR grafts can be used for appropriately selected LDLT recipients with acceptable outcomes.

The Analysis of Posthepatectomy Liver Failure Incidence and Risk Factors Among Right Liver Living Donors According to International Study Group of Liver Surgery Definition

AIM

There is a well-known risk of the emergence of hepatic failure in living donor transplant cases on whom are performed a right donor hepatectomy (RDH). There are different prevalence ratios in literature on this phenomenon. In our study, we aim to depict the prevalence of hepatic failure and risk factors in our cases regarding the most recent description criteria related to hepatic failure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included right liver donor hepatectomy cases who fit the donor evaluation algorithm at the Dokuz Eylul University Liver Transplantation Unit between the period of June 2000 and September 2017. The patients were evaluated regarding preoperative data. Liver failure was defined according to the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS) criteria. We also included statistical analysis of risk factors that are potentially related to liver failure.

RESULTS

We included a total of 276 patients. In 27 (9.7%) patients, we observed posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). In 26 (9.4%) patients, we observed Grade A liver failure; in 1 (0.3%) patient, we observed Grade B liver failure. We did not observe any Grade C hepatic failure. In patients with hepatic failure, we observed a significantly longer period of hospitalization (P = .007). Old age (odds ratio = 1.065, 95% confidence interval, 1.135-29.108, P = .035) and preoperatory red blood cell (RBC) transfusion (odds ratio = 5.749, 95% confidence interval, 1.019-1.113, P = .005) were shown as independent risk factors for PHLF.

CONCLUSION

Posthepatectomy liver failure is a vital complication of RDH. The risk can be decreased by careful selection of donor candidates. Elderly donor candidates and intraoperative RBC are independent risk factors for PHLF.

Readdressing the Middle Hepatic Vein in Right Lobe Liver Donation: Triangle of Safety

For equipoising donor safety and optimal recipient outcomes, we adopted an algorithmic "triangle of safety" approach to retrieve 3 types of right lobe liver grafts (RLGs), namely, the modified extended right lobe graft (MERLG), the partial right lobe graft (PRLG), and the modified right lobe graft (MRLG). Reconstruction to achieve a single wide anterior sector outflow was ensured in all patients. We present donor and recipient outcomes based on our approach in 665 right lobe (RL) living donor liver transplantations (LDLTs) performed from January 2013 to August 2015. There were 347 patients who received a MERLG, 117 who received a PRLG, and 201 who received a MRLG. A right lobe graft (RLG) with a middle hepatic vein was retrieved only in 3 out of 18 donors with steatosis >10%. Cold ischemia time was significantly more and remnant volume was less in the MRLG group. Of the donors, 29.3% had complications (26% Clavien-Dindo grade I, II) with no statistically significant difference among the groups. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was higher in the MERLG group. There were 34 out of 39 with a graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) of <0.7% who received a MERLG with inflow modulation. Out of 4 patients who developed small-for-size syndrome in this group, 2 died. The 90-day patient survival rate was similar among different GRWRs and types of RLG. In conclusion, a selective and tailored approach for RL donor hepatectomy based on optimal functional volume and metabolic demands not only addresses the key issue of double equipoise in LDLT but also creates a safe path for extending the limits.