Piggyback Technique with and without Inferior Vena Cava Cross-Clamping for Orthotopic Liver Transplant (original) (raw)
Related papers
Orthotopic Liver Transplantation with Preservation of the Inferior Vena Cava
Annals of Surgery, 1989
Piggyback orthotopic liver transplantation was performed in 24 patients during a period of 4 months. This represented 19% of the liver transplantations at our institution during that time. The piggyback method of liver insertion compared favorably with the standard operation in terms of patient survival, blood loss, incidence of vascular and biliary complications, and rate of retransplantation. The piggyback operation cannot be used in all cases, but when indicated and feasible its advantages are important enough to warrant its inclusion in the armamentarium of the liver transplant surgeon.
Piggy-back versus conventional technique in liver transplantation: report of a randomized trial
Transplant International, 1997
Liver transplantation with preservation of the recipient vena cava (the "piggy-back'' technique) has been proposed as an alternative to the traditional method. We performed a randomized study on 39 cirrhotic patients, 20 who underwent the piggy-back technique (group 1) and 19 the traditional method using venovenous bypass (group 2) to evaluate the feasibility and true advantages of the piggyback technique compared to the traditional method. Two patients were switched to the conventional technique due to the presence of a caudate lobe embracing the vena cava in one patient and a caval lesion in the other. Statistically significant differences between the two groups were only found for the warm ischemia time (48.5 f 13 min for piggy-back vs 60 _+ 12 min for the conventional method) and for renal failure (zero cases in group 1 vs four cases in group 2). We therefore believe that liver transplantation with the piggy-back technique can easily be performed in almost all cases, and that only a few, specific situations, such as a very enlarged caudate lobe, do not justify its routine use.
Clinical Transplantation, 2004
The aim of this study is to analyse a single centre's experience with two techniques of liver transplantation (OLT), conventional (CON-OLT) and piggyback (PB-ES), and to compare outcome in terms of survival, morbidity, mortality and post-operative liver function as well as operative characteristics. A consecutive series (1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000) of 167 adult primary OLT were analysed. Ninety-six patients had CON-OLT and 71 patients had PB-ES. In the PB-ES group two revascularization protocols were used. In the first protocol reperfusion of the graft was performed first via the portal vein followed by the arterial anastomosis (PB-seq). In the second protocol the graft was reperfused simultaneously via portal vein and hepatic artery (PB-sim). One-, 3-and 5-yr patient survival in the CON-OLT and PB-ES groups were 90, 83 and 80%, and 83, 78 and 78%, respectively (p=ns). Graft survival at the same time points was 81, 73 and 69%, and 78, 69 and 65%, respectively (p=ns). Apart from the higher number of patients with cholangitis and sepsis in CON-OLT group, morbidity, retransplantation rate and post-operative liver and kidney function were not different between the two groups. The total operation time was not different between both groups (9.4 h in PB-ES vs. 10.0 h in CON-OLT), but in PB-ES group cold and warm ischaemia time (CIT and WIT), revascularization time (REVT), functional and anatomic anhepatic phases (FAHP and AAHP) were significantly shorter (8.9 h vs. 10.7 h, 54 min vs. 63 min, 82 min vs. 114 min, 118 min vs. 160 min and 87 min vs. 114 min, respectively, p < 0.05). RBC use in the PB-ES group was lower compared to the CON-OLT group (4.0 min vs. 10.0 units, p < 0.05). Except for WIT and REVT there were no differences in operative characteristics between PB-Sim and PB-Seq groups. The WIT was significantly longer in PB-Sim group compared with PB-Seq group (64 min vs. 50 min, p < 0.05); however REVT was significantly shorter in PB-Sim group (64 min vs. 97 min, p < 0.05). Results of this study show that both techniques are comparable in survival and morbidity; however PB-ES results in shorter AAHP, FAHP, REVT and WIT as well as less RBC use. In the PB-ES group there seems to be no advantage for any of the revascularization protocols.
HPB, 2006
Background. Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) in adult patients has traditionally been performed using conventional caval reconstruction technique (CV) with veno-venous bypass. Recently, the piggyback technique (PB) without venovenous bypass has begun to be widely used. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of routine use of PB on OLTs in adult patients. Patients and methods. A retrospective analysis was undertaken of 1067 orthotopic cadaveric whole liver transplantations in adult patients treated between June 1994 and July 2001. PB was used as the routine procedure. Patient demographics, factors including cold ischemia time (CIT), warm ischemia time (WIT), operative time, transfusions, blood loss, and postoperative results were assessed. The effects of clinical factors on graft survival were assessed by univariate and multivariate analyses. Results. In all, 918 transplantations (86%) were performed with PB. Blood transfusion, WIT, and usage of veno-venous bypass were less with PB. Seventy-five (8.3%) cases with PB had refractory ascites following OLT (p 0/NS). Five venous outflow stenosis cases (0.54%) with PB were noted (p0/NS). The liver and renal function during the postoperative periods was similar. Overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival rates were 85%, 78%, and 72% with PB. Univariate analysis showed that cava reconstruction method, CIT, WIT, amount of transfusion, length of hospital stay, donor age, and tumor presence were significant factors influencing graft survival. Multivariate analysis further reinforced the fact that CIT, donor age, amount of transfusion, and hospital stay were prognostic factors for graft survival. Conclusions. PB can be performed safely in the majority of adult OLTs. Results of OLT with PB are as same as for CV. Liver function, renal function, morbidity, mortality, and patient and graft survival are similar to CV. However, amount of transfusion, WIT, and use of veno-venous bypass are less with PB.
Liver Transplantation, 2009
Over the past 4 decades, the surgical techniques of liver transplantation (LTx) have permanently evolved and been modified. Among these, the modified piggyback (MPB) technique by Belghiti offers specific advantages. The objective of this study was to present our single-center experience with the MPB technique in 500 cases. Recipients' perioperative data were prospectively collected and evaluated. Postoperative and specific complications, stay in the intensive and intermediate care unit, and the mortality rate with cause of death were analyzed. Most recipients were classified as Child C (49.1%). For the patients who underwent LTx for the first time, alcoholic (23.9%) and viral (22.2%) cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (15.1%) were the prevalent indications. The overall median warm ischemia time, anastomosis duration, and operative time were 45, 108, and 320 minutes, respectively. The median intraoperative blood loss was 1500 mL. A venovenous bypass was never needed to maintain hemodynamic stability. Only in a few cases was temporary inferior vena cava clamping necessary. Most prominent surgical complications were hemorrhage, hematoma, and wound dehiscence. Renal failure occurred in 6.2% of patients. The overall median stay in the intensive and intermediate care unit was 14 days. The mortality rates within 30 and 90 days were 6.3% and 13.3%, respectively. No technique-related death occurred. The MPB technique by Belghiti is a feasible and simple LTx technique. The caval flow is preserved during the anhepatic phase, and this minimizes the need for venovenous bypass or portocaval shunt. This technique requires only 1 caval anastomosis, which is easy to perform with a short anhepatic phase. To minimize the risk of outflow obstruction, attention should be paid by doing a wide cavocavostomy cranially to the donor inferior vena cava in a door-lock manner. This technique can be applied in almost all patients undergoing LTx for the first time and liver retransplantation as well. Liver Transpl 15: 466-474, 2009.
Vena cava vascular reconstruction during orthotopic liver transplantation: A comparative study
Liver Transplantation and Surgery, 1998
The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of preserving the recipient's inferior vena cava during orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) on hemodynamic alterations, blood component requirements, postoperative liver and renal function, as well as vascular-related complications. A total of 122 OLTs was studied. In 35 OLTs, venovenous bypass (BP) was used; in 35 OLTs, bypass was not used (NBP); and in 52 OLTs, the recipient's inferior vena cava was preserved (PC). Preservation of the inferior vena cava means that venous return is not compromised at any time during transplantation. The time of hepatectomy was not different among the three groups (208 ؎ 11, 188 ؎ 13, and 194 ؎ 6 minutes for BP, NBP, and PC, respectively); however, the total operating time was significantly lower in PC pa-tients (492 ؎ 24, 459 ؎ 18, and 419 ؎ 10 minutes for BP, NBP, and PC, respectively; P ؍ .004, ANOVA). Blood component requirements were significantly lower in patients with PC. For red blood cells, these were 15.2 ؎ 2.6, 16 ؎ 3.4, and 7.1 ؎ 1.5 units for BP, NBP, and PC, respectively (P ؍ .009, ANOVA), and for fresh-frozen plasma, these were 5.4 ؎ .7, 5.8 ؎ .9, and 3 ؎ .4 L for BP, NBP, and PC, respectively (P ؍ .005, ANOVA). Postoperative liver and renal function did not differ among the three groups. The incidence of surgical complications (bleeding and vascular) was similar. Preservation of the inferior vena cava of the recipient significantly reduces the magnitude of OLT.
Different cava reconstruction techniques in liver transplantation: piggyback versus cava resection
Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Diseases International, 2014
BACKGROUND: Originally, cava reconstruction (CR) in liver transplantation meant complete resection and reinsertion of the donor cava. Alternatively, preservation of the recipients inferior vena cava (IVC) with side-to-side anastomosis (known as "piggyback") can be performed. Here, partial clamping maintains blood flow of the IVC, which may improve cardiovascular stability, reduce blood loss and stabilize kidney function. The aim of this study was to compare both techniques with particular focus on kidney function.