Living donor liver transplantation: techniques and results (original) (raw)
Related papers
Live Donor Adult Liver Transplantation Using Right Lobe Grafts
Archives of Surgery, 2001
single team performed 15 LDALT procedures with 2 simultaneous living donor kidney transplants. During this period, 66 potential donors were screened and evaluated. Interventions: Potential donors were evaluated with 3-dimensional helical computed tomographic scan, including volume renderings for hepatic lobar volume, vascular anatomy, virtual resection planes, and morphologic features. Suitable donors undergo complete medical and psychiatric evaluation and preoperative arteriography. Main Outcome Measures: Donor demographics, evaluation data, operative data, hospital length of stay, and morbidity. Results: A total of 38 men (58%) and 28 women (42%) were evaluated with 15 donors participating in LDALT. Two additional donors provided kidney grafts for simultaneous transplantation at the time of LDALT. Thirtytwo donors (48%) were rejected for either donor or recipient reasons, and 10 patients (15%) elected not to participate after initial screening. Three-dimensional volume renderings by helical computed tomographic scan predicted right lobe liver volume within 92% of actual graft volume. Donor morbidity, including all complications, was 67% with no mortality. Residual liver regenerated to approximately 70% of initial volume within 1 week and 80% within 1 month after surgery. Conclusions: Donor evaluation is an important component of LDALT. Significant donor morbidity is encountered even with careful selection. To minimize donor morbidity, groups considering initiating living donor programs should have expertise in hepatic resection and vena cava preservation using the "piggyback" technique during liver transplantation.
Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation
American Journal of Roentgenology, 2001
Objective: To describe our approach in the decision-making for taking the middle hepatic vein with the graft or leaving it with the remnant liver in right lobe live donor liver transplantation. Summary Background Data: Right lobe living donor liver transplantation has been successfully performed. However, the extent of donor hepatectomy is still a subject of debate and the main considerations in the decision making are graft functional adequacy and donor safety. Methods: An algorithm based on donor-recipient body weight ratio, right lobe-to-recipient standard liver volume estimate, and donor hepatic venous anatomy was used to decide the extent of donor hepatectomy. This algorithm was applied in 25 living donor liver transplant operations performed between January 1999 and January 2002. In grafts taken without the middle hepatic vein, anterior segment tributaries draining into it were not reconstructed. Outcomes between right lobe liver transplants with (Group I) and without (Group II) the middle hepatic vein were compared. Results: Ten grafts included the middle hepatic vein and 15 did not. The mean graft to recipient standard liver volume ratio was 58% and 64% in Groups I and II, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant. Donors from both groups had comparable recovery, with 2 complications, 1 from each group, requiring a percutaneous drainage procedure. The recipient outcomes were, likewise, comparable and there was 1 case of structural outflow obstruction in Group I, which required venoangioplasty and stenting. There were 2 recipient mortalities, 1 due to a biliary complication and the other to recurrent hepatitis C. Another patient required retransplantation for secondary biliary cirrhosis. The overall actuar-ial graft and patient survival rates are 84% and 96%, respectively, at a median follow-up of 16 months. Conclusion: Based on certain preoperative criteria, a right lobe graft can be taken with or without the middle hepatic vein with equally successful outcomes in both the donors and recipients. The decision, therefore, of the extent of right lobe donor hepatectomy should be tailored to the particular conditions of each case. (Ann Surg 2003;238: 275-282) From the Liver Transplant Program,
Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society, 2001
Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for adults is now a practical alternative to cadaveric liver transplantation. Use of right-lobe grafts has become the preferred donor procedure. Because of the complexity of this operation, a learning curve is to be expected. We report the outcome of our first 41 LDLTs at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center (Denver, CO). We also discuss the lessons learned and the resultant modifications in the procedure that evolved during our series. Patient records were retrospectively reviewed between August 1997 and February 2001 for the following end points: recipient survival, graft survival, and donor and recipient complications. Thirty-eight of 41 living donor liver transplant recipients (93%) are alive and well postoperatively with a mean follow-up of 9.6 months. Four patients required retransplantation secondary to technical problems (9.8%); all 4 patients were in our initial 11 cases. Modification of the donor liver plane of transec...
Lessons Learned From One Hundred Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplants
Annals of Surgery, 2004
Objective: To evaluate the first 100 adult right lobe living donor liver transplants (LDLT) in a single center to determine whether the results have improved with technical modifications and better experience. Summary Background Data: Right lobe LDLT has been increasingly performed for adults with end-stage liver disease. Numerous modifications in technique have been introduced, and a learning curve is likely in view of its complexity. Methods: One hundred consecutive adult right lobe LDLTs performed between May 1996 and May 2002 were retrospectively studied by comparing the first 50 (group 1) with the last 50 cases (group 2). The median follow-up was 37 (27 to 79) months for group 1 and 15 (7 to 27) months for group 2. Results: The characteristics of donors and liver grafts were similar. In group 2, fewer recipients were intensive care unit (ICU)-bound or had hepatorenal syndrome before transplantation, and there was a lower disease severity as shown by a lower Child-Pugh score and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. Significant improvements were found in the operation time, blood loss, ICU stay, and postoperative complication rate of the donors and in the operation time, transfusion requirements, number of reoperations, ICU stay, and hospital stay of the recipients in group 2. The hospital mortality rate of recipients was reduced from 16% to 0% (P ϭ 0.006). Graft survival rates at 12 months and 24 months were improved from 80% and 74%, respectively, in group 1 to 100% and 96%, respectively, in group 2 (P ϭ 0.002). After adjusting for differences in recipient risk factors (ICU-bound, hepatorenal syndrome, Child-Pugh score, and MELD score) in a multivariate Cox model, recipients in group 2 had significantly lower risk of graft loss (relative risk compared with group 1, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.66; P ϭ 0.014). Conclusions: There is a learning curve in adult right lobe LDLT. The results have significantly improved with technical refinement and better experience.
Right Living Donor Liver Transplantation: An Option for Adult Patients
Annals of Surgery, 2003
Objective: To present an institutional experience with the use of right liver grafts in adult patients and to assess the practicability and efficacy of this procedure by analyzing the results. Summary Background Data: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for the pediatric population has gained worldwide acceptance. In the past few years, LDLT has also become feasible for adult patients due to technical evolution in hepatobiliary surgery and increased experience with reduced-size and split-liver transplants. Nevertheless, some graft losses remain unexplained and are possibly due to unrecognized venous outflow problems. Methods: From April 1998 to September 2002, we performed 74 right LDLTs (segments 5-8). The 74 donors were selected from 474 candidates according to standard protocol. The median age of the donors was 35 years (range 18-58 years) and 51 years (range 18-64 years) in recipients. Standard and extended indications for transplantation were considered. Over the period reported, technical modifications in the bile duct anastomosis (duct-to-duct, end-to-end, or end-to-side) and a new graft implantation technique that provides maximized venous outflow, leading to outcome improvement, were developed. Results: 64.9% of patients had liver cirrhosis and 35.1% had malignancy. While 44 donors (59.5%) presented an uneventful postoperative course, 27% minor (pleural effusion, pneumonia, venous thrombosis, wound infection, incisional hernia) and 13.5% major (biliary leakage, death of a donor due to unrecognized hereditary liver disease, and consecutive liver insufficiency) complications were documented. In recipients, 23% biliary complications and 6.8% hepatic artery thrombosis occurred. The overall patient and graft survival rate after 1 year was 79.4% and 75.3%,
Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation???Addressing the Middle Hepatic Vein Controversy
Annals of Surgery, 2003
Objective: To describe our approach in the decision-making for taking the middle hepatic vein with the graft or leaving it with the remnant liver in right lobe live donor liver transplantation. Summary Background Data: Right lobe living donor liver transplantation has been successfully performed. However, the extent of donor hepatectomy is still a subject of debate and the main considerations in the decision making are graft functional adequacy and donor safety. Methods: An algorithm based on donor-recipient body weight ratio, right lobe-to-recipient standard liver volume estimate, and donor hepatic venous anatomy was used to decide the extent of donor hepatectomy. This algorithm was applied in 25 living donor liver transplant operations performed between January 1999 and January 2002. In grafts taken without the middle hepatic vein, anterior segment tributaries draining into it were not reconstructed. Outcomes between right lobe liver transplants with (Group I) and without (Group II) the middle hepatic vein were compared. Results: Ten grafts included the middle hepatic vein and 15 did not. The mean graft to recipient standard liver volume ratio was 58% and 64% in Groups I and II, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant. Donors from both groups had comparable recovery, with 2 complications, 1 from each group, requiring a percutaneous drainage procedure. The recipient outcomes were, likewise, comparable and there was 1 case of structural outflow obstruction in Group I, which required venoangioplasty and stenting. There were 2 recipient mortalities, 1 due to a biliary complication and the other to recurrent hepatitis C. Another patient required retransplantation for secondary biliary cirrhosis. The overall actuar-ial graft and patient survival rates are 84% and 96%, respectively, at a median follow-up of 16 months. Conclusion: Based on certain preoperative criteria, a right lobe graft can be taken with or without the middle hepatic vein with equally successful outcomes in both the donors and recipients. The decision, therefore, of the extent of right lobe donor hepatectomy should be tailored to the particular conditions of each case. (Ann Surg 2003;238: 275-282) From the Liver Transplant Program,
Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Using Extended Right Lobe Grafts
Annals of Surgery, 1997
The authors report their experience with living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using extended right lobe grafts for adult patients under high-urgency situations. Summary Background Data The efficacy of LDLT in the treatment of children has been established. The major limitation of adult-to-adult LDLT is the adequacy of the graft size. A left lobe graft from a relatively small volunteer donor will not meet the metabolic demand of a larger recipient. Methods From May 1996 to November 1996, seven LDLTs, using extended right lobe grafts, were performed under high-urgency situations. All recipients were in intensive care units before transplantation with five having acute renal failure, three on mechanical ventilation, and all with hepatic encephalopathy. The median body weight for the donors and recipients was 58 kg (range, 41-84 kg) and 65 kg (range, 53-90 kg), respectively. The body weights of four donors were less than those of the corresponding recipients, and the lowest donor-torecipient body weight ratio was 0.62:1. The extended right lobe graft was chosen because the left lobe volume was <40% of the ideal liver mass of the recipient. Results Median blood loss for the donors was 900 mL (range, 700-1600 mL) and hospital stay was 19 days (range, 8-22 days). Homologous blood transfusion was not required. Two donors had complications (one incisional hernia and one bile duct stricture) requiring reoperation after discharge. All were well with normal liver function 5 to 10 months after surgery. The graft weight ranged from 490 g to 1 140 g. All grafts showed immediate function with normalization of prothrombin time and recovery of conscious state of the recipients. There was no vascular complication, but six recipients required reoperation. One recipient died of systemic candidiasis 16 days after transplantation and 6 (86%) were alive with the original graft at a median follow-up of 6.5 months (range, 5-10 months).
Objectives. In living donor liver transplantation, the right lobe has many anatomic variations in the vascular tree, which could lead to surgical complications. We need to define surgical technique according to anatomy. Methods. From January 2000 to September 2007, 310 living donor liver transplantations using the right lobe were performed in patients with end-stage liver disease. The vascular trees were evaluated preoperatively with computed tomography and magnetic resonance angiogra-phy. We classified anatomic points for safe harvest in the hepatic artery, portal vein, and hepatic vein and described technical points based on anatomic variations. Result. There were many anatomic variations in the hepatic vasculature. Hepatic artery variations were observed in 16.8% of cases. Double hepatic artery was observed in 14 cases (4.5%). Of these 14 cases, reconstruction as a single artery was performed in 6 and dual reconstruction was performed in 8 cases. Portal vein variation was observed in 45 cases (14.5%): Dual anastomosis to right and left portal vein was performed in type III (n 20; 6.4%) and type IV (n 3; 1.0%) variations. There were 70 cases of portal vein thrombosis. In 8 of the 70, a jump or interposition graft with iliac vein was utilized. Of the middle hepatic vein variant, segment V vein only was reconstructed in 188 (60.6%) cases. In 21 (6.8%) cases, segment VIII vein only was reconstructed, and in 43 (13.9%) cases, both segment V and segment VIII veins were reconstructed using the recipient's portal vein, a cryopreserved iliac vein, or a prosthetic graft. The most common variation of right inferior hepatic vein was type II (n 141; 45.5%), which has 1 right inferior hepatic vein. Conclusion. Living donor liver transplantation using the right lobe can be performed safely, but there is a potential operative risk because of various anatomic variations. To minimize operative complications, anatomic variations should be kept in mind to ensure a safe and successful operation. L IVING DONOR liver transplantation (LDLT) is an accepted alternative for patients awaiting cadaveric donor liver transplantation (CDLT), especially in countries where brain dead donors are rare. In performing partial hepatectomy, numerous vascular variations are encountered. Inaccurate knowledge of the vascular anatomy can lead to necrosis and loss of the graft owing to