Regeneration and outcome of dual grafts in living donor liver transplantation

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), the essential aims are to provide an adequate graft volume to the recipient and to keep a sufficient remnant liver volume in the donor. In some instances, these aims cannot be met by a single donor and LDLT using dual grafts from two donors is a good solution. From 2002 to 2009, five recipients in our hospital received dual graft LDLT. Two recipients received one right lobe and one left lobe grafts; the other three received two left lobe grafts. The mean final liver regeneration rate was 91.2%. Left lobe graft atrophy in the long term was observed in recipients who received a right and a left lobe grafts. The initial bigger volume graft in all recipients was noted to have better regeneration than the smaller volume grafts. Portal flow and bilateral grafts volume size discrepancy were considered as two major factors influencing graft regeneration in this study. We also noted that the initial graft volume correlated with portal flow in the separate grafts and finally contribute to individual graft regeneration. Because of compensatory hypertrophy of the other graft, recipients who experienced atrophy of one graft did not show signs of liver dysfunction.     

Living Donor Liver Transplantation Using Dual Grafts from Two Donors: A Feasible Option to Overcome Small‐for‐Size Graft Problems?

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) between adults inevitably implies two potential risks associated with a small-for-size graft for the recipient and small remnant liver for the donor. To overcome these problems, LDLT using dual grafts from two independent donors can be a solution, in which sufficient graft volume can be obtained while preserving donor safety. We present a case of LDLT that was managed successfully by using right and left lobe dual grafts from two donors. The recipient was a large-size male with hepatitis C cirrhosis complicated by multiple hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs). The first donor donated a right lobe graft and the second donor donated a left lobe plus caudate lobe graft with the middle hepatic vein. Graft function was excellent throughout the course without evidence of small-for-size syndrome. In conclusion, LDLT using dual grafts can be justified in a selected case to avoid small-for-size graft problems without increasing independent donor risks.     

Simplified Unification Patch Venoplasty for Anomalous Portal Vein Branching in Living Donor Liver Transplantation With Right Lobe Graft

Double portal vein (PV) branches during living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) with right lobe grafts have been considered challenging both in terms of donor safety and the complexity of vascular reconstruction in the recipient. Herein, we describe our experience with 24 adult LDLT recipients during which we employed unification patch venoplasty to reconstruct right lobe grafts with double PV orifices. We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 195 adult LDLT recipients receiving right lobe grafts, including 24 cases of adult LDLT recipients in which unification patch venoplasty was used to treat double PVs from January 2010 to June 2015. The anomalous portal vein branches of the donors were of type II in 7 cases (29.2%), type III in 15 cases (62.5%), and type IV in 2 cases (8.3%). We used propensity score matching analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of these recipients with those of 59 recipients who underwent adult LDLT using right lobe grafts with normal PVs in the same period. Intraoperative PV stenting was necessary in 2 (8.3%) of the 24 recipients undergoing unification patch venoplasty. During the follow-up period, all PVs remained patent until death or censoring. No significant difference in terms of postoperative vascular complications was evident between the 2 groups. Moreover, no major complications requiring reoperation or endoscopic and/or radiologic intervention developed in any of the 24 living donors with double PVs. In conclusion, our simplified unification patch venoplasty could be safe and feasible when used to reconstruct double PV orifices in right lobe LDLT from donors with complex PV anomalies.     

成人——成人间活体右半肝移植

目的 报道对高度紧急的成人终末期肝病患者进行活体右半肝移植的经验。病人及方法 自１９９６年５月到１９９８年８月;对１５例高度紧急的成人终末期肝末期肝病患者进行了活体右半肝移植。１３例术前在重症监护病房,２例因肝病的并发症而住院。     

In situ splitting of the cadaveric liver for two adult recipients.

BACKGROUND: Split-liver transplantation offers a unique opportunity to expand the existing donor pool. However, it has previously been stated that due to inadequate liver volume the advantages of split-liver transplantation would be lost when attempting to split the liver for two adult recipients. In this study, we sought to determine the safety, efficacy, and applicability of split-liver transplantation in select adult liver transplant recipients. METHODS: Liver allografts for eight adult recipients were procured by in situ splitting of four adult cadaveric livers. The donor ages were 17, 19, 22, and 25 years and weights were 72, 77, 78, and 87 kg, respectively. In situ splitting resulted in three right trisegmental grafts, one right lobe graft, one left lobe graft, and three left lateral segmental grafts. The median recipient age was 49 years (range 38-61 years), whereas the median recipient weight was 84 kg (range 78-98 kg) for the right-sided grafts and 52 kg (range 51-53 kg) for recipients of the left-sided grafts. The median graft-to-recipient body weight ratio for right trisegmental, right lobe, left lobe, and left lateral segmental grafts was 1.31%, 1.26%, 1.35%, and 0.70%, respectively. RESULTS: Overall patient and graft survival in this series is 100%. All prothrombin times were normalized within 4 days of transplantation. No evidence of ascites or prolonged hyperbilirubinemia was encountered in any right- or left-sided graft recipient. The incidence of hepatic artery, portal vein, and hepatic vein thrombosis is 0%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. Hepatic arterial anastomotic bleeding and a cut surface bile leak each occurred in one patient. Median United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) waiting time was 242 days (range 4-454 days) for the patients to which the donor liver was allocated. In contrast, the median waiting time for the four patients receiving the extra split-liver graft was reduced significantly to 37 days (range 21-101 days) (P<0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that split-liver transplantation can expand the cadaveric donor liver pool available for select adult liver transplant recipients. When both the donor organ and the transplant recipient are chosen carefully, split-liver transplantation can be safely performed without a delay in allograft function, increase in technical complications, or compromise in graft or patient survival.     

成人间双供体活体肝脏移植成功2例报告

目的供肝短缺是影响肝脏移植发展的主要因素之一，活体供肝是解决这一矛盾的重要措施，供者提供足够的肝脏是影响活体肝脏移植的重要因素。方法施行成人间双供体活体肝移植2例，1例由受者的两位姐姐分别提供左半肝作为供肝，另1例由受者母亲提供右半肝，由无心跳供者提供左半肝(采用劈裂方式，其另一部分肝脏同时为另一成人受者实施肝脏移植)作为供肝。结果术后供、受者肝功能均恢复良好。结论成人问双供肝活体肝脏移植可以为受者提供更大重量的肝脏，又可减少供者提供较多肝脏所带来的风险；双供肝一受者肝脏移植手术操作复杂。     

Safety of donor in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation using right lobe graft

BACKGROUND: The growing gap between the number of patients awaiting liver transplantation and available organs has continued to be the primary issue facing the transplant community. To overcome the waiting list mortality, living donor liver transplantation has become an option, in which the greatest concern is the safety of the donor, especially in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (A-A LDLT) using a right lobe liver graft. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the safety of donors after right lobe liver donation for A-A LDLT performed in our center. METHODS: From January 2002 to March 2006, 26 patients underwent A-A LDLT using right lobe liver grafts in our center. Seven donors were men and 19 were women (range, 19-65 years; median age, 38 years). The right lobe liver grafts were obtained by transecting the liver on the right side of the middle hepatic vein without interrupting the vascular blood flow. The mean follow-up time for these donors was 9 months. RESULTS: These donor residual liver volumes ranged from 30.5% to 60.3%. We did not experience any donor mortality. Two cases (7.69%) experienced major complications: intra-abdominal bleeding and portal vein thrombosis in one each and three (11.54%), minor ones: wound steatosis in two, and transient chyle leak in one. All donors were fully recovered and returned to their previous occupations. CONCLUSIONS: A-A LDLT using a right lobe liver graft has become a standard option. The donation of right lobe liver for A-A LDLT was a relatively safe procedure in our center.     

Right lobe graft in living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: For the sake of donor safety in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), the left lobe is currently being used most often for the graft. However, size mismatch has been a major obstacle for an expansion of the indication for LDLT to larger-size recipients, because a left lobe graft is not safe enough for them. METHODS: In 1998, LDLT using a right lobe graft was introduced and performed on 26 recipients to overcome the small-for-size problem. The right lobe, which does not include the middle hepatic vein of the donor, was used. Initially, indication for right lobe LDLT was basically defined as an estimated left lobe graft volume/recipient body weight ratio (GRWR) of <0.8%, which was later raised to <1.0%. RESULTS: All the donors recovered from the operation without persistent complications. Two donors with transient bile leakage were successfully treated with a conservative approach. A right lobectomy resulted in more blood loss (337+/-175 ml), and a longer operative time (6.67+/-0.85 hr) than a lateral segmentectomy, but not a left lobectomy. Grafts with a GRWR >0.8% were implanted in all recipients, except for two, who received relatively smaller right lobes (GRWR of 0.68% and 0.66%). In one of these two, the right lobe from the donor was used as the orthotopic auxiliary graft. Postoperative transitory increases in total bilirubin and aspartate transaminoferase for right lobe donors were higher than those for the left lateral segmentectomy. Nineteen recipients (73.1%) were successfully treated with this procedure. The causes of death were not specific for right lobe LDLT, except for one patient with a graft that had multiple hepatic venous orifices. These multiple and separate anastomoses of the hepatic veins caused an outflow block as a result of a positional shift of the graft, which finally led to graft loss. CONCLUSION: Our experience suggests that right lobe grafting is a safe and effective procedure, resulting in the expansion of the indication for LDLT to large-size recipients. How to deal with the possible variation in the anatomy of the right lobe graft should be given attention throughout the procedure.     

Effective anatomic reconstruction of the middle hepatic vein in modified right lobe graft living donor liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION: Adult liver transplantation using the right lobe graft without a middle hepatic vein (MHV; modified right lobe graft) has widely been used to compensate for the cadaveric organ shortage. To provide appropriate functional graft volume in the right lobe graft used for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), successful reconstruction of the MHV is required. We have described herein the effectiveness of an anatomic MHV reconstruction technique with tailoring donor hepatectomy and uniformed MHV reconstruction for modified right lobe grafts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From December 2005 to August 2006, 15 adult patients received modified right lobe graft LDLT using a donor hepatectomy technique that exposed the right side of the MHV combined with a bench procedure that reconstructed the modified right lobe graft into the shape of extended right lobe graft, and a modified piggyback anastomosis. RESULTS: A total of 42 V5/V8s were reconstructed with 15 newly formed MHVs. The mean estimated congestion area was 4.2+/-2.7% of the total graft volume on computed tomography. The mean pressure gradient between the reconstructed MHV and the recipient inferior vena cava was 2.1+/-1.6 mmHg on postoperative day (POD) 7. None of the patients required any procedure for an outflow problem. The patency rates of the reconstructed MHV and its tributaries were 100% (15/15) and 95.2% (40/42), respectively, at POD 30; 100% (15/15) and 73.8% (31/42) at POD 60; and 86.7% (13/15) and 54.8% (23/42) at POD 90. All recipients are currently alive with good liver function. CONCLUSION: Our procedure seems to be effective for the reconstruction of MHV and its tributaries, and could make modified right lobe graft into the anatomic figure of extended right lobe graft as well as achieve the physiologic advantages of an extended right lobe graft.     

成人间活体肝移植体会：附3例报告

目的总结和分析成人间活体肝移植(LDLT)的临床经验。方法对2007年2月—2007年7月的3例成人间活体肝移植的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果供体为供体右半肝(不带肝中静脉)1例,供体扩大左半肝(带肝中静脉、尾状叶)2例,GV/SLV均≥40%。3对供者及患者术后均恢复良好,无小肝综合征发生,均未出现严重并发症。术后左半肝供者较右半肝供者肝功能恢复更快。结论如左半肝GV/SLV≥40%,可优先选择左半肝作为供肝;胆道重建不必放置胆管引流管;成人间LDLT是治疗终末期肝病的安全有效的手段。     

活体肝移植治疗HBV相关性急性亚急性肝功能衰竭

目的 探讨活体肝移植(living donor liver transplantation,LDLT)HBV感染导致的急性肝功能衰竭(acute liver failure,ALF)和亚急性肝功能衰竭(subacute liver failure,SALF)患者的可行性,并评价其疗效.方法 回顾性分析2000年11月至2007年10月完成的10例LDLT治疗ALF、SALF患者的临床资料.10例LDLT的供、受者均为成人,切取右半肝为移植物,8例含肝中静脉(middle hepatic vein,MHV).10例供者的评估均在确定实施LDLT的24 h内完成,供、受者手术均在确定供者后的12 h内完成.移植物质量与受者体质量比为(1.03±0.17)%(0.86%～1.22%),移植物体积与受者标准肝体积比为(52.2±11.8)%(47.6%～70.1%).结果 10例受者中,2例分别于术后7、28 d时因肺部感染、十二指肠球部溃疡穿孔腹腔感染死亡.1例胆管吻合口胆漏,经十二指肠镜下置入鼻胆管引流治愈.2例术后1周出现轻度急性排斥反应,增强免疫抑制强度后肝功能恢复正常.8例中位随访期9.6个月(2～84个月),生存质量优良.10例供者中,1例出现急性门静脉高压症导致脾脏破裂,行脾脏切除术,其后出现胆管断端胆漏,经鼻胆管引流结合经皮穿刺腹腔引流治愈.其余9例无并发症发生.结论 LDLT适宜治疗HBV感染导致的ALF、SALF,而且能获得较好的中、远期疗效.     

成人间活体肝移植肝动脉重建方法和并发症的处理

目的 探讨成人间活体肝移植的肝动脉重建和并发症处理的经验.方法 自2002年1月至2006年7月,共施行50例成人间右半肝活体肝移植.在供受者间肝动脉的重建中,供者右肝动脉与受者右肝动脉吻合24例,与受者肝固有动脉吻合12例,与受者左肝动脉吻合3例,与受者肝总动脉吻合2例,与受者肠系膜上动脉发出的副右肝动脉吻合2例,与受者肝总动脉自体大隐静脉间置搭桥3例.受者腹主动脉与供者右肝动脉自体大隐静脉搭桥2例,用保存的尸体髂血管行受者腹主动脉与供者右肝动脉搭桥2例.供者肝动脉直径1.5～2.5 mm,采用显微外科技术在3.5倍手术放大镜和5～10倍手术显微镜下完成肝动脉重建.结果 50例成人间右半肝活体肝移植中,有2例(4%)分别于术后1d、7d发生肝动脉血栓形成,立即采用自体大隐静脉从肾下腹主动脉至供者右肝动脉搭桥术,恢复供肝血流,痊愈出院.1例术后1.5个月后发生肝动脉血栓形成,随访期无临床症状未行处理.术后和随访期未发现肝动脉狭窄、肝动脉假性动脉瘤等并发症.围手术期未有与肝动脉并发症有关的死亡病例.全部病例获得随访,随访时间2～52个月(中位随访时间9个月),1年实际生存率为92%.结论 选择恰当的肝动脉重建方式和应用显微外科技术可显著降低肝动脉并发症,及时处理肝动脉并发症是保证供肝存活的关键.     

Modified right liver graft from a living donor to prevent congestion

BACKGROUND: Right liver grafts without middle hepatic vein (MHV) drainage reconstruction resulted in severe congestion of the anterior segment (AS) in our early experience of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). However, a detailed strategy for preventing such congestion or the necessity of MHV reconstruction has not been discussed in LDLT using a right lobe graft. METHODS: From July 1997 to February 1998, two of five right lobe grafts without MHV drainage reconstruction were complicated with severe congestion of the AS. Thereafter, 42 adult recipients who received right liver grafts with sizable MHV tributaries underwent the reconstruction of MHV drainage. All sizable (>5 mm in diameter) MHV tributaries were preserved during donor hepatectomy and were reconstructed with the recipient's autogenous interposition vein grafts at the bench surgery. The reconstructed vein grafts of this modified right lobe graft were anastomosed to the stump of the MHV and/or left hepatic vein of the recipient after graft revascularization. RESULTS: Serial Doppler ultrasonography, which was regularly checked until 30 days posttransplant, revealed the patent interposition vein graft in 38 of 42 recipients (patency rate 90.5%). In these 38 recipients, no evidence of congestion in the AS was recognized on enhanced computed tomography, while providing enough functioning liver mass comparable to an extended right lobe graft. Also, congestion-related graft injury, such as an infarct of the AS, was not observed in these recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Our early experience indicated the necessity of MHV drainage reconstruction in right lobe grafts, which do not have MHV trunk in certain instances. However, preoperatively, it is difficult to predict the degree of AS congestion of the right liver graft without MHV drainage reconstruction. We suggest aggressive reconstruction of MHV drainage tributaries of the AS, under the circumstances that sizable MHV tributaries are encountered, to prevent possible congestion-related complications.     

Impact of live donor age (>or=50) on liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: The question of whether donor age negatively impacts recipient outcome in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is rarely discussed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of older donor age (50 years or older) on recipient outcomes in adult-to-adult LDLT. METHODS: LDLT data were retrospectively evaluated from our 299 LDLT cases in 297 recipients, which were divided into 2 groups: a younger group (group Y, donor age<50, n=237) and an older group (Group O, donor age>or=50, n=62). Clinical parameters of both recipients and donors were comparable between groups. RESULTS: There was no difference between the groups in patient survival or postoperative complications of either donors or recipients. In recipients, graft regeneration was significantly impaired in Group O. Graft function, including protein synthesis and cholestasis, was comparable between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Although the regeneration capacity of aged grafts was impaired, the function of grafts from older donors was comparable to that of those from younger donors. There was no difference in the clinical outcomes between the groups.     

Safety and necessity of including the middle hepatic vein in the right lobe graft in adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of donors who have donated the middle hepatic vein in right lobe live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and to determine whether such inclusion is necessary for optimum graft function. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The necessity to include the middle hepatic vein in a right lobe graft in adult-to-adult LDLT is controversial. Inclusion of the middle hepatic vein in the graft provides uniform hepatic venous drainage but may lead to congestion of segment IV in the donor. METHODS: From 1996 to 2002, 93 right-lobe LDLTs were performed. All right-lobe grafts except 1 contained the middle hepatic vein. In the donor operation, attention was paid to preserve the segment IV hepatic artery and to avoid prolonged rotation of the right lobe. The middle hepatic vein was transected proximal to a major segment IVb hepatic vein whereas possible to preserve the venous drainage in the liver remnant. RESULTS: There was no donor death. Two donors had intraoperative complications (accidental left hepatic vein occlusion and portal vein thrombosis) and were well after immediate rectification. Twenty-four donors (26%) had postoperative complications, mostly minor wound infection. The postoperative international normalized ratio on day 1 was better in the donors with preservation of segment IVb hepatic vein than those without the preservation, but, in all donors, the liver function was largely normal by postoperative day 7. The first recipient had severe graft congestion as the middle hepatic vein was not reconstructed before reperfusion. In 7 other recipients, the middle hepatic vein was found occluded intraoperatively owing to technical errors. The postoperative hepatic and renal function of the recipients with an occluded or absent middle hepatic vein was worse than those with a patent middle hepatic vein. The hospital mortality rate was also higher in those with an occluded middle hepatic vein (3/9 vs. 5/84, P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of the middle hepatic vein in right-lobe LDLT is safe and is essential for optimum graft function and patient survival.     

Anatomical and technical aspects of hepatic artery reconstruction in living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: We describe our experience with arterial reconstruction in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) focusing on anatomic and technical aspects. METHODS: From June 1994 to February 2003, 132 grafts were implanted in 130 LDLT recipients including 1 re-transplant and 1 dual graft transplantation. Donor and recipient records were retrospectively reviewed. Anatomical variations in graft arteries were classified as: Type I, single pedicle with (Ia) or without (Ib) aberrant artery (left hepatic artery (HA) from left gastric artery or right HA from superior mesenteric artery); Type II, double pedicles with (IIa) or without (IIb) aberrant artery; Type III, equal to or greater than 3 pedicles. Statistical analyses were carried out using Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: There were 72 male and 58 female recipients. The median age at transplantation was 3 years (range, 0.5 to 61). In left grafts, there were 34 Type Ia, 6 Type Ib, 33 Type IIa, 13 Type IIb, and 3 Type III; whereas in right grafts, there were 35 Type Ia, 6 Type Ib, 1 Type IIa, and 1 Type IIb. Two-in-one (2-in-1) segmental resection technique in graft HA harvest was carried out whenever there were tiny arteries supplying the donor graft. All HA reconstructions were done under microvascular techniques. There was no donor mortality and 1 recipient in-hospital mortality. There was no graft or patient loss due to HA occlusion. Donor complications included 3 biloma, 1 bile leak, 1 biliary stricture, and 1 late intestinal obstruction secondary to postoperative adhesions that were all successfully managed by non-operative interventions, except the biliary stricture that needed a revision to Roux-en-Y hepatico-jejunostomy. The 1-year and 5-year recipient survivals were 98% and 94%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Successful HA reconstruction can be safely carried out in LDLT recipients and live donors with multiple graft arteries using the 2-in-1 segmental resection of donor HA under microvascular techniques.     

Feasibility of Left Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation Between Adults: An 8-Year, Single-Center Experience of 107 Cases

Operative mortality for a right lobe (RL) donor in adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is estimated to be as high as 0.5–1%. To minimize the risk to the donor, left lobe (LL)-LDLT might be an ideal option in adult LDLT. The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility of LL-LDLT between adults based on a single-center experience of 107 LL-LDLTs performed over 8 years. The mean graft weight of LL grafts was 452 g, which amounted to 40.5% of the estimated standard liver volume of the recipients. The overall 1-, 3- and 5-year patient survival rates in LL-LDLT were 81.4, 76.9 and 74.7%, respectively, which were comparable to those of RL-LDLT. Twenty-six grafts (24.3%) were lost for various reasons with three losses directly attributable to small-for-size graft syndrome. Post-operative liver function and hospital stay in LL donors were significantly better and shorter than that in RL donors, while the incidence of donor morbidity was comparable between LL and RL donors. In conclusion, LL-LDLT was found to be a feasible option in adult-to-adult LDLT. Further utilization of LL grafts should be undertaken to keep the chance of donor morbidity and mortality minimal.     

Biliary reconstruction following right adult living donor liver transplantation end-to-end or end-to-side duct-to-duct anastomosis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Bile duct complications are the modern Achilles' heel of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. A duct-to-duct anastomosis is currently performed in the presence of single graft ducts, while cholangiojejunostomy is used to drain multiple ducts. Our aim is to describe the feasibility of duct-to-duct anastomoses independent of the presence of one or multiple graft bile ducts. METHODS: The probe technique for right bile duct dissection in donors and a proximal hilar bile duct division in recipients are illustrated. The BARIGA LDLT (biliary anastomosis in right graft for adult living donor liver transplantation recipients) with end-to-side or end-to-end hepatico-hepaticostomy was used in five recipients of right grafts (segments 5-8). RESULTS: All donors and recipients are doing well; all grafts are functional at 13 months. Duct-to-duct anastomoses to single, double, or triple graft ducts have been performed. Two early anastomotic stenoses at 5 and 10 weeks were successfully treated endoscopically. CONCLUSION: The duct-to-duct anastomosis represents a valid alternative to the standard hepaticojejunostomy for right living donor liver grafts. Using this method, biliary complications can be treated endoscopically. End-to-side or end-to-end BARIGA LDLT has the potential to become a standard method in segmental transplantation, including split liver.     

Liver regeneration and function in donor and recipient after right lobe adult to adult living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: Regeneration of the liver to a predetermined size after resection or transplantation is a well described phenomenon, but the time course over which these events occur has not been well defined. It is not clear how initial liver mass, reperfusion, immunosuppression, or steatosis influence this process. METHODS: Liver regeneration was assessed prospectively by volumetric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in living right lobe liver donors and the recipients of these grafts. Imaging was performed at regular intervals through 60 days after resection/transplantation, and liver mass was determined. Liver function tests and synthetic function were monitored throughout the study period in donors and recipients of these grafts as well as recipients of cadaveric grafts. RESULTS: MRI consistently overestimated liver mass by a mean of 45 g (+/-65) (range 10-123). Donor liver mass increased by 101%, 110%, 115%, and 144% at 7, 14, 30, and 60 days after resection, respectively. Recipient liver mass increased by 87,101, 119, and 99% at 7, 14, 30, and 60 days after transplantation, respectively. Steatosis did not influence the degree of regeneration or graft function, nor was there a functional difference between grafts of >1% graft to recipient body weight ratio or <1%. CONCLUSIONS: MRI accurately determines right lobe mass. Most liver regeneration occurs in the 1st week after resection or transplantation, and the time course does not differ significantly in donors or recipients. The mass of the graft or remnant segment affects the duration of the regeneration process, with a smaller initial liver mass prolonging the course. Steatosis of <30% had no bearing on liver function or regeneration and, therefore, should not be an absolute criterion for exclusion of donors. A calculated graft to recipient body weight ratio of 0.8% is adequate for right lobe living donor liver transplantation.     

Liver transplantation from living donors with Gilbert's syndrome is a safe procedure for both donors and recipients

Liver transplantation (LT) has become a favorable therapeutic option for patients with end‐stage liver diseases. Gilbert's syndrome (GS) is a benign condition characterized by intermittent mild jaundice due to unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia. It is not obvious whether living‐donor liver transplantation (LDLT) from a donor with GS could result in a normal outcome for both the recipient and the donor. We aimed to determine whether right lobe hepatectomy is a safe procedure for living donors with GS and LT recipients. Between September 2011 and March 2015, 305 LDLT procedures using right lobe grafts were performed at Atasehir Memorial Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. Nineteen of 305 LT candidates who had been diagnosed with GS were included in the current study. After a 12‐h overnight fast, total and indirect bilirubin levels of donors and recipients were measured. The median follow‐up after transplant was 16 months (range 3–36 months). The median age of donors was 25 (range 20–55 yr). Four donors (21%) were female, and 15 donors (89%) were male. The median age of donors was 51 (range 23–68 yr). Eleven recipients (57%) were female, and 8 (43%) were male. The median preoperative total bilirubin level of donors was 1.69 mg/dL (range 1.26–2.43 mg/dL) (normal range <1.2 mg/dL). The median total bilirubin level of donors on postoperative day 7 was 1.04 mg/dL (range 0.71–3.23 mg/dL). As our study has included a large number of donors with GS, it produced reliable evidence that right lobe hepatectomy is a safe procedure for living donors with GS and LT recipients.