MSCT血管成像在活体肝移植供体评价中的应用

目的评价多层螺旋CT血管成像(MSCTA)在活体肝移植供体中的临床应用价值。方法对14例活体肝移植供体行MSCT检查．运用最大密度投影(MIP)和容积重建(VR)两种后处理方法．3例增加CPR,重建肝脏血管。结果14例供体中7例供体有8支重要的肝脏变异血管：3支肝动脉变异、3支肝静脉变异和2支门静脉变异。结论在活体肝移植供体评价中MSCTA是一种无创性的、可靠的检查方法．有较高的临床应用价值。     

亲体部分肝移植供体门静脉和肝动脉变异二例报告

本文介绍二例合并肝血管畸形的供体 ,成功实行亲体肝移植的经验。临床资料例 1　受体女 ,12岁 ,体重 34ｋｇ ,患先天性肝纤维化 ,肝功能衰竭 ,门静脉高压。供体为受体的母亲 41岁 ,42ｋｇ ,健康。于 2 0 0 1年 11月 12日行肝移植术。术前ＣＴ连续断层扫描估测 ,供体左肝重量 2 98ｇ,右肝重量 5 6 5ｇ ,左肝不足以满足受体的生理需要 ,只能取右肝作为移植物。超声多普勒和选择腹腔动脉造影检查显示 :供体右肝门静脉变异 ,供体右肝门静脉无明显主干 ,右后支起源于门静脉的主干 ,而右前支起源于左门静脉 ,直径分别为 0 6和 0 7ｃｍ(图 1)。肝…     

肝动脉-门静脉瘘的多层螺旋CT诊断

目的探讨肝动脉-门静脉分流(APS)的多层螺旋CT(MSCT)动态增强表现、诊断能力、形成机制及临床意义。方法1 100例患者进行了肝脏MSCT动态增强检查,发现80例APS,其中,肝细胞癌(HCC)71例,转移性肿瘤2例,单纯性肝硬化6例,1例无明显肝实质异常。71例HCC均经DSA检查,以DSA诊断APS为标准,对照分析MSCT诊断APS的能力及APS的CT特征。结果71例HCC在MSCT增强动脉期均发现与APS相关的阳性征象。MSCT增强表现分为:中央型(52例)和周围型(19例)。中央型表现为:①肝动脉期门静脉主干和/或左右第1级分支提早显影;②肝动脉期低密度门静脉瘤栓内及其周围有网状动脉显影(滋养动脉);③肝动脉期可见门静脉管壁强化与低密度门静脉瘤栓形成“门静脉铸型”。周围型表现为:①肝动脉期肿瘤所在肝叶的非癌变肝实质、肿瘤外周和肝叶边缘出现楔形或片状强化区,门静脉期该区域密度与其他部位正常肝组织密度一致;②肝动脉期门静脉分支呈线条状显影且与肝动脉伴行,即“轨道征”;③肝动脉期肿瘤内门静脉提早显影。结论MSCT诊断APS的准确性可与DSA相比。MSCT血管成像可望替代DSA。APS的MSCT诊断对指导肝癌的治疗具有重要意义。     

活体肝移植后小肝综合征的研究进展

小肝综合征是活体肝移植术（LDLT）后的严重并发症,供体年龄、脂肪肝程度、受体术前疾病状态（MELD评分）、术后高门静脉灌注、流出道不畅及移植物大小和质量等均小肝综合征的发生起着重要作用。术前选择最佳的供体;术中行脾脏切除或脾动脉结扎或对门静脉限流,保证流出道的绝对通畅;术后及早发现并积极治疗能显著减少小肝综合征的发生。     

�������ֲ��Ѫ�ܱ������ƴ���

目的：分析10例活体肝移植术中的血管变异，总结其外科处理经验，进一步提高手术成功率，减少并发症。方法：2001年1月至12月，行活体肝移植10例，其中左半肝8例，左外叶1例，右半肝1例，供肝者均为其母，经术中B超及胆管造影以确定肝切线。供体单支肝动脉分支与受体肝动脉吻合，两支肝动脉分别与受体肝左、右动脉吻合。门静脉分支与受体门静脉主干吻合。供体肝静脉与受体下腔静脉行端侧吻合。胆管重建均采用肝管分支与受体胆总管端端吻合，置T管引流。结果：10例活体肝移植，1例因肝动脉血栓形成，术后5天需次肝移植；1例发生排斥；其余8例均康复出院，5例已上学。结论：活体肝移植术中血管重建技术是其重要环节，术前和术中了解供受体解剖变异并正确处理，可减少术后血管和胆道的并发症。     

肝脏管道系统变异在活体肝移植中的意义

肝脏管道系统包括Glisson系统和肝静脉系统。前者包括门静脉、肝动脉和肝管．三者在肝内的行径一致，被共同的血管周围纤维囊所包裹。Couinaud肝段划分法就是根据Glisson系统的分支与分布和肝静脉的走行进行分叶与分段的。肝脏管道系统变异很大，对活体肝移植（LDLT）有重要影响。     

活体右半肝移植供体术前评估的临床意义

目的 探讨活体右半肝移植供体术前评估的必要性.方法 回顾性评估2002年1月至2005年11月施行的23例活体右半肝移植中供体的情况.术前评估包括供体的一般情况,血管与胆管系统影像学,供肝体积及脂肪变性情况等.不阻断入肝血流,在肝中静脉右侧,用超声刀离断肝组织而得到右半肝.计算供体标准肝体积（standard liver volume,SLV）及残余左半肝的比例.结果 术前影像学评估发现,4例门静脉主干有3分支,7例有粗大肝右后下静脉（≥0.5 cm）,5例有粗大（≥0.5 cm）肝V段静脉（V5）,4例有V8,右肝管变异3例.而术中发现9例伴右后下静脉,5例V5,5例V8,右肝管变异4例.术中肝切取活检示2例供肝轻度脂肪变性.右半供肝切取平均失血462 ml,切取右半肝占SLV的39.7％～69.5％,残余左半肝占30.5％～60.3％.术后第1天肝功能均有不同程度损害,但术后1周恢复到接近正常水平.术后并发症包括1例腹内出血,1例乳糜漏,2例切口脂肪液化,1例门静脉狭窄伴血栓形成.所有供体均恢复良好.结论 术前进行供肝血管系统与胆管系统、肝脏的体积与质量的详尽评估,选择出最适宜的供肝与供体,是手术成功的重要保证.     

供肝动脉解剖变异之修整

目的: 探讨供肝动脉解剖特点，掌握供肝修整技术尤其动脉解剖变异之供肝修整方法及技巧。方法:对64例人肝（含24例无脑胎肝和40例成人肝脏）动脉实施解剖及修整，其中31例应用于临床肝移植。结果:64例中肝动脉解剖变异者共12例（18.75%）。其中24例胎儿供肝中5例（20.83%）肝动脉解剖变异，起源于肠系膜上动脉（SMA）替代肝右动脉型1例；起源于SMA副肝右动脉型3例；肝动脉起自SMA型1例。成人供肝动脉变异7例 (17.5%)，来源于SMA替代肝右动脉型2例；来自胃左动脉替代肝左动脉型2例；来自SMA副肝右动脉型3例。应用于临床原位肝移植的31例供肝中，4例存在肝右动脉解剖变异。肝移植时对变异之供肝动脉根据不同情况，可选用变异血管结扎、就近与胃十二指肠动脉、脾动脉或肠系膜上动脉吻合、应用供体髂总动脉搭桥与受体腹主动脉吻合等方法进行修整。结论:肝动脉的修整在供肝修整中占重要地位，供肝切取时避免损伤变异之肝动脉是保障修整成功的关键，对过细的副肝动脉修整时，术中观察侧支反流后可考虑是否予以结扎。     

成人间活体肝移植肝动脉重建并发症预防

目的总结成人间活体肝移植(adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation,A-A LDLT)肝动脉重建并发症的预防经验。方法总结2002年1月-2008年3月收治的127例A-A LDLT临床资料,分析肝动脉重建并发症的预防。131例供体中(移植右半肝127例,移植左半肝4例),男69例,女62例;年龄19～65岁,平均36.2岁。127例受体中男109例,女18例;年龄18～64岁,平均41.9岁。62例供体右肝动脉与受体右肝动脉吻合,34例与受体肝固有动脉吻合,7例与受体左肝动脉吻合,6例与受体肝总动脉吻合,8例与受体肠系膜上动脉发出的副右肝动脉吻合,5例与受体肝总动脉自体大隐静脉间搭桥,2例受体腹主动脉与供体右肝动脉自体大隐静脉搭桥,3例用尸体冷冻保存髂血管行受体腹主动脉与供体右肝动脉搭桥。结果术后1、7d,发生肝动脉血栓形成2例(1.6%),采用自体大隐静脉、肾下腹主动脉至供体右肝动脉搭桥术后痊愈;1例于术后46d发生肝动脉血栓形成,无临床症状未予处理。术后及随访期未发现肝动脉狭窄、肝动脉假性动脉瘤等并发症。围手术期无与肝动脉并发症有关的死亡患者。患者均获随访,随访时间9～67个月,术后1、2、3年实际生存率分别为82.2%、64.7%和59.2%。结论供、受体肝动脉解剖变异,受体肝动脉病理改变,以及肝动脉血管吻合技术是肝动脉重建并发症发生的重要影响因素。     

肝右后叶活体部分肝移植

成人活体肝移植（living donor liver transplantation，LDLT）用于治疗终末期肝病已被广泛开展并取得了良好的效果。但成人LDLT的一个主要问题是移植肝大小不匹配，一般移植肝体积〈40％的受体标准肝体积（standard liver volume，SLV），或供肝重量与受体体重的比例（graft recipient body weight，GRBW）〈0．8％时会大大降低受体存活率（小体积供肝）。由于肝脏解剖上的特点及各种变异，加上活体供肝的特殊性，可切取的供肝大小往往受限制。虽然也有将左叶供肝作成人LDLT成功的例子．但只能用于小个的受体：右叶LDLT虽大多可满足受体的代谢需求．但右肝切取增加了供体的危险性，而且并不总是安全的，因为必须保证供体残余的正常肝体积≥30％的全肝体积。     

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.     

Anatomic variations in right liver living donors

BACKGROUND: Anatomic knowledge is crucial in right liver living donor transplantation. STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed radiologic and surgical findings in right liver donors. Arterial and portal anatomy was assessed in 96 donors, biliary anatomy in 77, and hepatic venous anatomy in 65. RESULTS: Portal vein (PV): 86.4% had classic anatomy; 6.3% had a trifurcated PV; 7.3% had a right anterior PV taken off the left PV. Hepatic artery (HA): 70.8% had classic anatomy; 12.5% had a left HA arising from the left gastric artery; 13.5% had a right HA arising from the superior mesenteric artery; 2.1% had a double replaced left HA and right HA; and in 1.0% the common HA arose from the superior mesenteric artery. Biliary tree: 55.8% had normal anatomy; 14.3% had a trifurcated biliary anatomy; in 5.2% the right anterior bile duct and in 15.6% the right posterior bile duct opened into the left bile duct; in 2.6% the right anterior and in 6.5% the right posterior ducts opened into the common bile duct. Hepatic veins: S5 and S8 accessory hepatic veins had incidences of 43% and 49%, respectively. The incidence of S6 or S7 short hepatic vein was 38%. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomic variations are common but do not contraindicate donation; surgeons should be prepared to recognize and manage them.     

Donor selection for procurement of right posterior segment graft in living donor liver transplantation.

The right posterior segment (RPS) graft was introduced to overcome graft-size mismatch when the donor liver demonstrates a disproportionately small left lobe (LL). As variants of liver anatomy seemed to be related to the feasibility of RPS graft procurement, in 2003, we performed a prospective study to assess its feasibility in 197 consecutive living donors. Variants of the portal vein (PV) were classified as type I (bifurcation), II (trifurcation), and III (independent RPS PV branching from main PV). The right hepatic artery, vein, and bile duct were also classified according to their branching pattern and location. PV variations were type I in 157 (79.7%) donors, type II in 15 (7.6%) donors, and type III in 25 (12.7%) donors. Mean volume proportion of LL plus caudate lobe was 35.3 +/- 3.8% (range 24-4) of the whole liver volume (WLV). On exclusion of donors with LL greater than 35% of WLV, there were 14 (7.1%) donors revealing RPS greater than LL by over 3% of WLV. Of these 14 donors, 3 had type I PV with artery or bile duct anatomy not suitable for RPS procurement. One donor with type II PV and 9 out of 10 donors with type III PV met the anatomical conditions for RPS graft procurement. With the exclusion of caudate lobe volume, LL volume became less than 30% of WLV in all of these 14 donors. We successfully procured 3 RPS grafts, all with type III PV, out of 197 consecutive living donors. In conclusion, successful RPS graft procurement is highly possible, only when LL is disproportionately small (<30% of WLV) and the PV variant is type III.     

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.     

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.     

活体肝移植的几点关键外科技术

目的：探讨活体肝移植的几点关键外科技术。方法：2001年1月至2002年3月底,实施活体肝移植11例,其中左半肝8例,左外叶1例,成人右半肝2例;根据术前CT、血管造影和术中B超确定肝切除线,超声电刀离断肝实质,经门静脉灌注原位获取。受体手术采用保留腔静脉的全肝切除。移植肝原位植入,肝静脉重建采用扩大成型吻合技术,显微技术吻合肝动脉,胆道重建采用端端吻合,置“T“管引流。结果：11例供体术后顺利康复出院,未发生严重并发症。11例受体中,1例发生肝动脉血栓形成需再次肝移植,1例因不可逆转的严重排斥反应,于术后72d死亡。10例受体康复出院,肝功能、铜氧化酶恢复正常。结论：活体肝移植对供体是相对安全的。管道重建技术是活体肝移植的重要环节。术前、术中了解供体的解剖变异并正确处理,可降低并发症发生率。     

Surgical procedures for management of right portal venous branching in right lobe living donor liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to describe the surgical management of right portal venous (PV) branches encountered among 104 cases of right lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). METHODS: From January 2002 to September 2007, we performed 104 cases of right-lobe LDLT including 11-donors who had anomalous right portal venous branches (APVB). One recipient had PV sponginess hemangioma. The donor right PV branches were type I in 93 cases, type II (trifurcation) in nine cases, and type III in two cases. Except one narrow bridge of tissue excision, the PV branches were transected on the principal of donor priority: PV branches were excised approximately 2 to 3 mm from the confluence while leaving the donor's main portal vein and confluence intact. In type II APVB, donor PV branches were obtained with two separate openings in six cases; with two separate openings joined as a common orifice at the back table in two cases, with one common opening with a narrow bridge of tissue in one case. In type III APVB, the donor right anterior and posterior PV branches were obtained with separate openings. The donor right PV branches with one common opening in 92 cases of type I PV branches and a joined common orifice in three cases of type II APVB were anastomosed to the recipient's main portal vein or to right branching. As the unavailable recipient PV for sponginess hemangioma, one case of type I right PV branches was end-to-end anastomosed to one of the variceal lateral veins of about 1 cm diameter in a pediatric patient. The PV were reconstructed as double anastomoses in six type II APVB and in one type III APVB obtained with two separate PV openings. In the another type III APVB reconstruction, we successfully utilized a novel U-shaped vein graft interposition. RESULTS: The type II APVB donor receiving a narrow bridge of portal vein tissue excision developed portal vein thrombosis on the third postoperative day and underwent reexploration for thrombectomy. There were no vascular complications, such as portal vein thrombosis or stricture among other donors or all recipients. The velocity of blood flow in the U-graft was normal. The anastomosis between the type I donor right portal vein and recipient variceal lateral vein was unobstructed. CONCLUSION: Right PV branches should be excised on the principal of donor priority while leaving the donor's main portal vein and confluence intact. Single anastomoses was the fundamental procedure of right branch reconstruction. Double anastomoses could be used as the main management for type II and type III APVB reconstruction. U-graft interposition may be a potential procedure for type III APVB reconstruction. Single anastomoses between the donor right portal vein and the recipient variceal lateral vein may be performed when recipient portal vein is unavailable. These innovations for excision and reconstruction of right PV branches were feasible, safe, and had good outcomes.     

Preoperative imaging evaluation of potential living liver donors: reasons for exclusion from donation in adult living donor liver transplantation

Accurate pretransplant evaluation of a potential donor in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is essential in preventing postoperative liver failure and optimizing safety. The aim of this study was to investigate the reasons for exclusion from donation of potential donors in adult LDLT. From September 2003 to June 2006, 266 potential donors were evaluated for 215 recipients: 220 potential donors for 176 adult recipients; 46 for 39 pediatric recipients. Imaging modalities including Doppler ultrasound, computerized tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance (MR) angiography provided vascular evaluation and MR cholangiopancreatography to evaluate biliary anatomy. Calculation of liver volume and assessment of steatosis were performed by enhanced and nonenhanced CT, respectively. In the adult group, only 83 (37.7%) potential donors were considered suitable for LDLT. Of the 137 unsuitable potential donors, 36 (26.2%) candidates were canceled because of recipient issues that included death of 15 recipients (10.9%), main portal vein thrombosis (8%), recipient condition beyond surgery (5%), and no indication for liver transplantation due to disease improvement (2%). The remaining 101 (73.8%) candidates who were excluded included steatosis (27.7%), an inadequate remnant volume (57.4%), small-for-size graft (8.9%), HLA-homozygous donor leading to one-way donor-recipient HLA match (3%), psychosocial problems (4%), as well as variations of hepatic artery (4%), portal vein (1%), and biliary system anatomy (5%). Anatomic considerations were not the main reason for exclusion of potential donors. An inadequate remnant liver volume (<30%) is the crucial point for the adult LDLT decision.     

活体右半肝供体的安全性

目的 探讨活体右半肝供体的安全性。方法 对2002年1月至2005年6月施行的13例活体右半肝移植中供体的资料进行回顾性研究。不阻断入肝血流,在肝中静脉右侧,用超声刀离断肝组织得到右半供肝。通过计算得到标准肝体积及残余左半肝的比例。结果 右半供肝切取术平均失血490ml,平均输血440ml。围手术期平均输入人血白蛋白85g。1例供体门静脉分为3支,2例供体右后与右前胆管汇入左肝管,1例左外与左内胆管先后与右肝管汇合成肝总管,术中处理恰当,门静脉左干血流及左肝管胆汁引流保持通畅。2例供肝轻度脂肪变。术后第1天肝功能均有不同程度损害,但术后1周恢复到接近正常水平。术后并发症包括1例腹腔内出血,2例切口脂肪液化和1例乳糜漏。所有供体恢复好并回到原工作岗位。结论 只要保证左半肝血管与胆管通畅,残余肝体积在30％以上及手术对残余肝无大的损伤,右半供肝切取是安全的。