Validity of preoperative volumetric analysis of congestion volume in living donor liver transplantation using three-dimensional computed tomography.

Reconstruction of middle hepatic vein (MHV) tributaries is controversial in right-lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of reconstructing MHV tributaries by volumetry using 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT). Between November 2003 and January 2005, 42 donor livers (right-lobe graft, n = 25; left-lobe graft, n = 17) were evaluated using this software. The total congestion volume (CV) associated with the MHV tributaries and the inferior right hepatic vein (IRHV), and graft volume (GV) were calculated. In recipients with right-lobe grafts, CV/(right liver volume [RLV]) and (GV - CV)/(standard liver volume [SLV]) were compared between 2 groups: with reconstruction (n = 16) and without reconstruction (n = 9). To evaluate the influence of CV on the remnant right lobe in donors, total bilirubin was compared between 2 groups: high CV (CV > 20%, n = 13) or low CV (CV < or = 20%, n = 4). The mean CV/RLV ratio was 32.3 +/- 17.1% (V5, 15.2 +/- 9.9%; V8, 9.2 +/- 4.1%; and IRHV, 8.5 +/- 11.4%) and the maximum ratio was as high as 80.8%. The mean (GV - CV)/SLV ratio before reconstruction in patients with or without reconstruction resulted in 33.5 +/- 12.8% and 55.4 +/- 12.9%, respectively (P < 0.01). In donors, total bilirubin was significantly high in the high CV group on postoperative day 1 compared with the low CV group (P < 0.05). In conclusion, calculation of CV using 3D-CT software proved to be very useful. We concluded that this evaluation should be an integral part of procedure planning, especially for right-lobe LDLT.     

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.     

切取肝中静脉对活体肝移植供者早期残肝淤血和再生的影响

目的 探讨肝中静脉的切取对活体右半肝移植供者残肝淤血和再生的影响.方法 本中心2008年8月至2009年8月实施的活体右半肝移植供者28例,其中不带肝中静脉右半肝切取的供体11例(A组),带肝中静脉右半肝切取的供体17例(B组).术后2周行CT检查测量残肝的体积.比较两组供者Ⅳ段肝静脉与不同分型的术后早期残肝淤血和再生情况.结果 本组供体有10例发现Ⅳ段淤血,均为残肝不含肝中静脉者(B组),其中7例为完全或大部分淤血,A组供者无1例出现肝脏淤血;两组相比差异有统计学意义(P =0.006).B组供者中Ⅳ段肝静脉分型为Ⅰ型者共有6例,Ⅳ段全部出现淤血且为完全淤血;而Ⅱ型中共有4例患者发生淤血,其中完全淤血1例,两型相比差异有统计学意义(P=0.035).术后两周B组Ⅳ段体积为(186±72) ml,A组Ⅳ段体积为(302±85) ml,B组显著小于A组(P =0.005).B组Ⅳ段再生比例显著小于A组(P =0.007);Ⅰ～Ⅲ段的再生比例B组显著大于A组(P =0.008);而A、B组残肝再生差异无统计学意义(P=0.63).结论 带肝中静脉右半肝切除没有明显损害供体早期肝功能.残肝Ⅳ段有淤血发生,导致再生受到不利影响,但可通过Ⅱ、Ⅲ段再生代偿,整体残肝再生不受影响.     

Techniques of reconstruction of hepatic veins in living-donor liver transplantation, especially for right hepatic vein and major short hepatic veins of right-lobe graft

Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is now widely accepted as a therapeutic option for adult patients with acute and chronic end-stage liver disease. In the early period, the left lobe was the major liver graft used in adult LDLT to ensure donor safety, especially in Eastern countries. However, the frequent extremes of graft-size insufficiency in left-lobe LDLT represented a greater risk of small-for-size graft syndrome in the recipient, which has focused attention on transplantation of the right lobe from a living donor. The major concern of right-lobe LDLT has focused on its safety for the donor and the necessity for including the middle hepatic vein (MHV) in the graft to avoid congestion of the right anterior segment. The MHV carries out important venous drainage for the right anterior segment and is essential for perfect graft function. The decision of whether to take the MHV with the liver graft (extended right lobe graft) or whether to retain it in the donor, with reconstruction of the MHV tributaries in the liver graft (modified right lobe graft) has been extensively discussed in numerous studies. However, adequate right hepatic vein and major short hepatic vein (middle and inferior right hepatic vein [RHV]) drainage of the liver graft is perhaps equally important as MHV outflow drainage for the integrity of right-lobe graft function. Herein, the author describes various techniques of venoplasty of the right hepatic vein (RHV) and the major short hepatic veins to obviate venous outflow obstruction in these veins.     

Living donor right hepatectomy with inclusion of the middle hepatic vein: outcome in 200 donors

Venous congestion of segments V and VIII of the graft is observed frequently in right-lobe living donor liver transplants (LDLT) without middle hepatic vein (MHV) drainage. It can cause graft dysfunction and failure. Inclusion of the MHV in the right lobe graft allows optimal venous drainage but can pose adverse effects for the donor. From May 2005 to April 2011, we performed 202 right-lobe LDLTs using grafts that all (except two) contained the MHV. The mean duration of donor surgery was 558 ± 132 minutes (median 540, range 332-1100), and estimated blood loss 441 ± 309 mL (median 350, range 35-3200). No donor was admitted to the intensive care unit postoperatively. The mean hospital stay was 8.7 ± 2.1 days (median 8, range 6-22). Postoperatively, 39 donors (19.5%) experienced Clavien grade I and II complications, mostly minor wound infections or massive ascites necessitating diuretic therapy. Seven (3.5%) donors displayed Clavien grade III complications, including five bile leakages requiring endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage and two abdominal wound dehiscences requiring repair under general anesthesia. There was no donor death. In conclusion, inclusion of the MHV in a right-lobe LDLT was safe for most donors.     

Remnant liver regeneration and spleen volume changes after living liver donation: influence of the middle hepatic vein

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Graft harvest with or without the middle hepatic vein (MHV) affects venous return and function of the remaining liver. The aims of this study are to compare the remnant liver volume and spleen changes in the donors of different types of graft harvest and to evaluate the influence of resection with or without the MHV on the remnant liver volume regeneration, spleen volume change and serum total bilirubin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 165 donors were grouped according to the type of graft harvest: 88 donors underwent left lateral segmentectomy (LLS), 10 donors underwent extend LLS or left lobectomy (LL), and 67 donors underwent right lobectomy (RL). Groups LLS and LL were later combined as group LH (left hepatectomy, n = 98). There were 68 men and 97 women. The mean age was 32.9 +/- 8.1 yr. The total liver volume (LV) and spleen volume (S1) before graft harvest, graft weight (GW), regenerated liver volume (LV(6m)) and spleen volume (S2) six months post-donation were calculated. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the regenerated liver volume six months postoperation (LV(6m)) and recovery ratio (LV(6m)/LV x 100%) among the different groups, albeit significant smaller LV(6m) in both groups compared with the initial liver volume was noted. Postoperative spleen volume (S2), average spleen ratio (S2/S1) and spleen change ratio were significantly larger and higher in group RL than in group LH. A significant increase in spleen volume was noted in both groups six months after graft harvest. A significantly higher TB in group RL (4.1 +/- 1.7 mg/dL, range: 1.4-8.5 mg/dL) was noted compared with that of group LH (1.6 +/- 1.0 mg/dL, range: 0.7-6.2 mg/dL). CONCLUSION: There was a significant increase in the regenerated remnant liver and splenic volumes six months postoperation in all types of hepatectomy following living donor hepatectomy, and there was no difference in the mean TB levels among donors whether the MHV was included or not in the graft.     

Impact of graft type on remnant liver regeneration: right hepatectomy versus extended right hepatectomy

Right hepatectomy with the middle hepatic vein (MHV) affects venous return and function of the remaining liver. We compared the remnant liver volume in the donors of resection with or without the MHV on the remnant liver volume regeneration. Living donors who had undergone right hepatectomy without MHV (RH group; n = 36) and those with MHV (ERH group; n = 19) were reviewed. Volume regeneration of segments I-III, segment IV, and total remnant liver volume was assessed at postoperative day (POD) 7 and 30 using a computed tomography-based volumetry program. According to the measured volume data, we calculated the liver remnant volume and the rate of liver remnant volume increase. The regeneration rate of segment IV was significantly low in the ERH group compared with that in the RH group at POD 7 and POD 30 (160% vs 141%; P = .018 and 189% vs 154%; P = .007). In contrast, the regeneration rate of the total remnant liver volume was not significantly different between the 2 groups (173% vs 175%; P = .758 and 199% vs 198%; P = .880). In conclusion, extended right hepatectomy can be safely performed with careful preoperative evaluation without significant impairment of remnant liver regeneration.     

Can an Extended Right Lobe be Harvested from a Donor with Gilbert's Syndrome for Living-Donor Liver Transplantation? Case Report

Gilbert's syndrome (GS) is a common cause of inherited benign unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia that occurs in the absence of overt hemolysis, other liver function test abnormalities, and structural liver disease. GS may not affect a patient's selection for living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Between February 2005 and April 2011, 446 LDLT procedures were performed at our institution. Two of the 446 living liver donors were diagnosed with GS. Both donors underwent extended right hepatectomies, and donors and recipients experienced no problem in the postoperative period. Their serum bilirubin levels returned to the normal range within 1-2 weeks postoperatively. In our opinion, extended right hepatectomy can be performed safely in living liver donors with GS if appropriate conditions are met and remnant volume is >30%. Livers with GS can be used successfully as grafts in LDLT recipients.     

The first two cases of living donor liver transplantation using dual grafts in Europe.

The major limitation in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an adequate graft size with special regard to the safety of the donor. Only 20% of the evaluated donors are suitable to donate the right liver, depending mainly on the critical remnant liver volume. We report 2 cases of adult-to-adult LDLT using dual grafts. In the first case we implanted a left lateral lobe together with a left lobe; in the second case we used a left lateral and a right lobe. Dual graft LDLT solves the problem of graft-size insufficiency and avoids critical right lobectomy in the donor. This procedure can be safely performed and opens up the possibility of LDLT to even more families in the Western world.     

Intraoperative assessment of hepatic venous congestion with direct clamping of the hepatic vein trunk for living donor liver transplantation

We devised a hepatic vein clamping method to assess the amount of hepatic venous congestion (HVC) before liver transection. From February 2003 to May 2003, this method was applied to 5 of 58 living donor livers especially to assess donor safety. The left portal vein and proper hepatic artery as well as the middle hepatic vein (MHV)-left hepatic vein (LHV) trunk were clamped simultaneously to assess the HVC in the remnant right lobe before performing extended left lobectomy. As three donors demonstrated the extent of the HVC equivalent to about 40% of the right lobe volume (RLV), their operations proceeded according to the preoperative plan. The territory of HVC after liver transection was the same as that observed with direct clamping of the hepatic vein. However, one donor showed massive HVC more than 50% of RLV and the operative plan was adjusted to harvest only the left lobe without the MHV trunk for donor safety. To assess the HVC in the remnant left lobe, the isolated LHV trunk was occluded after clamping the donor's proper hepatic artery. The whole left lobe except for a small area at the anterior portion of the medial segment became discolored on LHV clamping: the opposite demarcation appeared on MHV clamping. The amount of HVC was so small that we harvested the right lobe with the MHV trunk. All donors and recipients recovered uneventfully. We believe that this direct clamping method makes the assessment of HVC feasible before parenchymal transection of a donor liver.     

Safety of modified extended right hepatectomy in living liver donors

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), the standard right graft has been adopted by many centers to meet the metabolic demands of large recipients. In conventional right liver graft, congestion at anterior section may be problematic especially when graft volume is insufficient. We previously introduced a technical aspect of modified extended right hepatectomy (MERH), in which the middle hepatic vein was excavated by preserving the entire segment 4 (Sg4) to the donor. In this report, we investigated the safety of donors who received MERH. Between August 2002 and July 2005, 97 donors underwent right liver donation. MERH was considered when remnant-left liver volume exceeded 35% of whole liver. Eighteen donors underwent MERH (MERH group, n=18). We compared the clinical outcomes of MERH group with those of donors who underwent conventional right hepatectomy (RH) with remnant liver volume exceeding 35% (RH group, n=37). No donor mortality occurred. No intra-operative transfusion and no re-operation were performed. There were no differences in operative time (290.8 min in MERH group vs. 297.0 min in RH group, respectively), blood loss (453.3 ml vs. 426.5 ml), and postoperative hospital stay (12.5 days vs. 12.8 days) between the two groups (P>0.05). Period of drain removal was longer in MERH group (12.5 days vs. 9.4 days, P<0.05). But, there was no difference in complication rate between the two groups (11/18 vs. 23/37, P>0.05). Computed tomography scan showed that congestion of Sg4 was occurred in 13 out of 18 MERH donors in early postoperative period, but all recovered at 4 months. The regeneration of the remnant liver after MERH and RH were similar (209.8% vs. 200.0% at 4 months, P>0.05). Our results show that MERH did not impair recovery or liver regeneration in donors, and indicate that MERH can be safely done in adult LDLT when the remnant liver exceeds 35%.     

Use of middle hepatic vein in right lobe living donor liver transplantation

The harvesting of the middle hepatic vein (MHV) with the right lobe graft for living‐donor liver transplantation allows an optimal venous drainage for the recipient; however, it is an extensive operation for the donor. This is a prospective, nonrandomized study evaluating liver functions and early clinical outcome in donors undergoing right hepatectomy with or without MHV harvesting. From August 2005 to July 2007, a total of 100 donor right hepatectomies were performed with (n = 49) or without (n = 51) the inclusion of the MHV. The decision to take MHV was based on an algorithm that considers various donor and recipient factors. There was no donor mortality in donors in either group. Overall complication rate was higher in MHV (+) donor group, however when remnant liver volume was kept above 30%, complication rates were similar between the groups. The results of this study show that right hepatectomy including the MHV neither affects morbidity nor impairs early liver function in donors when remnant volume is kept above 30%. The decision, therefore, of the extent of right lobe donor hepatectomy should be tailored to the particular conditions considering the graft quality and metabolic demand of the recipient.     

Impact of venous drainage on regeneration of the anterior segment of right living-related liver grafts

The effect of additional venous reconstruction on morphologic and functional regeneration of the anterior segment of right-lobe liver grafts was compared among three groups according to graft type: right liver graft without the middle hepatic vein (MHV) or MHV tributaries (n=7), with MHV tributaries (n=25) and with the MHV (n=10). Whole graft volume (GV) and anterior segment volume (ASV) were estimated from CT scans and post-operative laboratory data and daily ascitic fluid volume were examined. Peak GV in each group was reached two or three wk after surgery. The ASV/GV ratios of the grafts with the MHV or MHV tributaries were higher than those of grafts without additional venous reconstruction. However, the asparate aminotransferase and ascitic fluid volume values in the group that received grafts with MHV tributaries were higher than in the group that received grafts with the MHV in the same period. Although rapid enlargement of the anterior segment of right-lobe grafts with MHV tributaries occurred in the early post-operative period, complete functional liver regeneration may not occur even after additional tributary reconstruction. These results suggest that the selection of right-lobe grafts with the MHV is more beneficial for recipients, as long as donor safety is protected and that as many MHV tributaries as possible should be reconstructed in right-lobe grafts without MHV.     

Liver regeneration and surgical outcome in donors of right-lobe liver grafts

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies of healthy live-liver donors have suggested that complete liver regeneration occurs within a matter of weeks; however, there have been no long-term studies evaluating liver regeneration and few studies documenting long-term donor outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-one donors who provided right-lobe grafts underwent volumetric spiral computed tomography scans preoperatively and postoperatively at time intervals of 1 week and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Patient demographics, surgical data, and postoperative outcome were correlated with liver regeneration data. Donor surgical outcome was followed prospectively and recorded in a comprehensive database. RESULTS: Thirty-three males and 18 females (mean age 36.0+/-9.6 years) provided 51 right-lobe grafts. Mean follow-up was 9.8+/-3.4 months. No donor operation was aborted, and surgical morbidity and mortality rates were 39% and 0%, respectively. Donor remnant liver volume was 49.4+/-5.7% of the original total liver volume (TLV). Overall liver regeneration was 83.3+/-9.0% of the TLV by 1 year. Female donors had significantly slower liver regrowth when compared with males at 12 months (79.8+/-9.3% vs. 85.6+/-8.2%, P<0.01). There was no effect of age, body mass index, operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative complications, or perioperative liver function tests on liver regeneration. DISCUSSION: Liver regeneration continues throughout the first postoperative year. Only one donor achieved complete liver regeneration during this time period; however, all donors have maintained normal liver function without long-term complications. Longer follow-up is needed to determine whether donors ever achieve original TLV.     

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.     

Sharing the middle hepatic vein between donor and recipient: left liver graft procurement preserving a large segment VIII branch in donor.

There are few reported techniques to minimize the congestion in the donor after left liver graft procuring. If a large tributary of the middle hepatic vein (MHV) draining segment VIII (V8) converges into the root of the MHV in a donor of left liver, this branch should be preserved on the donor side. The volume of congested area when the V8 was ligated was predicted preoperatively by computed tomography (CT) and examined intraoperatively by the clamp test. Postoperative regeneration of the donor liver was evaluated by CT volumetry. This technique was used in 3 cases. The regeneration rate after 3 months of the right paramedian sector was 27, 38, and 8%, and that of the right lateral sector was 31, 63, and 39% in each donor, respectively. No severe complications occurred in the donors. In conclusion, V8 preservation in donors who underwent left liver resection led to satisfactory regeneration both of the right paramedian and lateral sectors and can minimize congestion in remnant liver.     

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.     

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.     

活体肝移植治疗终末期肝病

目的 探讨活体肝移植(1iving donor liver transplantation,LDLT)供、受者术前评估和手术方式的选择.方法 回顾性分析1995年1月至2007年10月我中心95例LDLT患者的临床资料.良性终末期肝病92例,其中Wilson病45例;肝脏恶性肿瘤3例.结果 供肝切取不带肝中静脉右半肝31例,带肝中静脉右半肝3例,带肝中静脉左半肝51例,不带肝中静脉左半肝或左外叶10例.所有供者术后顺利恢复,均未出现严重并发症.受者随访1～86个月,良性终末期肝病受者1、3、5年累积生存率分别为89%(82例)、78%(71例)和73%(67例),其中Wilson病受者1、3、5年累积生存率分别为92%(42例)、89%(40例)和76%(34例).3例肝脏恶性肿瘤患者死亡2例,1例长期生存.供、受者铜代谢均恢复正常.结论 建立供者安全保障体系是LDLT开展的先决条件,选择合理的手术方式是提高受者生存率的关键.亲体肝移植是治疗Wilson病的有效手段.     

Donor Outcomes After Liver Donation in Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Objectives

This study aims to investigate postdonation outcomes of adult living donor liver transplantation donors and remnant liver regeneration in different graft types.