公民逝世后器官捐献供肝肝移植:我国儿童肝移植的新出路

我国是先天性胆道疾病和肝脏疾病的高发国家,部分患儿发展为终末期肝病,因此,儿童肝移植在我国有很大的发展空间。儿童肝移植的供肝类型主要包括尸体全肝、尸体减体积供肝、尸体劈离式供肝和活体供肝。在我国,儿童肝移植以活体肝移植为主,但存在伦理学争议,且不易找到合适的供体,严重限制了我国儿童肝移植的发展。近年我国公民逝世后器官捐献供肝数量不断增加,劈离式肝移植自2010年起得到迅速增长,活体供肝所占比例也随之降低。随着我国公民逝世后器官捐献事业的发展,公民逝世后器官捐献供肝将取代活体供肝成为我国儿童肝移植主要供肝来源。     

活体右后叶肝移植的应用进展

随着肝移植技术的发展,肝移植疗效显著提高,受者和移植物的存活率得到显著提升。但公民逝世后器官捐献仍不能满足肝移植需求,供肝短缺仍是阻碍肝移植进一步发展的关键因素。近年来,活体肝移植作为克服器官短缺的手段之一,广泛应用于终末期肝病患者的治疗。右后叶肝移植作为活体肝移植一种特殊类型,为进一步扩大活体肝移植潜在供者池提供了一种新的解决方案。本文从活体肝移植的发展概况、活体右后叶肝移植供者的选择、右后叶供肝获取的解剖学挑战以及右后叶供肝获取的手术技巧进行介绍,并对活体右后叶肝移植进行展望,以促进临床肝移植的进一步发展,造福更多终末期肝病患者。     

边缘供肝的评估和应用

正肝移植是治疗终末期肝病的唯一有效手段。目前,供肝短缺是制约临床肝移植发展的瓶颈,大量病人在等待肝移植过程中死亡。另一方面,为了缓解供体器官的短缺,边缘供肝,也称作扩大标准供肝逐渐应用于临床肝移植。特别是在中国实施公民逝世后器官捐献(DCD)来源器官的背景条件下,供体由于在ICU抢救等过程中出现低血压、缺血、缺氧,以及大量血管活性药物的应用,DCD来源供体出现"边缘供肝"的情况     

公民逝世后器官捐献肝移植78例临床经验分析

目的总结公民逝世后器官捐献肝移植的临床经验及疗效分析。方法回顾性分析2012年3月至2015年11月四川大学华西医院肝脏移植中心完成的公民逝世后器官捐献供体肝移植的76例供体和78例受体的临床资料。观察肝移植受体早期移植物功能恢复情况并分析引起早期移植物功能障碍(EAD)的危险因素,观察远期的移植物生存及受体生存情况、并发症发生情况。结果 78例受体术后EAD的发生率为36%(28/78),其中供体总胆红素(TB)高和冷缺血时间长是EAD发生的危险因素。受者围手术期存活率为92%(72/78),死亡6例,分别死于原发性移植物失功4例、上消化道大出血1例、肺部感染1例。术后发生腹腔感染5例,胆道狭窄3例,血管血栓形成2例,除1例死亡外,其余经相应治疗后好转。受体术后1年的存活率为84.2%,2年存活率为80.0%。结论公民逝世后器官捐献供肝是较好的供肝来源,其近远期效果良好。控制术前供肝质量,缩短冷缺血时间等均是提高临床效果的重要措施。     

公民逝世后器官捐献供肝肝移植术后感染特点及危险因素分析

目的探讨公民逝世后器官捐献供肝肝移植受体术后感染特点及感染相关危险因素。方法回顾性分析接受公民逝世后器官捐献供肝肝移植68例受体的临床资料。根据受体术后是否合并感染分为感染组(33例)和非感染组(35例)。总结68例肝移植受体术后感染的主要特点;对受体发生肝移植术后感染的可能危险因素进行单因素分析;有统计学意义的危险因素再进行多因素分析,找出独立危险因素,并采用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线分析其预测肝移植术后感染的准确度。结果肝移植术后33例受体发生感染,占总数的49%,以细菌感染和真菌感染为主,感染部位主要有肺部感染和腹腔感染。单因素分析发现,供体存在开放性损伤,受体术前血红蛋白水平、血小板计数、肝功能Child-Pugh分级、终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分,术中红细胞输注量,术后第1日γ-谷氨酰转肽酶(GGT)、重症监护室(ICU)停留时间共8个因素是器官捐献供肝肝移植术后感染的相关因素(均为P0.05)。多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示术前血红蛋白水平120 g/L和术后ICU停留时间96 h为器官捐献供肝肝移植术后感染的独立危险因素(均为P0.05)。ROC曲线分析显示,术前血红蛋白水平114 g/L和术后ICU停留时间102 h对预测术后感染准确度较高。结论公民逝世后器官捐献供肝肝移植术后感染发生率较高,以细菌感染和真菌感染为主,感染部位主要在肺部和腹腔。受体肝移植术前血红蛋白水平低及术后ICU停留时间长,会增加肝移植术后感染风险。     

活体右半供肝血管和胆管变异及重建处理

成人到成人的活体右半肝移植在东、西方国家已成为一种可以接受的治疗终末期肝病的有效措施。由于尸体供器官的缺乏以及肝移植适应证的扩大，供需矛盾愈来愈突出，在东方国家脑死亡供器官不被接受，这种矛盾更加明显，很多终末期肝病患者在等待肝源过程中死亡。成人间活体右半肝移植缩短了受体等待移植的时间，一定程度上缓解了器官短缺，尤其适用于急性肝功能衰竭患者，在一些国家甚至成为主要的供器官来源，例如在日本。1994年日本Yamaoka等成功开展了世界首例活体右半肝移植，但并非在成人间。1997年香港首先开展成人间活体右半肝移植，即活体扩大右半肝移植。自此，成人间活体右半肝移植在世界范围的各大移植中心广泛开展，但在手术技术上存在一些争论。现就成人间活体右半肝移植供肝血管及胆管解剖变异和在受体重建时的相应处理复习文献，并总结如下。     

微创技术在活体肝移植供肝切取中的应用进展

由于供体匮乏．临床上尸体肝移植的开展受到一定制约．活体肝移植的出现扩展了新的渠道．增加了供肝来源。1988年．巴西Raia等11l首次进行了活体肝移植的尝试，随后澳大利亚Strong等日成功实施了活体肝移植手术。随着手术技术的提高、临床经验的丰富．活体肝移植逐渐成为治疗终末期肝病的一种相对安全而有效的手段刚。活体肝移植中．供体的安全一直是最受关注的问题．如何降低手术并发症发生率和死亡率、减小供体手术创伤、减轻供体痛苦并及早使供体达到生理和心理的康复．成为外科医师努力的方向和促进活体器官捐献的关键     

����ҽѧ�����ڻ������ֲ��ǰ�����е�Ӧ�ü�ֵ

活体肝移植的发展缓解了供肝不足和受体增加的矛盾,是目前治疗终末期肝病的最佳疗法。为保证肝移植手术的顺利进行及供、受体的安全性,术前供体肝脏体积评估以及了解肝内管道是否存在变异尤为重要。随着数字医学技术的不断发展,术前采用三维重建软件对供体肝脏进行个体化三维重建,测算肝脏体积、评估肝内管道以及进行虚拟手术,能够促进临床医生对肝脏空间结构的了解和对手术方案的评估,进一步保证了手术的安全性和可靠性,对于活体肝移植的术前评估有非常重要的临床意义。     

计算机断层摄影术测定供肝体积在活体肝移植中的应用价值

肝移植是治疗终末期肝病的最佳方法,由于尸体肝脏的获取越来越困难,活体肝移植(living donor liver transplantation,LDLT)越来越受到移植界医师的重视。受体与移植物应恰当匹配,这要求施术者必须准确评估供肝体积。同时为了保证供体的     

公民逝世后器官捐献供肝移植31例临床效果分析

目的总结公民逝世后器官捐献供肝用于肝移植的临床经验及疗效分析。方法回顾性分析2007年1月至2014年12月中国人民解放军第303医院收治的31例公民逝世后器官捐献肝移植病例的临床资料。结果 31例供体中符合中国标准Ⅰ类8例、Ⅱ类3例、Ⅲ类20例。按规范器官获取流程取得供肝。供肝的热缺血时间为2~13 min,平均为9 min;冷缺血时间为240~600 min,平均为350 min。31例受体均顺利完成肝移植手术。其中29例受体恢复良好,肝功能逐渐恢复,未出现血栓形成、排斥反应,4例出现胆道狭窄并发症,经胆道支架置入术后引流通畅;重症监护室(ICU)停留时间平均8 d,术后住院时间平均21 d,病情稳定后出院。受体总体存活率为81%,1例术后2 d死于原发性肝脏无功能,1例死于术后肺部感染,4例肿瘤受者死于肿瘤复发转移。结论公民逝世后器官捐献可以扩大供肝来源且近期效果良好。逐渐完善捐献供体器官功能保护措施,严格掌握供者适应证、加强器官功能评估、缩短热冷缺血时间,是改善临床效果的重要措施。     

Living donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation: a surgeon‐matched comparison of recipient morbidity and outcomes

Informed consent for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) requires that patients are provided with accurate information on the relative benefits and risks of this procedure compared with deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). There is strong evidence to suggest that LDLT facilitates timely transplantation to patients; however, information on the relative morbidity and death risks after LDLT as compared with DDLT is limited. A matched cohort comparison was performed matching recipients for age, MELD, date of transplant, gender, primary diagnosis, and recipient surgeon. A total of 145 LDLT were matched with 145 DDLT. LDLT had a higher overall rate of perioperative surgical complications (P = 0.009). Most of this difference was caused by a higher rate of biliary complications. However, the complications that occurred in the DDLT group tended to be more serious (P = 0.037), and these complications were strongly associated with graft loss in multivariate analysis. The 3‐ and 5‐year graft and patient survivals were similar. In conclusion, DDLT and LDLT have different complication profiles, but comparable hospital stays and survival rates. In areas of deceased donor organ shortages, LDLT offers an excellent alternative to DDLT because it facilitates access to a liver transplant without compromising short‐ or medium‐term recipient outcomes.     

儿童终末期肝病模型评分用于预测婴幼儿活体肝移植预后的作用

目的探讨儿童终末期肝病模型(PELD)评分系统用于预测婴幼儿活体肝移植预后的作用。方法回顾性分析2006年10月至2012年12月上海交通大学医学院附属仁济医院肝脏外科收治的101例小儿活体肝移植临床资料。患儿术前诊断均为胆道闭锁。术前对每例患儿进行PELD评分,根据PELD评分将患儿分为两组:低分组(PELD评分16分,62例)和高分组(PELD评分≥16分,39例)。比较两组患儿围手术期的基本情况及术后并发症发生率。结果两组患儿的手术年龄和体重差异均有统计学意义(均为P0.05),但两组性别、移植物(肝)重量/受体的体重、供肝冷缺血时间、术中失血量等差异均无统计学意义(均为P0.05)。PELD高分组患儿移植术后的肺部感染和胆道并发症发生率均明显高于低分组(均为P0.05)。结论术前PELD评分可用于预测婴幼儿肝移植的预后,为婴幼儿肝移植的围手术期的治疗、监护及护理措施的制定提供参考。对于术前PELD评分较高的患儿,应加强围手术期并发症的监护处理。     

Resource Utilization of Living Donor Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation Is Similar at an Experienced Transplant Center

Although living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been shown to decrease waiting-list mortality, little is known of its financial impact relative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). We performed a retrospective cohort study of the comprehensive resource utilization, using financial charges as a surrogate measure—from the pretransplant through the posttransplant periods—of 489 adult liver transplants (LDLT n = 86; DDLT n = 403) between January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2006, at a single center with substantial experience in LDLT. Baseline characteristics differed between LDLT versus DDLT with regards to age at transplantation (p = 0.02), male gender (p < 0.01), percentage Caucasians (p < 0.01) and transplant model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (p < 0.01). In univariate analysis, there was a trend toward decreased total transplant charges with LDLT (p = 0.06), despite increased surgical charges associated with LDLT (p < 0.01). After adjustment for the covariates that were associated with financial charges, there was no significant difference in total transplant charges (p = 0.82). MELD score at transplant was the strongest driver of resource utilization. We conclude that at an experienced transplant center, LDLT imposes a similar overall financial burden than DDLT, despite the increased complexity of living donor surgery and the addition of the costs of the living donor. We speculate that LDLT optimizes transplantation by transplanting healthier and younger recipients.     

Selection of liver-transplant candidates for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation as the only surgical option for end-stage liver disease.

The selection of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) recipients in regions where deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) is rarely performed might be different from that in other centers at which LDLT is an alternative option to DDLT. Records of adult (age > or = 18 yr) patients referred to our center were reviewed to analyze the selection process of LDLT candidates. Among the 533 LDLT candidates, 165 (31%) were rejected due to recipient issues. Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was the most common reason for rejection (n = 55). Among the remaining recipients, 120 patients (22%) were rejected due to donor issues. LDLT was eventually performed in 249 (47%) of the evaluated recipients. There are few options for candidates who are unable to find live donors in regions where DDLT is unrealistic. A more effective and precise approach to recipient and donor evaluation should be pursued.     

Donor‐Specific HLA Antibodies in Living Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplant Recipients

With less ischemia, improved donor selection and controlled procedures, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) might lead to less HLA donor‐specific antibody (DSA) formation or fewer adverse outcomes than deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Using the multicenter A2ALL (Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study) biorepository, we compared the incidence and outcomes of preformed and de novo DSAs between LDLT and DDLT. In total, 129 LDLT and 66 DDLT recipients were identified as having serial samples. The prevalence of preformed and de novo DSAs was not different between DDLT and LDLT recipients (p = 0.93). There was no association between patient survival and the timing (preformed vs. de novo), class (I vs. II) and relative levels of DSA between the groups; however, preformed DSA was associated with higher graft failure only in DDLT recipients (p = 0.01). De novo DSA was associated with graft failure regardless of liver transplant type (p = 0.005) but with rejection only in DDLT (p = 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, DSA was an independent risk factor for graft failure regardless of liver transplant type (p = 0.017, preformed; p = 0.002, de novo). In conclusion, although similar in prevalence, DSA may have more impact in DDLT than LDLT recipients. Although our findings need further validation, future research should more robustly test the effect of donor type and strategies to mitigate the impact of DSA.     

Survival following right lobe split graft,living‐ and deceased‐donor liver transplantation in adult patients: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Graft and patient survival outcomes following split liver transplantation (SLT), living‐donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and deceased‐donor liver transplantation (DDLT) were estimated using Bayesian network meta‐analysis. Databases were searched for relevant articles over the previous 20 years (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar). Systematic review, pairwise meta‐analysis and Bayesian network meta‐analysis were performed. Pairwise meta‐analysis demonstrated that there were no significant differences in graft and patient survival outcomes. Consequently, Bayesian network meta‐analysis demonstrated no significant differences in 1‐, 3‐ and 5‐year graft and patient survival between the three alternative liver transplantations. No discrepancies were demonstrated after comparisons of direct and indirect evidence of 1‐, 3‐ and 5‐year patient and graft survival of the three node‐split models namely SLT, LDLT and DDLT. The 1‐, 3‐ and 5‐year graft and patient survival of the SLT and LDLT cohorts compared to the DDLT cohort demonstrated no significant differences. The direct and indirect evidence of this study can serve as comparator for future studies.     

Comparative Analysis of Outcomes in Living and Deceased Donor Liver Transplants for Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

Introduction  Primary sclerosing cholangitits (PSC) is a progressive fibrosing cholangiopathy eventually leading to end-stage liver disease (ESLD). While literature for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for PSC abounds, only a few reports describe live donor liver transplant (LDLT) in the setting of PSC. We present a single-center experience on survival outcomes and disease recurrence for LDLT and DDLT for ESLD secondary to PSC. Aim  The aim of this study was to analyze survival outcomes and disease recurrence for LDLT and DDLT for ESLD secondary to PSC. Patients and Methods  A retrospective review of 58 primary liver transplants for PSC-associated ESLD, performed between May 1995 and January 2007, was done. Patients were divided into two groups based on donor status. Group 1 (n = 14) patients received grafts from living donors, while group 2 (n = 44) patients received grafts from deceased donors. An analysis of survival outcomes and disease recurrence was performed. Recurrence was confirmed based on radiological and histological criteria. Results  Recurrence of PSC was observed in four patients in LDLT group and seven in DDLT group. Retransplantation was required in one patient in LDLT group and nine patients in DDLT group. One patient (7%) among LDLT and six patients (14%) among DDLT died. The difference in patient and graft survival was not statistically significant between the two groups (patient survival, p = 0.60; graft survival, p = 0.24). Conclusion  This study demonstrates equivalent survival outcomes between LDLT and DDLT for PSC; however, the rate of recurrence may be higher in patients undergoing LDLT.     

Graft harvest of right posterior segment for living-donor liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Right posterior segmental graft (RPSG) is an alternative procedure for living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Although the first case of RPSG was reported in 2001, it has not been disseminated because of the lack of popularity, technical concerns, and surgical difficulties.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 37-year-old man with primary sclerosing cholangitis. His spouse was the only transplantation candidate, although she was ABO incompatible. Preoperative investigations revealed that left-lobe graft was insufficient for the recipient and that right-lobe graft was accompanied by donor risk. In RPSG, estimated graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) and estimated ratio of liver remnant were reasonable. In the donor operation, the right hepatic vein (RHV) and demarcation line were confirmed, and intraoperative cholangiography was performed. The cut line was carefully considered based on the demarcation line and RHV. The RPSG was harvested. Actual GRWR was 0.54. Unfortunately, this recipient showed a poor course and outcome after LDLT.

DISCUSSION

Segmental branches of vessels and biliary duct may be not suitable for reconstruction, and surgeons must exercise some ingenuity in the recipient operation. Segmental territory based on inflow and that based on outflow never overlap completely, even in the same segment. The selection of RPSG based only on liver volume may be unfeasible. Liver resection should be carefully considered based on preoperative imaging, and demarcation line and RHV during surgery.

CONCLUSION

RPSG is a useful tool for LDLT. However, detailed studies before surgery and careful consideration during surgery are important for RPSG harvest.     

Live Donor Liver Transplantation: A Valid Alternative for Critically Ill Patients Suffering From Acute Liver Failure

We report the outcome of live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for patients suffering from acute liver failure (ALF). From 2006 to 2013, all patients with ALF who received a LDLT (n = 7) at our institution were compared to all ALF patients receiving a deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT = 26). Groups were comparable regarding pretransplant ICU stay (DDLT: 1 [0–7] vs. LDLT: 1 days [0–10]; p = 0.38), mechanical ventilation support (DDLT: 69% vs. LDLT: 57%; p = 0.66), inotropic drug requirement (DDLT: 27% vs. LDLT: 43%; p = 0.64) and dialysis (DDLT: 2 vs. LDLT: 0 patients; p = 1). Median evaluation time for live donors was 24 h (18–72 h). LDLT versus DDLT had similar incidence of overall postoperative complications (31% vs. 43%; p = 0.66). No difference was detected between LDLT and DDLT patients regarding 1‐ (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%), 3‐ (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%), and 5‐ (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%) year graft and patient survival (p = 0.63). No severe donor complication (Dindo–Clavien ≥3 b) occurred after live liver donation. ALF is a severe disease with high mortality on liver transplant waiting lists worldwide. Therefore, LDLT is an attractive option since live donor work‐up can be expedited and liver transplantation can be performed within 24 h with excellent short‐ and long‐term outcomes.     

Early postoperative renal dysfunction in the adult living donor liver transplantation

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a widely accepted treatment for end-stage liver diseases. Renal dysfunction, a frequent complication after liver transplantation, has an unfavorable effect on the prognosis. Despite special characteristics of LDLT, such as small-for-size graft syndrome (SFS), the relations between graft size and postoperative renal dysfunction have not been evaluated. So we described the relevance of previously known risk factors with SFS (graft-recipient body weight ratio [GRWR] < 0.8%) and early postoperative renal dysfunction in LDLT. The study population consisted of adults who received LDLT from May 1996 to November 2005. The 284 patients who were followed to 3 months after LDLT were classified as group I (n = 201, creatinine < 1.5 mg/dL) versus group II (n = 83, creatinine > or = 1.5 mg/dL). Univariate analysis showed renal dysfunction in the early postoperative period was related to preoperative total bilirubin, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, prothrombin time level, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, GRWR, presence of preoperative renal dysfunction, transfusion of packed red blood cell, fresh frozen plasma, cryoprecipitate, reoperation, and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT). Upon multivariate analysis, MELD score, GRWR, preoperative renal dysfunction, and need for RRT were related to early postoperative renal dysfunction. In conclusion, there was a significant relationship between SFS (GRWR < 0.8) and early postoperative renal dysfunction.