Tailoring the Type of Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Donor hepatectomies for adult living donor liver transplantations were performed in 200 consecutive donors to harvest a left liver (LL) graft (n = 5), a LL plus caudate lobe (LL + CL) graft (n = 63), a right liver (RL) graft (n = 86), a RL and middle hepatic vein (RL + MHV) graft (n = 28) or a right lateral sector (RLS) graft (n = 18). The graft type was selected so that at least 40% of the recipient's standard liver volume was harvested. No donor deaths occurred, and no significant differences in the morbidity rates among either donors or recipients were observed when the outcomes were stratified according to the graft type. Donors who donated RL exhibited higher values of serum total bilirubin and prothrombin time than those who donated non-RL (LL, LL + CL, RLS) grafts. The time taken for hilar dissection and parenchymal transection increased in the following order: RLS graft, LL graft and RL graft harvesting. In conclusion, non-RL grafting was more time consuming, but the hepatic functional loss in the donors was smaller. Our graft selection criteria were useful for reducing the use of RL grafts with acceptable morbidity in both donors and recipients.     

Outcomes of Donor Evaluations for Adult-to-Adult Right Hepatic Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation

The purpose of this study is to determine the role of liver biopsy and outcome of patients undergoing donor evaluation for adult-to-adult right hepatic lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Records of patients presenting for a comprehensive donor evaluation between 1997 and February 2005 were reviewed. Liver biopsy was performed only in patients with risk factors for abnormal histology. Two hundred and sixty patients underwent a comprehensive donor evaluation and 116 of 260 (45%) were suitable for donation, 14 of 260 (5.4%) did not complete evaluation and 130 of 260 (50%) were rejected. Four patients underwent unsuccessful hepatectomy surgery due to discovery of intraoperative abnormalities. Between 1997 and 2001, the acceptance rate of donor candidates (63%) was higher than 2002-2005 (36%), p < 0.0001. Sixty-six of the 150 eligible patients (44%) fulfilled criteria for liver biopsy and 28 of 66 (42%) had an abnormal finding. Less than half of the patients undergoing donor evaluation were suitable donors and the donor acceptance rate has declined over time. A large proportion of the patients undergoing liver biopsy have abnormal findings. Our evaluation process failed to identify 4 of 103 who had aborted donor surgeries.     

Intraoperative ‘No Go’ Donor Hepatectomies in Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Donor safety is the paramount concern of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Although LDLT is employed worldwide, there is little data on rates and causes of ‘no go’ hepatectomies—patients brought to the operating room for possible donor hepatectomy whose procedure was aborted. We performed a single‐center, retrospective review of all patients brought to the operating room for donor hepatectomy between October 2000 and November 2008. Of 257 right lobe donors, the donor operation was aborted in 12 cases (4.7%). The main reasons for stopping the operation were aberrant ductal or vascular anatomy (seven cases), unsuitable liver quality (three cases) or unexpected intraoperative events (two cases). Over the median period of follow‐up of 23 months, there were no long‐term complications of patients with aborted donor procedures. This report focuses exclusively on an important issue: the frequency and causes of no go decisions at a single large volume North American LDLT center. The rate of no go donor hepatectomies should be as low as possible without compromising donor safety—however, even with rigorous preoperative evaluation the rate of donor abortions will be significant. The default surgical position should always be to abort the donor operation if there is an unexpected finding that places the donor at increased risk.     

Discontinuation of Living Donor Liver Transplantation due to Donor's Intraoperative Latex-Induced Anaphylactic Shock

We report on a 33-year-old female liver donor candidate who developed intraoperative latex-induced anaphylactic shock during surgery for living donor transplantation. She was the mother of the organ recipient, who was a 9-year-old boy with biliary atresia. We planned extended lateral segmentectomy for her. Although we dissected the ligament around the left lobe, the systolic blood pressure suddenly dropped and her body became flushed and warm. We administered transfusion and an ephedrine injection to recover the blood pressure. Because she recovered after the treatment, we restarted the procedure. However, she went into shock again within a few minutes. We decided to discontinue the operation. Postoperative blood tests revealed an increase in IgE-RAST and basophil activation, suggesting that the anaphylactic shock was induced by latex. Because latex allergy has become a public health problem, this allergy should be kept in mind as a potential donor operation risk.     

Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) begun in response to deceased donor organ shortage and waiting list mortality, grew rapidly after its first general application in the United States in 1998. There are significant risks to the living donor, including the risk of death and substantial morbidity, and two highly publicized donor deaths have led to decreased LDLT since 2001. Significant improvements in outcomes have been seen over recent years that have not been reported in single center studies; however, LDLT still comprises less than 5% of adult liver transplants, significantly less than in kidney transplantation where living donors now comprise the majority. The ethics, optimal utility and application of LDLT remain to be defined. In addition, studies to date have focused on post-transplant outcomes and not included the potential impact of LDLT on waiting time mortality. Future analyses should include appropriate control or comparison groups that capture the effect of LDLT on overall mortality from the time of listing. Further growth of LDLT will depend on defining the optimal recipient and donor characteristics for this procedure as well as broader acceptance and experience in the public and in transplant centers.     

Auxiliary Partial Orthotopic Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Kyoto University Experience

Auxiliary partial orthotopic liver transplantation (APOLT) was initially indicated as a potentially reversible fulminant hepatic failure and non-cirrhotic metabolic liver disease to compensate for enzyme deficiency without complete removal of the native liver. We expand our indication of APOLT for small-for-size grafts to support the function of implanted grafts during the early post-operative period, and for ABO-incompatibility to sustain a patient's life if the patient has a graft failure. We retrospectively reviewed 31 patients undergoing APOLT from living donor. The indication of APOLT was fulminant hepatic failure in 6, non-cirrhotic metabolic liver disease in 6, small-for-size grafts in 13 and ABO-incompatible cases in 6. The cumulative survival rate for APOLT at 1 and 5 years was 57.9% and 50.6%, and 78.8% and 73.8% for standard LDLT. None of the patients who underwent transplantation with APOLT for fulminant hepatic failure had long-term patient survival. The incidence of acute cellular rejection was higher in APOLT (58.1%) than standard LDLT (35.0%). Biliary complication was higher and the need for retransplantation was greater in APOLT than standard LDLT (p < 0.01). The results suggest that the indications of APOLT should be reconsidered in view of the risk for complications and retransplantation.     

Portal Vein Complications in Pediatric Living Donor Liver Transplantation Using Left‐Side Grafts

The aim of this report is to assess the rate of portal vein complications (PVCs), the success rate of treatment for PVCs and the prognosis of patients with PVCs for pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Pre‐ and postoperative records of 521 pediatric LDLTs, using left‐side grafts were retrospectively reviewed. The overall rate of PVC was 9%, with early PVC occurring in nine patients (1.7%) with a mortality rate of 67% and late PVC in 38 patients (7.3%). Fifteen of these patients with late PVC showed complete portal vein occlusion despite various treatments, and in six of them the graft was lost. Histological examination revealed fibrosis in portal areas in 13 patients, around the central veins associated with cholestasis in the parenchyma in 10, and hepatocyte ballooning in 12. Correction of portal vein flow or retransplantation is necessary for the rescue of patients with early PVCs. Graft loss in the long term may be high with the occurrence of liver failure or portal hypertension related causes, such as hepatopulmonary syndrome and gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with late PVCs. For the rescue of these patients, especially for patients with body weight < 6 kg, regular monitoring of portal vein flow is essential.     

Sequential Pancreaticoduodenectomy after Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Cholagiocacinoma

Liver transplantation (LT) for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is often contraindicated due to concomitant occurrence of cholangiocarcinoma (CC). Cases of simultaneous pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with LT have been sporadically reported; however, the applicability of such an invasive procedure to patients with CC has not been validated. We report here a case of sequential PD performed 44 days after a successful living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using a left lobe graft. Although a clear pancreatic juice leakage through the drain persisted for days after surgery, the patient recovered from the complication and was discharged 32 days after the procedure. Currently, 1 year after LDLT, the patient is doing well with no evidence of recurrence. In conclusion, a sequential PD following LDLT is a safe and feasible option to treat CC complicating PSC. Long‐term follow‐up and accumulation of cases are necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of this procedure for this complicated disease.     

Reduced Mortality with Right-Lobe Living Donor Compared to Deceased-Donor Liver Transplantation When Analyzed from the Time of Listing

Right lobe living donor liver transplantation (RLDLT) is not yet a fully accepted therapy for patients with end-stage liver failure in the Western hemisphere because of concerns about donor safety and inferior recipient outcomes. An outcome analysis from the time of listing for all adult patients who were listed for liver transplantation (LT) at our center was performed. From 2000 to 2006, 1091 patients were listed for LT. One hundred fifty-four patients (LRD; 14%) had suitable live donors and 153 (99%) underwent RLDLT. Of the remaining patients (DD/Waiting List; n = 937), 350 underwent deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT); 312 died or dropped off the waiting list; and 275 were still waiting at the time of this analysis. The LRD group had shorter mean waiting times (6.0 months vs. 9.8 months; p < 0.001). Although medical model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores were similar at the time of listing, MELD scores at LT were significantly higher in the DD/Waiting List group (15.4 vs. 19.5; p = 0.002). Patients in Group 1 had a survival advantage with RLDLT from the time of listing (1-year survival 90% vs. 80%; p < 0.001). To our knowledge, this is the first report to document a survival advantage at time of listing for RLDLT over DDLT.     

Living Donor Liver Transplantation with Left Liver Graft

Small-for-size syndrome in LDLT is associated with graft exposure to excessive portal perfusion. Prevention of graft overperfusion in LDLT can be achieved through intraoperative modulation of portal graft inflow. We report a successful LDLT utilising the left lobe with a GV/SLV of only 20%. A 43 year-old patient underwent to LDLT at our institution. During the anhepatic phase a porto-systemic shunt utilizing an interposition vein graft anastomosed between the right portal branch and the right hepatic vein was performed. After graft reperfusion splenectomy was also performed. Portal vein pressure, portal vein flow and hepatic artery flow were recorded. A decrease of portal vein pressure and flow was achieved, and the shunt was left in place. The recipient post-operative course was characterized by good graft function. Small-for-size syndrome by graft overperfusion can be successfully prevented by utilizing inflow modulation of the transplanted graft. This strategy can permit the use of left lobe in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation.     

Long-Term Outcome of Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Post-Kasai Biliary Atresia

Our objective was to analyze problems in the perioperative management and long-term outcome of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for biliary atresia (BA). Many reports have described the effectiveness of liver transplantation (LT) for BA, particularly in pediatric cases, but little information is available regarding LT in adults (> or =16 years old). Between June 1990 and December 2004, 464 patients with BA underwent LDLT at Kyoto University Hospital, of whom 47 (10.1%) were older than 16 years. In this study, we compared the outcomes between adult (> or =16 years old) and pediatric (<16 years old) patients. The incidence of post-transplant intestinal perforation, intra-abdominal bleeding necessitating repeat laparotomy and biliary leakage was significantly higher (p < 0.0001, <0.001 and <0.001, respectively) in adults. Overall cumulative 1-, 5- and 10-year survival rates in pediatric patients were significantly higher (p < 0.005) than in adults. Two independent prognostic determinants of survival were identified: a MELD score over 20 and post-transplant complications requiring repeat laparotomy. Outcome of LDLT in adult BA patients was poorer than in pediatric patients. It seems likely that LT will be the radical treatment of choice for BA and that LDLT should be considered proactively at the earliest possible stage.     

Selective Use of Older Adults in Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Many centers are reluctant to use older donors (>44 years) for adult right-lobe living donor liver transplantation (RLDLT) due to concerns about possible increased morbidity in donors and poorer outcomes in recipients. Since 2000, 130 adult RLDLTs have been performed at our institution. Recipients were divided into those who received a right lobe graft from a donor ≤age 44 (n = 89, 68%; median age 30) and those who received a liver graft from a donor age >44 (n = 41, 32%; mean age 52). The two donor and recipient populations had similar demographic and operative profiles. With a median follow-up of 29 months, the severity and number of complications in older donors were similar to those in younger donors. No living donor died. Older donor allografts had initial allograft dysfunction compared to younger donors. Complication rates were similar among recipients in both groups but there was a higher bile duct stricture rate with older donor grafts (27% vs. 12%; p = 0.04). One-year recipient graft survival was 86% for older donors and 85% for younger donors (p = 0.95). Early experience with the use of selected older adults (>44 years) for RLDLT is encouraging, but may be associated with a higher rate of biliary complications in the recipient.     

Adult Right-Lobe Living Liver Donors: Quality of Life, Attitudes and Predictors of Donor Outcomes

To refine selection criteria for adult living liver donors and improve donor quality of care, risk factors for poor postdonation health-related quality of life (HRQOL) must be identified. This cross-sectional study examined donors who underwent a right hepatectomy at the University of Toronto between 2000 and 2007 (n = 143), and investigated predictors of (1) physical and mental health postdonation, as well as (2) willingness to participate in the donor process again. Participants completed a standardized HRQOL measure (SF-36) and measures of the pre- and postdonation process. Donor scores on the SF-36 physical and mental health indices were equivalent to, or greater than, population norms. Greater predonation concerns, a psychiatric diagnosis and a graduate degree were associated with lower mental health postdonation whereas older donors reported better mental health. The majority of donors (80%) stated they would donate again but those who perceived that their recipient engaged in risky health behaviors were more hesitant. Prospective donors with risk factors for lower postdonation satisfaction and mental health may require more extensive predonation counseling and postdonation psychosocial follow-up. Risk factors identified in this study should be prospectively evaluated in future research.     

Long‐Term Outcomes of Pediatric Living Donor Liver Transplantation in Japan: An Analysis of More Than 2200 Cases Listed in the Registry of the Japanese Liver Transplantation Society

The Japanese Liver Transplantation Society (JLTS) was established in 1980 in order to characterize and follow trends in patient characteristics and graft survival among all liver transplant patients in Japan. This study analyzed the comprehensive factors that may influence the outcomes of pediatric patients who undergo living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) by evaluating the largest cohort in the world. Between November 1989 and December 2010, 2224 pediatric patients underwent LDLT in Japan. There were 998 male (44.9%) and 1226 female donors (55.1%) without donor mortalities related to transplant surgery. There were 946 male (42.5%) and 1278 female (57.5%) recipients with a median age of 4.0 years (range: 13 days to 17.9 years). Cholestatic liver disease was the leading indication for LDLT (n = 1649; 76.2%), followed by metabolic disorders (n = 194; 8.7%), acute liver failure (n = 192; 8.6%) and neoplastic liver disease (n = 66; 3.0%). The 1‐, 5‐, 10‐ and 20‐year patient survival rates were 88.3%, 85.4%, 82.8% and 79.6%, respectively. Blood‐type incompatibility, recipient age, etiology of liver disease and transplant era were found to be significant predictors of overall survival. We are able to achieve satisfactory long‐term pediatric patient survival outcomes in the JLTS series without compromising the living donors.     

Allograft Survival Following Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (AALDLT) is emerging as a method to treat patients with end-stage liver disease. The aims of this study were to identify donor and recipient characteristics of AALDLT, to determine variables that affect allograft survival, and to examine outcomes compared with those achieved following cadaveric transplantation. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to examine characteristics associated with the survival of AALDLT. Survival of AALDLT was then compared with cadaveric allografts in multivariable Cox models. Older donor age (>44 years), female-to-male donor to recipient relationship, recipient race, and the recipient medical condition before transplant were factors related to allograft failure among 731 AALDLT. Despite favorable donor and recipient characteristics, the rate of allograft failure, specifically the need for retransplantation, was increased among AALDLT (hazard ratio 1.66, 95% C.I. = 1.30-2.11) compared with cadaveric recipients. In conclusion, among AALDLT recipients, selecting younger donors, placing the allografts in recipients who have not had a prior transplant and are not in the ICU, may enhance allograft survival. Analysis of this early experience with AALDLT suggests that allograft failure may be higher than among recipients of a cadaveric liver.     

Laparoscopic Living Donor Hepatectomy for Pediatric Liver Transplantation

Living donor liver transplantation is a well established modality, especially for pediatric transplantation with excellent early graft function and long-term results. Left lateral sectionectomy through open approach is a well-standardized procedure. Considering our acquired experience in both laparoscopic liver resection and standard open surgery for live donation in pediatric and adult patients, we decided to offer, for the first time in Belgium, a laparoscopic approach for the left lateral sectionectomy to a young mother. The patient was a child 6-months old, affected by biliary atresia and rapidly deteriorating while waiting on a deceased donor liver graft. Surgical technique and key-points of this procedure in the living donor are hereby discussed.     

Successful Living Donor Liver Transplantation in Portomesenteric Thrombosis

Chronic portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is often considered a relative contraindication for living donor liver transplantation due to the risks involved and higher morbidity. In this report, we describe a surgical strategy for living donor liver transplant in patient with complete PVT using venovenous bypass from the inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) and then using a jump graft from the IMV for portal inflow into the graft. IMV is a potential source for portal inflow in orthotopic liver transplant.     

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.