Analysis and Outcomes of Right Lobe Hepatectomy in 101 Consecutive Living Donors

The shortage of deceased organ donors has created a need for right lobe living donor liver transplantation (RLDLT) in adults. Concerns regarding donor safety, however, necessitate continuous assessment of donor acceptance criteria and documentation of donor morbidity. We report the outcomes of our first 101 donors who underwent right lobectomy between April 2000 and November 2004. The cohort comprised 58 men and 43 women with a median age of 37.8 years (range: 18.6-55 years); median follow-up is 24 months. The middle hepatic vein (MHV) was taken with the graft in 55 donors. All complications were recorded prospectively and stratified by grade according to Clavien's classification. Overall morbidity rate was 37%; all complications were either grade 1 or 2, and the majority occurred during the first 30 days after surgery. Removal of the MHV did not affect morbidity rate. There were significantly fewer complications in the later half of our experience. All donors are well and have returned to full activities. With careful donor selection and specialized patient care, low morbidity rates can be achieved after right hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation.     

Income of Living Kidney Donors and the Income Difference Between Living Kidney Donors and Their Recipients in the United States

Disincentives for living kidney donation are common but are poorly understood. We studied 54 483 living donor kidney transplants in the United States between 2000 and 2009, limiting to those with valid zip code data to allow determination of median household income by linkage to the 2000 U.S. Census. We then determined the income and income difference of donors and recipients. The median household income in donors and recipients was $46 334 ±$17 350 and $46 439 ±$17 743, respectively. Donation‐related expenses consume ≥ 1 month's income in 76% of donors. The mean ± standard deviation income difference between recipients and donors in transplants involving a wealthier recipient was $22 760 ± 14 792 and in 90% of transplants the difference was <$40 000 dollars. The findings suggest that the capacity for donors to absorb the financial consequences of donation, or of recipients to reimburse allowable expenses, is limited. There were few transplants with a large difference in recipient and donor income, suggesting that the scope and value of any payment between donors and recipients is likely to be small. We conclude that most donors and recipients have similar modest incomes, suggesting that the costs of donation are a significant burden in the majority of living donor transplants.     

Left Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation in Adults

Adult left lobe (LL) living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has not generally been recognized as a feasible procedure because of the problem of graft size. The objectives of this study were to assess the feasibility and short‐ and long‐term results of adult LL LDLT in comparison with right lobe (RL) LDLT. Data on 200 consecutive LL LDLTs, including five retransplants, were retrospectively compared with those of 112 RL LDLTs, in terms of survival, complications and donor morbidity. The mean graft weight to standard volume ratio of LL grafts was 38.7% whereas that of RL grafts was 47.6% (p < 0.0001). The 1‐, 5‐ and 10‐year patient survival rates of LL LDLT were 85.6%, 77.9% and 69.5%, respectively, which were comparable to those of RL LDLT (89.8%, 71.3% and 70.7%, respectively). The incidence of small‐for‐size syndrome was higher in LL LDLT (19.5%) than in RL LDLT (7.1%) (p < 0.01). The overall donor morbidity rates were comparable between LL (36.0%) and RL (34.8%), whereas postoperative liver function tests and hospital stay were significantly better (p < 0.0001) in LL donors. In conclusion, adult LL LDLT has comparable outcomes to that of RL LDLT. LL LDLT is viable and is the first choice in adult LDLT.     

A Comparison of Surgical Outcomes and Quality of Life Surveys in Right Lobe vs. Left Lateral Segment Liver Donors

Concern remains regarding the possibly higher risk to living liver donors of the right lobe (RL), as compared with the left lateral segment (LLS). We studied outcomes and responses to quality of life (QOL) surveys in the two groups.
From 1997 to 2004, we performed 49 living donor liver transplants (LDLTs): 33 RL and 16 LLS. Notable differences included a higher proportion of female and unrelated donors in the RL group. A significantly larger liver mass was resected in RL (vs. LLS) donors: 720 (vs. 310) g, p = 0.01; RL donors also had greater blood loss (398 vs. 240 mL, p = 0.04) and operative times (7.2 vs. 5.7 h, p = 0.05). However, those findings did not translate into significant differences in donor morbidity. The complication rate was 12.5% in LLS donors and 9.1% in RL donors (p = ns). Per a QOL survey at 6 months postdonation, no significant differences were noted in SF-12 scores for the two groups. Recovery times were somewhat longer for RL donors. Mean time off work was 61.0 days for RL donors and 32.4 days for LLS donors (p = 0.004).
RL donation is associated with greater operative stress for donors, but not necessarily with a more complicated recovery or differences in QOL.     

Kidney Transplant Outcomes for Prior Living Organ Donors

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network gives priority in kidney allocation to prior live organ donors who require a kidney transplant. In this study, we analyzed the effect of this policy on facilitating access to transplantation for prior donors who were wait-listed for kidney transplantation in the United States. Using 1:1 propensity score–matching methods, we assembled two matched cohorts. The first cohort consisted of prior organ donors and matched nondonors who were wait-listed during the years 1996–2010. The second cohort consisted of prior organ donors and matched nondonors who underwent deceased donor kidney transplantation. During the study period, there were 385,498 listings for kidney transplantation, 252 of which were prior donors. Most prior donors required dialysis by the time of listing (64% versus 69% among matched candidates; P=0.24). Compared with matched nondonors, prior donors had a higher rate of deceased donor transplant (85% versus 33%; P<0.001) and a lower median time to transplantation (145 versus 1607 days; P<0.001). Prior donors received higher-quality allografts (median kidney donor risk index 0.67 versus 0.90 for nondonors; P<0.001) and experienced lower post-transplant mortality (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.08 to 0.46; P<0.001) than matched nondonors. In conclusion, these data suggest that prior organ donors experience brief waiting time for kidney transplant and receive excellent-quality kidneys, but most need pretransplant dialysis. Individuals who are considering live organ donation should be provided with this information because this allocation priority will remain in place under the new US kidney allocation system.     

Recipient Outcomes for Expanded Criteria Living Kidney Donors: The Disconnect Between Current Evidence and Practice

Older individuals or those with medical complexities are undergoing living donor nephrectomy more than ever before. Transplant outcomes for recipients of kidneys from these living expanded criteria donors are largely uncertain. We systematically reviewed studies from 1980 to June 2008 that described transplant outcomes for recipients of kidneys from expanded criteria living donors. Results were organized by the following criteria: older age, obesity, hypertension, reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR), proteinuria and hematuria. Pairs of reviewers independently evaluated each citation and abstracted data on study and donor characteristics, recipient survival, graft survival, serum creatinine and GFR. Transplant outcomes for recipients of kidneys from older donors (≥60 years) were described in 31 studies. Recipients of kidneys from older donors had poorer 5-year patient and graft survival than recipients of kidneys from younger donors [meta-analysis of 12 studies, 72% vs. 80%, unadjusted relative risk (RR) of survival 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83–0.95]. In meta-regression, this association diminished over time (1980s RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65–0.96 vs. 1990s RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85–0.99). Few transplant outcomes were described for other expanded criteria. This disconnect between donor selection and a lack of knowledge of recipient outcomes should give transplant decision-makers pause and sets an agenda for future research.     

Anesthesia Management and Fluid Therapy in Right and Left Lobe Living Donor Hepatectomy

Objective

Right lobe living donor hepatectomy poses a greater risk for the donor in relation to blood loss. The aims of this study were to compare anesthetic and intraoperative fluid management in right and left lateral segment living donor hepatectomy.

Long‐Term Medical and Psychosocial Outcomes in Living Liver Donors

Due to the enduring organ shortage, living donor liver transplantation has been a valuable treatment strategy for advanced liver disease patients for over 20 years. A variety of reviews have summarized the extensive data now available on medical and psychosocial risks to living donors in the aftermath of donation. However, evidence on donor medical and psychosocial outcomes beyond the first year postdonation has not been synthesized in any previous review. The evidence base on such “long‐term” outcomes has been growing in recent years. A review of this evidence would therefore be timely and could serve as an important resource to assist transplant centers in their efforts to fully educate prospective donors and gain informed consent, as well as develop appropriate postdonation clinical care and surveillance plans. We reviewed recent literature on long‐term donor outcomes, considering (a) medical outcomes, including mortality risk, rates of complications, abnormalities detected in laboratory testing, and the progress of liver regeneration; and (b) donor‐reported psychosocial outcomes reflecting physical, emotional, and interpersonal/socioeconomic well‐being, as well as overall health‐related quality of life. We summarize limitations and gaps in available evidence, and we provide recommendations for future research and clinical care activities focused on long‐term outcomes in liver donors.     

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.     

左外区活体肝移植动脉的临床应用解剖研究

目的 观察肝左区肝动脉解剖结构，模拟肝左外区活体肝移植动脉切取方法。方法 解剖非肝病死亡之成人甲醛固定尸体肝脏标本30例，观察新鲜成人尸体肝脏铸型标本30例，测量肝左及左外区动脉长度、管径及属支分布情况。结果 左半肝动脉的血供来自肝固有动脉、肝左动脉、肝中动脉，肝外迷走动脉支有左膈下动脉、胃左动脉和胃右动脉，并于不同部位发出后分别进入左外区上、下段。结论 左半肝动脉主要有5种类型，因此解剖变异较多，左外区活体取肝前应仔细研究其结构特点，设计合理的切取模式；移植前肝动脉需进行必要的整形，以便与受体动脉吻合。     

Short- and Long-Term Impacts of Overweight Status on Outcomes Among Living Liver Donors

PurposeIn recent years, the increasing number of obese individuals in Japan has made transplant teams sometimes forced to select candidates with a high body mass index (BMI) as marginal donors in living donor liver transplantation. However, data are lacking regarding the impact of a high BMI on the outcome for liver donors, particularly over the long term. Here, we aimed to clarify the impact of a high BMI on postoperative short- and long-term outcomes in liver donors.MethodsWe selected 80 cases that had complete 5-year data available from hepatectomies performed in 2005 to 2015 in our institute. We divided donors into overweight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m², n = 16) and normal-weight (BMI < 25, n = 64) groups.ResultsPreoperatively, the overweight group had significantly higher preoperative levels of serum alanine aminotransferase and γ-glutamyl transpeptidase and a larger liver volume than the normal-weight group. Although the overweight group had significantly greater intraoperative blood loss (660 ± 455 vs 312 ± 268 mL, P = .0018) and longer operation times (463 ± 88 vs 386 ± 79 min, P = .0013), the groups showed similar frequencies of postoperative complications. At 1 year post hepatectomy, liver regeneration and spleen enlargement ratios did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. Remarkably, the overweight group showed significantly higher serum γ-glutamyl transpeptidase levels over the long term.ConclusionsOverweight status alone was not a risk factor for either short- or long-term postoperative outcomes after a donor hepatectomy. However, donors with elevated γ-glutamyl transpeptidase levels, which was frequent among overweight donors, may require special attention.     

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.     

Accepting Kidneys from Older Living Donors: Impact on Transplant Recipient Outcomes

Older living kidney donors are regularly accepted. Better knowledge of recipient outcomes is needed to inform this practice. This retrospective cohort study observed kidney allograft recipients from Ontario, Canada between January 2000 and March 2008. Donors to these recipients were older living (≥60 years), younger living, or standard criteria deceased (SCD). Review of medical records and electronic healthcare data were used to perform survival analysis. Recipients received 73 older living, 1187 younger living and 1400 SCD kidneys. Recipients of older living kidneys were older than recipients of younger living kidneys. Baseline glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of older kidneys was 13 mL/min per 1.73 m² lower than younger kidneys. Median follow‐up time was 4 years. The primary outcome of total graft loss was not significantly different between older and younger living kidney recipients [adjusted hazard ratio, HR (95%CI): 1.56 (0.98–2.49)]. This hazard ratio was not proportional and increased with time. Associations were not modified by recipient age or donor eGFR. There was no significant difference in total graft loss comparing older living to SCD kidney recipients [HR: 1.29 (0.80–2.08)]. In light of an observed trend towards potential differences beyond 4 years, uncertainty remains, and extended follow‐up of this and other cohorts is warranted.     

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.     

Correlation Between Portal Vein Anatomy and Bile Duct Variation in 407 Living Liver Donors

Our aim was to determine whether variant bile duct (BD) anatomy is associated with portal vein (PV) and/or hepatic artery (HA) anatomy. We examined the associations between BD anatomy and PV and/or HA anatomy in 407 living donor transplantation donors. We also examined whether the right posterior BD (RPBD) course was associated with the PV and/or HA anatomy. Variant PV, HA and BD anatomies were found in 11%, 25% and 25%, respectively, of 407 donors enrolled in this study. The presence of a variant BD was more frequently associated with a variant PV than with a normal PV (61% vs. 20%, p < 0.0001). By contrast, the presence of a variant HA was not associated with a variant BD. A supraportal RPBD was found in 357 donors (88%) and an infraportal RPBD was found in 50 donors (12%). An infraportal RPBD was significantly more common in donors with a variant PV than in donors with a normal PV (30% vs. 10%, p = 0.0004). Variant PV, but not variant HA, anatomies were frequently associated with variant BD anatomy. Additionally, an infraportal RPBD was more common in donors with a variant PV than in donors with a normal PV.     

Factors Affecting Persistent Splenomegaly After Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Using a Left Lobe

BackgroundThe aim of the present study was to evaluate spleen volume (SV) and the factors influencing it after adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (A2LDLT) using a left lobe.MethodsPretransplant computed tomography (CT) and post-transplant CT 2 years after A2LDLT were examined by volumetric analysis in 24 patients. We divided the recipients into the following 2 groups according to the post-transplant SV: >500 mL (Group A) and ≤500 mL (Group B). The factors affecting the change in post-transplant SV were compared between the 2 groups.ResultsThe mean pretransplant SV decreased significantly after A2LDLT. Platelet counts after living donor liver transplantation increased significantly relative to the pretransplant values. Post-transplant SV was >500 mL in 9 patients (Group A) and ≤500 mL in 15 (Group B). Pretransplant SV, platelet count, anhepatic time, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, post-transplant portal vein pressure >20 mm Hg, and post-transplant portal vein flow >250 mL/min/100 g graft weight showed significant differences between the 2 groups. Actual graft volume (GV) and GV/standard liver volume ratio showed no intergroup differences. Multivariate analysis showed that the only significant factor related to a post-transplant SV of >500 mL was the pretransplant SV. Post-transplant platelet counts were significantly increased from the pretransplant values in both Group A and Group B.ConclusionsPretransplant SV is the only significant factor predicting a SV of >500 mL after A2LDLT. However, even in patients with a SV of >500 mL, the platelet count increased significantly from the pretransplant value.     

Anatomical Boundary Between the Caudate Lobe of the Liver and Adjacent Segments Based on Three-Dimensional Analysis for Precise Resections

Background

Right hemihepatectomy or systematic resection of segment 7 or 8 involves partial resection of the paracaval portion of the caudate lobe. However, the boundary between the caudate lobe and segment 7 or 8 remains unclear. We examined the anatomical territory of the caudate lobe with special reference to the boundary between the paracaval portion and segment 7 or 8 for precise anatomical hepatectomies.

Methods

We enrolled 63 consecutive healthy donor candidates for living-donor liver transplantation from 2012 to 2014 in this study. The caudate lobe was defined according to Kumon’s subdivision system, and the boundary between the paracaval portion and segment 7 or 8 was investigated based on three-dimensional computed tomography scan images using SYNAPSE VINCENT^®.

Results

The paracaval portion of the liver protruded on the liver surface underneath the right diaphragm on the ventral side of the right hepatic vein (RHV) in 10 participants (16%) and on the dorsal side of the RHV in 9 participants (14%). A branch of the RHV, the “paracaval vein,” was found in all 63 participants and ran longitudinally along the right border of the paracaval portion (n =?30, 48%) and within segment 7 (n =?16, 25%) or segment 8 (n =?17, 27%).

Conclusions

The paracaval portion of the liver protruded on the liver surface underneath the right diaphragm in one third of our participants. The paracaval vein can be a landmark for the boundary between the caudate lobe and the segment 7 or 8 in half of the cases.