Pediatric living donor liver transplantation with large‐for‐size left lateral segment grafts

Usage of “large‐for‐size” left lateral segment (LLS) liver grafts in children with high graft to recipient weight ratio (GRWR) is controversial due to concerns about increased recipient complications. During the study period, 77 pediatric living donor liver transplantations (LDLTs) with LLS grafts were performed. We compared recipients with GRWR ≥2.5% (GR‐High = 50) vs GRWR <2.5% (GR‐Low = 27). Median age was higher in the GR‐Low group (40 vs 8 months, P> .0001). Graft (GR‐High: 98%, 98%, 98% vs GR‐Low: 96%, 93%, 93%) and patient (GR‐High: 98%, 98%, 98% vs GR‐Low: 100%, 96%, 96%) survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was similar between groups (P = NS). Overall complications were also similar (34% vs 30%; P = .8). Hepatic artery and portal vein thrombosis following transplantation was not different (P = NS). Delayed abdominal fascia closure was more common in GR‐High patients (17 vs 1; P = .002). Subgroup analysis comparing recipients with GRWR ≥4% (GR‐XL = 20) to GRWR <2.5% (GRWR‐Low = 27) revealed that delayed abdominal fascia closure was more common in the GR‐XL group, but postoperative complications and graft and patient survival were similar. We conclude that pediatric LDLT with large‐for‐size LLS grafts is associated with excellent clinical outcomes. There is an increased need for delayed abdominal closure with no compromise of long‐term outcomes. The use of high GRWR expands the donor pool and improves timely access to the benefits of transplantation without extra risks.     

Factors associated with low graft regeneration in the early phase after living donor liver transplantation

Appropriate graft regeneration after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is crucial to avoid small‐for‐size syndrome. We enrolled 44 recipients who underwent ABO‐identical/compatible LDLT from December 2007 to August 2016 and determined possible factors associated with low graft regeneration after LDLT. Liver regeneration was calculated by the ratio of the graft size on postoperative day (POD) 7 ± 1 day (calculated by CT volumetry) to the size of the donated liver at implant. Postoperative outcomes were compared between the low and high regeneration groups. Median regeneration rate was 1.65‐fold. Regeneration rate was negatively correlated with graft‐to‐recipient weight ratio. Postoperative morbidity rates on POD 14‐90 were significantly higher in the low group compared with the high group (63% vs 18%, P = .03). Graft and patient survival in the low group were significantly worse than the high group (1‐year graft survival 73% vs 100%, P = .002; patient survival 82% vs 100%, P = .01). Cold ischemia time (CIT; per 10 minute; odds ratio [OR] =1.37) and platelet count <60 000/μL on POD 5 (OR = 14.32) were independently associated with low regeneration. In conclusion, longer CIT and postoperative thrombocytopenia were associated with low graft regeneration in the early phase after LDLT, which could consequently lead to poor graft and patient survival.     

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.     

Donor diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for diminished outcome after liver transplantation: a nationwide retrospective cohort study

With the growing incidence of diabetes mellitus (DM), an increasing number of organ donors with DM can be expected. We sought to investigate the association between donor DM with early post-transplant outcomes. From a national cohort of adult liver transplant recipients (1996–2016), all recipients transplanted with a liver from a DM donor (n = 69) were matched 1:2 with recipients of livers from non-DM donors (n = 138). The primary end-point included early post-transplant outcome, such as the incidence of primary nonfunction (PNF), hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT), and 90-day graft survival. Cox regression analysis was used to analyze the impact of donor DM on graft failure. PNF was observed in 5.8% of grafts from DM donors versus 2.9% of non-DM donor grafts (P = 0.31). Recipients of grafts derived from DM donors had a higher incidence of HAT (8.7% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.03) and decreased 90-day graft survival (88.4% [70.9–91.1] vs. 96.4% [89.6–97.8], P = 0.03) compared to recipients of grafts from non-DM donors. The adjusted hazard ratio for donor DM on graft survival was 2.21 (1.08–4.53, P = 0.03). In conclusion, donor DM is associated with diminished outcome early after liver transplantation. The increased incidence of HAT after transplantation of livers from DM donors requires further research.     

Anatomical variations of donor portal vein in right lobe living donor liver transplantation: the safe use of variant portal veins

In right lobe (RL) living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), portal vein (PV) variations are of immense clinical significance. In this study, we describe in detail our PV reconstruction techniques in RL grafts with variant PV anatomy and evaluate the impact of accompanying biliary variations on the recipient outcomes. In a total of 386 RL LDLTs performed between July 2004 and July 2012, the clinical data on 52 (13%) transplants using RL grafts with variant PV anatomy were retrospectively analyzed. Portal vein anatomy was classified as type 2 in 20 patients, type 3 in 24 patients, and type 4 in eight patients. The PV reconstruction techniques utilized included back‐wall plasty (n = 21), back‐wall plasty with saphenous vein graft interposition (n = 6), saphenous vein graft interposition (n = 5), cryopreserved iliac vein Y‐graft interposition (n = 6), and quiltplasty (n = 3). There was no donor mortality. In a median follow‐up of 29 months, none of the recipients had vascular complications. Anomalous PV anatomy was associated with a high (54%) incidence of biliary variations; however, these variations did not result in increased biliary complication rate. Overall, the 1‐ and 3‐year patient survival rates of recipients were 91% and 81%, respectively. Vascular and biliary variations in RL grafts render LDLT technically more challenging. By employing appropriate reconstruction techniques, it is possible to successfully use RL grafts with PV variations without endangering recipient and donor safety.     

(D+10) MELD as a novel predictor of patient and graft survival after adult to adult living donor liver transplantation

We modified the previously described D‐MELD score in deceased donor liver transplant, to (D+10)MELD to account for living donors being about 10 years younger than deceased donors, and tested it on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) recipients. Five hundred consecutive LDLT, between July 2010 and December 2012, were retrospectively analyzed to see the effect of (D+10)MELD on patient and graft survival. Donor age alone did not influence survival. Recipients were divided into six classes based on the (D+10)MELD score: Class 1 (0‐399), Class 2 (400‐799), Class 3 (800‐1199), Class 4 (1200‐1599), Class 5 (1600‐1999), and Class 6 (>2000). The 1 year patient survival (97.1, 88.8, 87.6, 76.9, and 75% across Class 1‐5, P=.03) and graft survival (97.1, 87.9, 82.3, 76.9, and 75%; P=.04) was significantly different among the classes. The study population was divided into two groups at (D+10)MELD cut off at 860. Group 1 had a significantly better 1 year patient (90.4% vs 83.4%; P=.02) and graft survival (88.6% vs 80.2%; P=.01). While donor age alone does not predict recipient outcome, (D+10)MELD score is a strong predictor of recipient and graft survival, and may help in better recipient/donor selection and matching in LDLT.     

Living donor liver transplantation or resection for Child‐Pugh A hepatocellular carcinoma patients with multiple nodules meeting the Milan criteria

The optimum primary treatment strategy for early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with multiple nodules remains unclear. We aimed to compare the outcomes of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) with that of liver resection (LR) for early Child‐Pugh A HCC patients with multiple nodules meeting the Milan criteria. From January 2007 to July 2012, 67 of 375 patients with early HCC in our centre fulfilled the inclusion criteria (group LDLT, n = 34 versus group LR, n = 33). Patient and tumour characteristics, operative data, postoperative course and outcomes were analysed retrospectively. The postoperative mortality and rate of major complications were similar in both groups. The 5‐year overall survival (OS; 76.5% vs. 51.2%, P = 0.046) and recurrence‐free survival (RFS; 72.0% vs. 19.8%, P = 0.000) were better in group LDLT than that in group LR. The 5‐year OS and RFS were similar between patients with tumours located in the same lobe (TSL) and those in the different lobes (TDL) after LDLT, whereas the 5‐year RFS was better in patients with tumours in TSL (30.6% vs. 0%, P = 0.012) after LR. In conclusion, primary LDLT might be the optimum treatment for early HCC patients with multiple nodules meeting the Milan criteria.     

Survival benefit of accepting livers from deceased donors over 70 years old

Livers from older donors (OLDs; age ≥70) are risky and often declined; however, it is likely that some candidates will benefit from OLDs versus waiting for younger ones. To characterize the survival benefit of accepting OLD grafts, we used 2009‐2017 SRTR data to identify 24 431 adult liver transplant (LT) candidates who were offered OLD grafts eventually accepted by someone. Outcomes from the time‐of‐offer were compared between candidates who accepted an OLD graft and matched controls within MELD ± 2 who declined the same offer. Candidates who accepted OLD grafts (n = 1311) were older (60.5 vs. 57.8 years, P < .001), had a higher median MELD score (25 vs. 22, P < .001), and were less likely to have hepatitis C cirrhosis (14.9% vs. 31.2%, P < .001). Five‐year cumulative mortality among those who accepted versus declined the same OLD offer was 23.4% versus 41.2% (P < .001). Candidates who accepted OLDs experienced an almost twofold reduction in mortality (aHR:_0.450.52_0.59, P < .001) compared to those who declined the same offer, especially among the highest MELD (35‐40) candidates (aHR:_0.100.24_0.55, P = .001). Accepting an OLD offer provided substantial long‐term survival benefit compared to waiting for a better organ offer, notably among candidates with MELD 35‐40. Providers should consider these benefits as they evaluate OLD graft offers.     

Donor Characteristics That Are Associated With Survival in Liver Transplant Recipients Older Than 70 Years With Grafts

IntroductionThe use of grafts from donors older than 70 years of age is increasing due to the decrease in the number of donors and the increase in waiting list patients.Material and MethodsWe undertook a univariate and multivariate analysis of 980 adult recipients of whole liver grafts, 129 of them from donors aged 70 years or older.ResultsNo differences were found in patient survival compared with recipients of younger grafts. There were no higher rates of rejection, vascular or biliary complications, postoperative bleeding, or infections, but older grafts were associated with graft dysfunction (P = .01) and a higher frequency of postoperative refractory ascites (P = .007), but without a greater need for retransplantation. As graft-associated factors, the joint presence in the donor of diabetes (P = .00; confidence interval [CI] = 0.04–0.117), hypertension (P = .00; CI = 0.22–0.39), and weight of more than 90 kg (P = .031; CI = 0.05–0.104) were suggestive of poor prognostic factors in recipient survival. Survival in hepatitis C virus (HCV) recipients or recipients aged older than 60 years was worse with donors aged older than 70 years, although not significantly so. With grafts from donors aged older than 80 years (n = 15), although patient survival rate was good (70% at 10 years), there was a higher rate of retransplantation (20%) and the early mortality rate was 13.3%.ConclusionsUse of grafts from donors aged older than 70 years is safe, with similar survival to patients with younger grafts. The appearance of initial dysfunction with prolonged ascites may be due to a delay in reaching a correct functionality, but was not associated with increased mortality, complications, or need for retransplantation. It should also be avoided in recipients older than 60 years or with HCV. Grafts older than 80 years were associated with a good long-term patient survival but at the expense of a higher rate of retransplantation. However, it helps to reduce the time on the waiting list and, thus, mortality. We noted decreased survival associated with donor hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, so these donors should be selected more rigorously.     

Comparative survival of elderly renal transplant recipients with a living donor versus a deceased donor: A retrospective single center observational study

Increasing numbers of elderly (≥65 years) patients are listed for kidney transplantation. This study compares the survival outcome between living (LDK), regularly allocated (ETKAS), and Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP) donor kidneys in elderly recipients. This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of elderly kidney transplant recipients transplanted between 2005 and 2017. Primary outcome measures were nondeath-censored graft, death-censored graft, and patient survival. In total, 348 patients were transplanted, 109 recipients (31.3%) received an LDK, 100 (28.7%) an ETKAS, and 139 (40%) an ESP kidney. 62.5% were male, and median age was 68 years. LDK recipients had significantly better 5-year nondeath-censored graft survival compared with ETKAS and ESP (resp. 71.0% vs. 66.1% vs. 55.6%, P = 0.047). Death-censored graft survival after 1 year was significantly better in LDK recipients (99.1%) (ETKAS 90.8%; ESP 87.7%, P < 0.001). After 5 years, the difference remained significant (P < 0.001) with little additional graft loss (97.7% vs. 88.1% vs. 85.6). There was no significant difference in patient survival after 5 years (71.7% vs. 67.4% vs 61.9%, P = 0.480). In elderly recipients, the patient survival benefits of an LDK are limited, but there is decreased death-censored graft loss for LDK recipients. Nevertheless, graft survival in ETKAS and ESP remains satisfactory.     

Management of Liver Transplantation Waiting List for Decompensated Cirrhosis in a Spanish Tertiary Hospital: Differences Between Hepatitis C Virus Recipients and Other Etiologies

BackgroundDecompensated cirrhosis due to hepatitis C virus (HCV) is one of the main indications for liver transplantation (LT) in Spain. Recurrence of HCV after LT is the main cause of graft loss and death in HCV-positive recipients. Advanced donor age determines a more aggressive recurrence of HCV and a shorter survival. In this setting, in our liver unit, grafts from younger donors are allocated to HCV-positive recipients. The aim of this study was a comparative analysis of allocation of grafts in HCV-positive recipients versus other etiologies and the impact on waiting list time, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score progression until LT, need of admission in a hospital, survival until LT.MethodsThis was a retrospective study from the cohort of patients included in the waiting list for LT owing to decompensated cirrhosis in the Hospital Gregorio Marañón from January 2008 to June 2013.ResultsA total of 91 patients were included; 63 patients (69.23%) received LT; 19 (20.88%) retired from the waiting list: 6 because of improvement, 11 (12.08%) because of death. In both groups, the age of recipients was similar (HCV 52 y vs other 53 y; P = .549). HCV patients were included in the waiting list with lower MELD score than other etiologies (HCV 16.1 vs other 19.4; P = .010); nevertheless, MELD score was similar at the time of LT in both groups (HCV 18.9 vs other 19.4; P = .675). Time on waiting list was significantly longer in HCV patients (198 d vs 86 d; P = .002) and they were admitted in hospital more days (30 d vs 12 d; P = .03). Donor age in the HCV group was significantly lower (64.3 y vs 54.7 y; P = .006). The intention-to-treat survival analysis did not show differences between the groups (log rank = 0.504).ConclusionsHCV patients with decompensated cirrhosis receive grafts from younger donors. HCV patients remain waiting longer for an optimal organ and suffer MELD deterioration and more days admitted in hospital. These differences in allocation of grafts did not affect final survival. In our experience, designating younger organs to HCV-positive patients does not penalize neither HCV recipients nor recipients with other etiologies.     

Impact of graft thickness reduction of left lateral segment on outcomes following pediatric living donor liver transplantation

Reducing graft thickness is essential to prevent large‐for‐size graft problems in pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). However, long‐term outcomes of LDLT using reduced‐thickness left lateral segment (LLS) grafts are unclear. In 89 patients who underwent LDLT using reduced LLS grafts between 2005 and 2017, short‐term and long‐term outcomes were compared between a nonanatomically reduced LLS (NAR‐LLS) graft group and a reduced‐thickness LLS graft group. Estimated blood loss was lower and abdominal skin closure was less needed in the recipient operation in the reduced‐thickness LLS graft group. Postoperatively, portal vein (PV) flow was significantly decreased in the NAR‐LLS graft group, and there was shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay and fewer postoperative complications, especially bacteremia, in the reduced‐thickness LLS graft group. Graft survival at 1 and 3 years after LDLT using reduced‐thickness LLS grafts was 95.2% and 92.4%, respectively, which was significantly better than for NAR‐LLS grafts. Multivariate analysis revealed that fulminant liver failure, hepatofugal PV flow before LDLT, and NAR‐LLS graft were associated with poor graft survival. In conclusion, LDLT using reduced‐thickness LLS grafts is a safe and feasible option with better short‐ and long‐term outcomes in comparison with NAR‐LLS grafts.     

Meta-analysis and meta-regression of outcomes for adult living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation

Prior single center or registry studies have shown that living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) decreases waitlist mortality and offers superior patient survival over deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for adult LDLT and DDLT via systematic review. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine patient survival and graft survival, MELD, waiting time, technical complications, and postoperative infections. Out of 8600 abstracts, 19 international studies comparing adult LDLT and DDLT published between 1/2005 and 12/2017 were included. U.S. outcomes were analyzed using registry data. Overall, 4571 LDLT and 66,826 DDLT patients were examined. LDLT was associated with lower mortality at 1, 3, and 5 years posttransplant (5-year HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.81–0.93], p < .0001), similar graft survival, lower MELD at transplant (p < .04), shorter waiting time (p < .0001), and lower risk of rejection (p = .02), with a higher risk of biliary complications (OR 2.14, p < .0001). No differences were observed in rates of hepatic artery thrombosis. In meta-regression analysis, MELD difference was significantly associated with posttransplant survival (R² 0.56, p = .02). In conclusion, LDLT is associated with improved patient survival, less waiting time, and lower MELD at LT, despite posing a higher risk of biliary complications that did not affect survival posttransplant.     

Clinical analysis of emergency liver transplantation: the role of living donor liver transplantation

The current liver allocation system requires reevaluation because of the advancements in peri‐transplantation care and surgical techniques. And, the role of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in an emergency has not been determined yet. Retrospective review of all patients undergoing emergency liver transplantation (LT) from January 2000 to June 2010 was conducted, and clinical data were analyzed. Of the total 505 LTs, 69 patients (13.7%) underwent an emergency LT. Of these, 54 patients (78.3%) underwent LDLT using a right liver, and 15 patients (21.7%) underwent deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The overall hospital mortality was 21.7% (15/69). The leading cause of death after transplantation was sepsis (60.0%). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a model for end‐stage liver disease (MELD) >33 [hazard ratio (HR), 16.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.443–191.632; p = 0.024] and existence of pre‐transplantation intubation (HR, 18.2; 95% CI, 1.463–225.483; p = 0.024) were independent factors associated with poor survival after emergency LT. LDLT group and DDLT group showed no difference in hospital mortality (p = 0.854) and graft survival (p = 0.861). Thus, MELD score and respiratory insufficiency could be parameters predicting post‐transplant survival. And, LDLT using the right liver could be an appropriate alternative to DDLT in an emergency.     

Considering extended right lobe grafts as major extended donor criteria in liver transplantation is justified

The outcomes of split-liver transplantation are controversial. This study compared outcomes and morbidity after extended right lobe liver transplantation (ERLT) and whole liver transplantation (WLT) in adults. MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were searched systematically and unrestrictedly for studies on ERLT and its impact on graft and patient survival, and postoperative complications. Graft loss and patient mortality odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were assessed by meta-analyses using Mantel–Haenszel tests with a random-effects model. Vascular and biliary complications, primary nonfunction, 3-month, 1-, and 3-year graft and patient survival, and retransplantation after ERLT and WLT were analyzed. The literature search yielded 10 594 articles. After exclusion, 22 studies (n = 75 799 adult transplant patients) were included in the analysis. ERLT was associated with lower 3-month (OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.09–1.89, P = 0.01), 1-year (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.08–1.97, P = 0.01), and 3-year (OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.01–1.84, P = 0.04) graft survival. WL grafts were less associated with retransplantation (OR = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.41–0.80; P < 0.01), vascular complications (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.38–0.74, P < 0.01) and biliary complications (OR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.47–0.95; P = 0.03). Considering ERLT as major Extended Donor Criteria is justified because ERL grafts are associated with vasculobiliary complications and the need for retransplantation, and have a negative influence on graft survival.     

Portal vein complications after adult‐to‐adult living donor liver transplantation

Successful management of portal vein (PV) complications after liver transplantation is crucial to long‐term success. Little information is available, however, regarding the incidence and treatment of PV complications after adult‐to‐adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Between January 1996 and October 2006, 310 adult LDLTs were performed at our institution. PV thrombus was present in 54 patients at the time of LDLT. The incidence of PV complications, choice of therapeutic intervention, and outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. Among the 310 recipients, PV complications were identified in 28 (9%). Risk factors included smaller graft size, presence of PV thrombus at the time of LDLT, and use of jump or interposition cryo‐preserved vein grafts for PV reconstruction. When divided into early (within 3 months, n = 11) and late (after 3 months, n = 17) complications, the use of vein grafts for PV reconstruction predisposed to the occurrence of late, but not early, PV complications. Portal vein thrombosis occurred more frequently in the early period (eight out of 11, 73%), whereas stenosis occurred more frequently in the later period (14 out of 17, 82%). Surgical interventions were favored in the earlier period, whereas interventional radiologic approaches were selected for later events. Overall 3‐ and 5‐year survival rates were 81% and 77%, respectively, in patients with PV complications and 88% and 84%, respectively, in those without PV complications (P = 0.21, log‐rank test). PV complications are a significant problem following LDLT with both early and late manifestations. Acceptable long‐term results, however, are achievable with periodic ultrasonographic surveillance and timely conventional therapeutic interventions. The use of cryo‐preserved vein grafts for reconstructing portal flow should be discouraged.     

Dual‐graft adult living donor liver transplantation with ABO‐incompatible graft: short‐term and long‐term outcomes

ABO‐incompatible (ABOi) dual‐graft (DG) adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT) is not commonly performed due to its inherently intricate surgical technique and immunological complexity. Therefore, data are lacking on the short‐ and long‐term clinical outcomes of ABOi DG ALDLT. We performed a retrospective study by reviewing the medical records of patients who underwent ABOi DG ALDLT between 2008 and 2014. Additionally, computed tomography volumetric analysis was conducted to assess the graft regeneration rate. The mean age of a total of 28 recipients was 50.2 ± 8.5 years, and the mean model for end‐stage liver disease score was 12.2 ± 4.6. The 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year patient survival rate was 96.4% during the mean follow‐up period of 57.0 ± 22.4 months. The 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year graft survival rate was 96.4%, 94.2%, and 92.0%, respectively, and no significant differences were observed between ABO‐compatible (ABOc) and ABOi grafts (P = .145). The biliary complication rate showed no significant difference (P = .195) between ABOc and ABOi grafts. Regeneration rates of ABOi grafts were not significantly different from those of ABOc grafts. DG ALDLT with ABOi and ABOc graft combination seems to be a feasible option for expanding the donor pool without additional donor risks.     

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.     

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Patients Older Than Age 70 Years: A Single‐Center Experience

Over the past two decades, the age of liver transplantation (LT) recipients has been increasing. We reviewed our experience with LT for patients aged ≥70 years (range: 70–78 years) and investigated the feasibility of performing LT, especially living donor LT (LDLT), for older patients. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 25 patients (15 LDLT recipients, 10 deceased donor LT recipients) aged ≥70 years who underwent LT from January 2000 to April 2016. Their perioperative morbidity rate was 28.0%, and the in‐hospital mortality rate was 16.0%; these results were comparable to those of matched patients in their 60s (n = 73; morbidity, p = 0.726; mortality, p = 0.816). For patients in their 70s, the 1‐ and 5‐year patient survival rates were 84.0% and 69.8%, and the 1‐ and 5‐year graft survival rates were 83.5% and 75.1%, respectively. Comparisons of patient and graft survival rates between matched patients in their 60s and 70s showed no statistically significant differences (patient survival, p = 0.372; graft survival, p = 0.183). Our experience suggests that patients aged ≥70 years should not be excluded from LT, or even LDLT, based solely on age and implies that careful selection of recipients and donors as well as meticulous surgical technique are necessary for successful results.     

Comparing the Outcomes of Deceased-Donor and Living-Donor Liver Re-Transplantation In Adult Patients

BackgroundPatients with liver graft failures have an extremely low chance of finding a cadaveric graft in countries with a scarcity of deceased donors. We compared the outcomes of liver re-transplantation with living-donor liver grafts (re-LDLT) and deceased-donor liver grafts (re-DDLT) in adult patients (>18 years).MethodsThe medical records of 1513 (1417 [93.6%] LDLT and 96 [6.3%] DDLT) patients who underwent liver transplantation at Memorial Hospital between January 2011 and October 2022 were reviewed. Forty patients (24 adults and 16 pediatric) were re-transplanted (2.84%); 24 adult patients (2.72%: 25 re-LDLT, 1 patient with second re-LDLT) were divided into 2 groups: re-DDLT (n = 6) and re-LDLT (n = 18). The groups were compared in demographics, pre-, peri-, postoperative characteristics, and outcomes.ResultsThe overall survival rates were 91.7%, 79.2%, 75.0%, and 75% for <30 days, 31 to 90 days, 1, and 3 years, respectively. The LDLT group was significantly younger (P = .022), had smaller graft weight (P = .03), shorter mechanical ventilation (P = .036) but longer operation time (P = .019), and hospitalization period (P = .003). The groups were otherwise comparable. There was no statistically significant difference in survival rates between the groups (P = .058), although the re-LDLT group had an evidently higher survival rate (88.9% and 83.3 % vs 50.0%).ConclusionRe-LDLT has shown comparable outcomes to re-DDLT, if not better (even not far from significance P = .058). These results may encourage performing re-LDLTs in patients with indications for re-LT without worrying about low chances of survival, especially in countries with limited sources of deceased donors.