活体右半供肝Ⅴ和Ⅷ段静脉回流的重建方法

目的 总结活体右半供肝移植中,不含肝中静脉的右半供肝Ⅴ、Ⅷ段静脉回流的重建方法.方法 回顾性分析55例活体右半供肝移植中,不含肝中静脉的右半供肝Ⅴ、Ⅷ段静脉回流重建的临床资料.所有供者均通过了受者标准肝体积、供肝与受者体重比(GRWR)、供肝与受者标准肝体积比及供肝内血管解剖等指标的综合评估.供肝在切取、灌注及修整后,51例采用尸体髂静脉作为重建材料,其他4例分别采用受者的大隐静脉、曲张的脐静脉、肝内门静脉和肝静脉作为重建材料,以串联的方式重建供肝断面Ⅴ、Ⅷ段静脉回流.肝移植时,供肝肝右静脉与受者肝右静脉开口吻合,重建的Ⅴ、Ⅷ段静脉与受者肝中、肝左静脉汇合部吻合,供肝门静脉与受者门静脉右支或主干吻合.门静脉开放血流后依次重建肝动脉及胆道.术后对供、受者进行常规监测.结果 1例受者术后发生流出道梗阻,术后第43天死亡;1例受者术后第7天出现不明原因的急性重型肝组织坏死,行尸体供肝肝移植后痊愈.其余53例受者恢复顺利,术后4周时腹部CT检查显示重建的移植肝Ⅴ、Ⅷ段静脉回流通畅.55例供者术后均恢复顺利,术后2周出院.结论 不含肝中静脉的活体右半供肝Ⅴ、Ⅷ段静脉回流的重建在活体肝移植中是可行的,应选择合适的重建材料及手术方式.受者肝移植后临床效果良好.     

成人间活体肝移植供肝的后台准备

目的 探讨成人活体肝移植供肝的灌注和管道重建的技术。方法 回顾性分析41例成人活体肝移植供肝的后台处理临床资料。结果 41个供肝,均为不包括肝中静脉的右半肝,供者男9例,女32例,年龄19～65岁。供肝切取后经门静脉灌注HTK液2～3L（平均2.45L）。只有一支门静脉右支者35例,右前支＋右后支门静脉6例。右肝管29例,右前叶肝管＋右后叶肝管10例,右后叶肝管＋右前上段支＋右前下段支2例。肝静脉：右肝下静脉＋V_5/V_814例,只有一支右肝静脉15例,2支肝中静脉分支8例,4例有3支肝中静脉分支。肝中静脉分支直径〉0.5cm者均重建,重建V_5/V_8和右肝下静脉28例次（70.0%）,右前叶肝管和右后叶肝管整形6例（14.6%）,右后叶肝管和右前叶下段肝管整形3例（7.3%）,门静脉整形2例（4.8%）,门静脉搭桥4例（9.7%）。结论 成人活体肝移植的供肝后台处理与尸体肝移植有明显的不同,其断面的管道处理直接影响移植肝的存活和预后。     

儿童活体左外叶肝移植肝中静脉汇入型S3肝静脉的重建策略及预后

目的探讨儿童活体左外叶肝移植肝中静脉汇入型S3肝静脉的重建策略及技术选择, 以降低使用解剖变异的移植物引发的血管并发症风险。方法回顾性分析天津市第一中心医院2015年1月至2021年6月840例儿童活体左外叶肝移植供受者资料, 其中肝中静脉汇入型S3肝静脉供肝的受者作为观察组(32例), 余808例作为对照组, 变异总体发生率为3.81%。观察组根据变异的具体情况及可获得的间置血管的不同分成两组, 采取个体化的重建策略, 观察组根据变异的具体情况及可获得的间置血管的不同采取单口重建或双口重建策略。观察组32例根据血管重建方式不同分为单口重建组(Ⅰ组, S3间置静脉后与S2静脉成形为单一开口再与受者吻合, 21例)和双口重建组(Ⅱ组, 将供肝S2静脉与受者肝左、肝中共干吻合, S3直接或间置血管后与受者肝右静脉残端吻合, 11例)。比较两组受者的具体临床特征及预后, 肝静脉流出道梗阻( hepatic venous outflow obstruction, HVOO)的发生率、治疗方法及预后;比较观察组与对照组HVOO的发生率。结果本研究观察组32例受者肝移植术后中位随访时间为23.8个...     

间置血管重建门静脉对儿童肝移植受者术后门静脉并发症的影响

目的探究使用左侧移植物的儿童肝移植手术中, 使用间置血管重建门静脉对术后门静脉并发症的影响。方法收集首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院2013年6月1日至2018年5月31日行肝移植的儿童受者信息, 包括年龄、性别、身高、体重、原发病、Child评分、腹部手术史, 是否跨血型移植、术前门静脉口径、门静脉血流方向、供肝来源、移植手术日期、供肝冷缺血时间、移植物类型、门静脉重建方式、使用间置血管类型、手术时间、门静脉阻断时间、术中失血、术后门静脉并发症发生情况等临床资料。研究共纳入297例儿童受者, 中位年龄12个月, 男性153例(51.5%), 女性144例(48.5%), 原发病以胆道闭锁为主(222例, 74.7%)。门静脉直径中位数5 mm。单因素分析后行二元Logistic回归分析, 分析术后门静脉并发症的危险因素中是否使用间置血管;再按照是否使用间置血管分组, 分析使用间置血管重建门静脉对术后门静脉并发症的发生是否存在影响。结果使用间置血管重建门静脉19例(6.4%), 其中尸体冷保存血管16例, 儿童受者自身门静脉3例;供者门静脉与受者门静脉主干、分叉部或汇合部等直接吻合等未使用...     

�������ֲ��Ѫ�ܱ������ƴ���

目的：分析10例活体肝移植术中的血管变异，总结其外科处理经验，进一步提高手术成功率，减少并发症。方法：2001年1月至12月，行活体肝移植10例，其中左半肝8例，左外叶1例，右半肝1例，供肝者均为其母，经术中B超及胆管造影以确定肝切线。供体单支肝动脉分支与受体肝动脉吻合，两支肝动脉分别与受体肝左、右动脉吻合。门静脉分支与受体门静脉主干吻合。供体肝静脉与受体下腔静脉行端侧吻合。胆管重建均采用肝管分支与受体胆总管端端吻合，置T管引流。结果：10例活体肝移植，1例因肝动脉血栓形成，术后5天需次肝移植；1例发生排斥；其余8例均康复出院，5例已上学。结论：活体肝移植术中血管重建技术是其重要环节，术前和术中了解供受体解剖变异并正确处理，可减少术后血管和胆道的并发症。     

肝移植术中复杂门静脉机化血栓的处理

目的：探讨存在复杂门静脉机化血栓者肝移植术中门静脉的处理要点。方法：为17例机化血栓超过门静脉内径50％的患者施行肝移植，术中9例在切除血栓段门静脉或取栓后，将受者的门静脉与供肝门静脉行端端吻合；5例将供肝门静脉与受者的曲张冠状静脉行端侧吻合；1例切除闭塞段门静脉，利用供者的髂静脉于供肝门静脉与受者肠系膜上静脉间搭桥；1例供肝门静脉与受者的胆总管前曲张静脉行端侧吻合；1例采用供者的髂静脉在供肝门静脉和受者的脾门旁曲张静脉间搭桥，行端侧吻合。结果：17例患者，死亡2例，1例死于感染，1例死于肝动脉出血，但此2例患者的门静脉血流一直通畅。存活的15例随访2～12个月，其中1例术后因门静脉血流量不足，而行二次肝移植，在缝扎分流的侧支后，门静脉血流恢复正常，其他患者的门静脉血流均通畅。结论：存在复杂门静脉机化血栓时首选栓塞段门静脉切除或取栓后门静脉重建，不能取栓或取栓后血流量不足时，可改行供肝门静脉与受者曲张内脏静脉的端侧吻合，也可取得较好效果。     

活体右半肝移植的流出道重建21例

目的 探讨活体右半肝移植中的流出道重建技术,预防肝静脉淤血的发生.方法 回顾分析21例成人活体右半肝移植的临床资料.供者标准肝体积为1150.1～1629.8 cm3,供肝重量为585～920 g,与受者标准肝体积比为43%～67%,与受者重量比为0.82%～1.59%,供者残肝体积百分比为32%～55%,供肝大泡脂肪变性均＜10%.对于含肝中静脉的供肝,将肝中静脉和肝右静脉开口修整成尽可能大的三角形开口,供肝植入时,与受者肝右静脉扩大的三角形开口行端侧吻合.不含肝中静脉的供肝,如存在粗大的肝中静脉属支(直径超过5 mm),则用自体或异体血管搭桥(无粗大的肝中静脉属支者采用肝右静脉)与受者腔静脉直接吻合.供肝门静脉右支直接与受者门静脉主干吻合,供肝动脉与受者肝动脉行端端吻合,供肝右肝管与受者肝管行端端吻合.结果 21例供肝中,4例含肝中静脉,17例不含肝中静脉,其中有2例采用自体大隐静脉搭桥,5例采用冷冻的异体髂动脉搭桥,10例采用肝右静脉直接与受者腔静脉吻合.术后1个月,重建肝中静脉属支的7例受者流出道均通畅.含肝中静脉者、不含肝中静脉的血管搭桥者及不含肝中静脉且未使用血管搭桥者术后1年存活率分别为75%、85.7%和70%,三者间比较,差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).术后受者发生胆道并发症7例;发生小肝综合征1例,经脾动脉栓塞治疗后痊愈.术后供者未发生严重并发症,随访6～31个月,均恢复正常工作生活,无一例死亡.结论 含肝中静脉与不含肝中静脉的右半供肝植入后均可取得良好的临床效果.如果右半供肝不含肝中静脉,采用自体或异体血管重建肝中静脉属支是预防肝淤血和保证移植肝功能的有效方法.     

二例成人间双活体供肝移植的手术重建技巧

目的探讨成人间双活体供肝移植的手术重建技巧。方法2例成人患者,1例原发病为乙型肝炎后肝硬化、巨块型肝癌,接受其2位姐姐的左半肝移植,移植物与受者体重比(GR/WR)为1.5%,移植于原肝位置左侧的左半肝,其肝左静脉、门静脉分别于受者的肝左静脉、门静脉左支端端吻合,胆肠吻合方式重建供肝胆道;移植至右侧的左半肝,沿矢状位旋转180°,其肝左静脉、门静脉分别与受者的肝右静脉、门静脉右支端端吻合,左肝管与受者的肝总管端端吻合。另1例原发病为乙型肝炎后肝硬化,接受其母亲的右半肝移植,但由于供肝存在大泡状空泡变性,且供、受者的体重差较大,为能满足患者的生理需要,故该例同时行尸体左半肝移植,GR/WR为1.2%,右半肝的肝右动脉、肝右静脉分别于受者的同名血管端端吻合,其门静脉与受者的门静脉右支端端吻合,右肝管与受者的肝总管端端吻合;左半肝的肝左静脉、门静脉及肝动脉分别与受者的肝左静脉、门静脉左支及脾动脉端端吻合,胆肠Roux-en-Y吻合方式重建供肝胆道。结果除母亲供者术后3d出现短暂乳糜漏,经对症治疗11d后痊愈外,供者无其它并发症发生。2例患者术后恢复良好,未发生排斥反应及全身感染,现已随访10个月以上,肝功能正常,均恢复正常工作和生活。结论成人间双活体供肝移植可为受者提供更大的肝脏,又可减少供者的风险,但手术操作复杂,需要对供、受者的条件进行充分评估后施行。     

成人间活体肝移植肝动脉重建方法和并发症的处理

目的 探讨成人间活体肝移植的肝动脉重建和并发症处理的经验.方法 自2002年1月至2006年7月,共施行50例成人间右半肝活体肝移植.在供受者间肝动脉的重建中,供者右肝动脉与受者右肝动脉吻合24例,与受者肝固有动脉吻合12例,与受者左肝动脉吻合3例,与受者肝总动脉吻合2例,与受者肠系膜上动脉发出的副右肝动脉吻合2例,与受者肝总动脉自体大隐静脉间置搭桥3例.受者腹主动脉与供者右肝动脉自体大隐静脉搭桥2例,用保存的尸体髂血管行受者腹主动脉与供者右肝动脉搭桥2例.供者肝动脉直径1.5～2.5 mm,采用显微外科技术在3.5倍手术放大镜和5～10倍手术显微镜下完成肝动脉重建.结果 50例成人间右半肝活体肝移植中,有2例(4%)分别于术后1d、7d发生肝动脉血栓形成,立即采用自体大隐静脉从肾下腹主动脉至供者右肝动脉搭桥术,恢复供肝血流,痊愈出院.1例术后1.5个月后发生肝动脉血栓形成,随访期无临床症状未行处理.术后和随访期未发现肝动脉狭窄、肝动脉假性动脉瘤等并发症.围手术期未有与肝动脉并发症有关的死亡病例.全部病例获得随访,随访时间2～52个月(中位随访时间9个月),1年实际生存率为92%.结论 选择恰当的肝动脉重建方式和应用显微外科技术可显著降低肝动脉并发症,及时处理肝动脉并发症是保证供肝存活的关键.     

成人间活体肝移植94例报告

目的 探讨成人间活体肝移植供者评估、手术方式的选择及术后并发症分析.方法 收集2007年1月至2010年8月同一外科组施行的94例成人间活体肝移植的临床资料.受者年龄18 ～76岁,供者年龄19 ～60岁.94例活体肝移植手术方案包括:左半肝供肝移植2例,右半肝供肝移植92例,44例切取肝中静脉例,48例不切取肝中静脉.分析供受者术前评估、术后并发症及存活情况.结果 所有供者均恢复良好出院,供者并发症发生率为7.4％.随访截止于2011年5月31日,中位随访时间为37个月,死亡8例.供者1年存活率为95.7％,移植物存活率为94.7％.1例发生小肝综合征;1例因急性肝坏死行再次肝移植;24例(25.5％)经胆道造影或磁共振胰胆管成像检查发现胆道吻合口狭窄,但其中9例(9.6％)表现为肝功能异常.结论 活体肝移植是治疗终末期肝病的有效方法,精确的术前评估、合理手术方式选择,采用左半肝或右半肝供肝、含或不含肝中静脉的活体肝移植,在成人间活体肝移植中均能有效的保证供受者安全.     

Surgical procedures for management of right portal venous branching in right lobe living donor liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to describe the surgical management of right portal venous (PV) branches encountered among 104 cases of right lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). METHODS: From January 2002 to September 2007, we performed 104 cases of right-lobe LDLT including 11-donors who had anomalous right portal venous branches (APVB). One recipient had PV sponginess hemangioma. The donor right PV branches were type I in 93 cases, type II (trifurcation) in nine cases, and type III in two cases. Except one narrow bridge of tissue excision, the PV branches were transected on the principal of donor priority: PV branches were excised approximately 2 to 3 mm from the confluence while leaving the donor's main portal vein and confluence intact. In type II APVB, donor PV branches were obtained with two separate openings in six cases; with two separate openings joined as a common orifice at the back table in two cases, with one common opening with a narrow bridge of tissue in one case. In type III APVB, the donor right anterior and posterior PV branches were obtained with separate openings. The donor right PV branches with one common opening in 92 cases of type I PV branches and a joined common orifice in three cases of type II APVB were anastomosed to the recipient's main portal vein or to right branching. As the unavailable recipient PV for sponginess hemangioma, one case of type I right PV branches was end-to-end anastomosed to one of the variceal lateral veins of about 1 cm diameter in a pediatric patient. The PV were reconstructed as double anastomoses in six type II APVB and in one type III APVB obtained with two separate PV openings. In the another type III APVB reconstruction, we successfully utilized a novel U-shaped vein graft interposition. RESULTS: The type II APVB donor receiving a narrow bridge of portal vein tissue excision developed portal vein thrombosis on the third postoperative day and underwent reexploration for thrombectomy. There were no vascular complications, such as portal vein thrombosis or stricture among other donors or all recipients. The velocity of blood flow in the U-graft was normal. The anastomosis between the type I donor right portal vein and recipient variceal lateral vein was unobstructed. CONCLUSION: Right PV branches should be excised on the principal of donor priority while leaving the donor's main portal vein and confluence intact. Single anastomoses was the fundamental procedure of right branch reconstruction. Double anastomoses could be used as the main management for type II and type III APVB reconstruction. U-graft interposition may be a potential procedure for type III APVB reconstruction. Single anastomoses between the donor right portal vein and the recipient variceal lateral vein may be performed when recipient portal vein is unavailable. These innovations for excision and reconstruction of right PV branches were feasible, safe, and had good outcomes.     

The Use of Recipient Superficial Femoral Vein as a Venous Graft for Portal Vein Reconstruction in Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in the recipient is frequently regarded as a contraindication. To reconstruct the PV of a right-lobe liver graft (RLG) using an interposition or jump graft from the splenomesenteric junction, various vein grafts and technical modifications have been introduced. The internal jugular, external iliac, or great saphenous veins have been utilized in such reconstructive procedures. However, the superficial femoral vein (SFV) is preferable to the autologous vein grafts in terms of caliber, wall thickness, and length. We employed the recipient SFV to reconstruct PVT among 40 adult LDLT using RLG. Thirty-three were reconstructed by single end-to-end anastomosis with the right or left recipient PV. Three patients were transplanted with a RLG using 2 separated PVs reconstructed by double anastomoses with both the right and left PVs of the recipient. The remaining 4 patients required venous grafting for portal reconstruction. We used the recipient SFV as an interposition or jump graft from the splenomesenteric junction to the graft PV. There were 2 cases of anastomotic PV stenosis; 1 in portal reconstruction without a venous graft and the other with a SFV graft. Both were treated successfully by balloon angioplasty. The recipient SFV is an excellent size match for the PV reconstruction as a long interposition or jump conduit when the venous system from the deceased donor is not available. The indication for LDLT in patients with complete PVT should be carefully decided before transplantation in terms of portal reconstruction.     

Could the use of interposition grafts for arterial reconstruction be avoided by more caudate graft placement in living donor liver transplantation?

One of the major challenges in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is short and small vessels (particularly the hepatic artery), particularly in segmental liver grafts from living donors. In the present study we report an alternative surgical technique that avoids interpositional vessel grafts or tension on the connection by anastomizing the allograft hepatic vein to the recipient inferior vena cava in a more caudate location. From March 2000 to January 2003, 28 patients (11 women/17 men) underwent 28 LDLT. Until June 2001, the preferred technique for hepatic vein anastomosis was end-to-end anastomosis between the allograft hepatic vein and the recipient hepatic vein (HV-HV) (n = 10). Thereafter an end-to-side anastomosis was performed between allograft hepatic vein and recipient inferior vena cava (HV-IVC) (n = 18). The level of venotomy on the recipient vena cava was decided according to the pre-anastomotic placement of the allograft in the recipient hepatectomy site with sufficient width to have an hepatic artery anastomosis without tension or need for an interposition graft during hepatic artery and portal vein anastomoses. Except the right lobe allograft with anterior and posterior portal branches, all portal and hepatic artery anastomoses were constructed without an interposition graft or tension in the HV-IVC group. Only one hepatic artery thrombosis developed in the HV-IVC group. As a result, this technique may avoid both hepatic artery thrombosis and the use of interposition grafts in living donor liver transplantation.     

成人间不含肝中静脉右半肝活体肝移植静脉流出道重建技术的改进

目的 探讨不含肝中静脉(middle hepatic vein,MHV)的成人间右半肝活体肝移植(living donor liver transplantation,LDLT)静脉流出道重建技术的改进方法.方法 通过长征医院器官移植研究所2007年6月至2008年1月完成的11例次成人间不含肝中静脉的右半肝活体肝移植病例的回顾性分析,对成人间不含肝中静脉的右半肝活体肝移植静脉流出道重建技术的改进进行总结.主要技术改进包括:采用供肝右肝静脉、受体腔静脉联合扩大成形吻合技术重建流出道;采用在4℃UW液中保存7 d以内的尸体同种异体静脉移植血管重建供肝Ⅴ、Ⅷ段肝静脉粗大属支以及右肝下静脉.结果 11例次成人间不含肝中静脉右半肝活体肝移植中10例次采用了右肝静脉、腔静脉联合扩大成形吻合技术;利用尸体同种异体静脉移植血管架桥重建肝Ⅴ、Ⅷ段肝静脉以及右肝下静脉流出道的例数占同期实施的成人间活体肝移植总例数的81.8%(9/11),其中架桥重建1支肝静脉7例,架桥重建2支肝静脉1例,架桥重建3支肝静脉1例,11例病人中,1例病人术后14 d死于肾功能衰竭和肺部感染,超声检查血流通畅,未发现架桥静脉血栓,余10例病人术后随访9～15个月,右肝静脉均通畅,未发现静脉血栓,架桥肝静脉累计通畅率为:1个月100%(11/11)、3个月72.7%(8/11)、6个月54.5%(6/11)和9个月36.5%(4/11),移植肝脏再生均衡,右肝端面Ⅴ或Ⅷ段无明显充血和肝萎缩坏死,肝功能正常.超声检查未发现血栓,血流通畅,移植肝脏再生均衡,右肝端面Ⅴ或Ⅷ段无明显充血和肝萎缩坏死,肝功能正常.结论 采用右肝静脉、腔静脉联合扩大成形吻合技术和在4℃UW液中保存7 d以内的尸体同种异体静脉移植血管重建肝Ⅴ、Ⅷ段肝静脉粗大属支以及右肝下静脉是一种简单、安全和有效的成人间不含肝中静脉右半肝活体肝移植肝静脉重建方法.     

活体肝移植的几点关键外科技术

目的：探讨活体肝移植的几点关键外科技术。方法：2001年1月至2002年3月底,实施活体肝移植11例,其中左半肝8例,左外叶1例,成人右半肝2例;根据术前CT、血管造影和术中B超确定肝切除线,超声电刀离断肝实质,经门静脉灌注原位获取。受体手术采用保留腔静脉的全肝切除。移植肝原位植入,肝静脉重建采用扩大成型吻合技术,显微技术吻合肝动脉,胆道重建采用端端吻合,置“T“管引流。结果：11例供体术后顺利康复出院,未发生严重并发症。11例受体中,1例发生肝动脉血栓形成需再次肝移植,1例因不可逆转的严重排斥反应,于术后72d死亡。10例受体康复出院,肝功能、铜氧化酶恢复正常。结论：活体肝移植对供体是相对安全的。管道重建技术是活体肝移植的重要环节。术前、术中了解供体的解剖变异并正确处理,可降低并发症发生率。     

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Congenital Absence of the Portal Vein

The congenital absence of the portal vein (CAPV) is a rare venous malformation in which mesenteric venous blood drains directly into the systemic circulation. Liver transplantation (OLT) may be indicated for patients with symptomatic CAPV refractory to medical treatment, especially due to hyperammonemia, portosystemic encephalopathy, hepatopulmonary syndrome, or hepatic tumors. Because portal hypertension and collateral circulation do not occur with CAPV, significant splanchnic congestion may occur when the portocaval shunt is totally clamped during portal vein (PV) reconstruction in OLT. This phenomenon results in severe bowel edema and hemodynamic instability, which negatively impact the patient's condition and postoperative recovery. We have successfully reconstructed the PV in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using a venous interposition graft, which was anastomosed end-to-side to the portocaval shunt by a partial side-clamp, using a patent round ligament of the liver, which was anastomosed end-to-end to the graft PV with preservation of both the portal and caval blood flows. Owing to the differences in anatomy among patients, at LDLT for CAPV liver transplant surgeons should seek to preserve both portal and caval blood flows.     

Safety and necessity of including the middle hepatic vein in the right lobe graft in adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of donors who have donated the middle hepatic vein in right lobe live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and to determine whether such inclusion is necessary for optimum graft function. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The necessity to include the middle hepatic vein in a right lobe graft in adult-to-adult LDLT is controversial. Inclusion of the middle hepatic vein in the graft provides uniform hepatic venous drainage but may lead to congestion of segment IV in the donor. METHODS: From 1996 to 2002, 93 right-lobe LDLTs were performed. All right-lobe grafts except 1 contained the middle hepatic vein. In the donor operation, attention was paid to preserve the segment IV hepatic artery and to avoid prolonged rotation of the right lobe. The middle hepatic vein was transected proximal to a major segment IVb hepatic vein whereas possible to preserve the venous drainage in the liver remnant. RESULTS: There was no donor death. Two donors had intraoperative complications (accidental left hepatic vein occlusion and portal vein thrombosis) and were well after immediate rectification. Twenty-four donors (26%) had postoperative complications, mostly minor wound infection. The postoperative international normalized ratio on day 1 was better in the donors with preservation of segment IVb hepatic vein than those without the preservation, but, in all donors, the liver function was largely normal by postoperative day 7. The first recipient had severe graft congestion as the middle hepatic vein was not reconstructed before reperfusion. In 7 other recipients, the middle hepatic vein was found occluded intraoperatively owing to technical errors. The postoperative hepatic and renal function of the recipients with an occluded or absent middle hepatic vein was worse than those with a patent middle hepatic vein. The hospital mortality rate was also higher in those with an occluded middle hepatic vein (3/9 vs. 5/84, P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of the middle hepatic vein in right-lobe LDLT is safe and is essential for optimum graft function and patient survival.     

Safety of donor in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation using right lobe graft

BACKGROUND: The growing gap between the number of patients awaiting liver transplantation and available organs has continued to be the primary issue facing the transplant community. To overcome the waiting list mortality, living donor liver transplantation has become an option, in which the greatest concern is the safety of the donor, especially in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (A-A LDLT) using a right lobe liver graft. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the safety of donors after right lobe liver donation for A-A LDLT performed in our center. METHODS: From January 2002 to March 2006, 26 patients underwent A-A LDLT using right lobe liver grafts in our center. Seven donors were men and 19 were women (range, 19-65 years; median age, 38 years). The right lobe liver grafts were obtained by transecting the liver on the right side of the middle hepatic vein without interrupting the vascular blood flow. The mean follow-up time for these donors was 9 months. RESULTS: These donor residual liver volumes ranged from 30.5% to 60.3%. We did not experience any donor mortality. Two cases (7.69%) experienced major complications: intra-abdominal bleeding and portal vein thrombosis in one each and three (11.54%), minor ones: wound steatosis in two, and transient chyle leak in one. All donors were fully recovered and returned to their previous occupations. CONCLUSIONS: A-A LDLT using a right lobe liver graft has become a standard option. The donation of right lobe liver for A-A LDLT was a relatively safe procedure in our center.     

成人间活体肝移植体会：附3例报告

目的总结和分析成人间活体肝移植(LDLT)的临床经验。方法对2007年2月—2007年7月的3例成人间活体肝移植的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果供体为供体右半肝(不带肝中静脉)1例,供体扩大左半肝(带肝中静脉、尾状叶)2例,GV/SLV均≥40%。3对供者及患者术后均恢复良好,无小肝综合征发生,均未出现严重并发症。术后左半肝供者较右半肝供者肝功能恢复更快。结论如左半肝GV/SLV≥40%,可优先选择左半肝作为供肝;胆道重建不必放置胆管引流管;成人间LDLT是治疗终末期肝病的安全有效的手段。