Computer-assisted planning in living donor liver operation

INTRODUCTION: The appropriate recipient/donor match is a prerequisite for successful living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). A precise knowledge of the liver anatomy and the functional liver volume plays a key role in allocating live liver donor candidates. With the new software HepaVision, we obtained information on liver mapping by means of virtual 3-dimensional non-invasive imaging reconstructions and were able to perform a virtual simulation of the liver transsection. Aim of our study was to investigate, whether this new computer technology is advantageous in surgery planning for LDLT. METHODS: From January 2002 until December 2004 355 liver transplantations were performed in our department, of which 36 were LDLT. According to our evaluation protocol 135 potential donors (63 male, 72 female) between 18 to 59 years received preoperatively an all-in-one CT. The acquired data sets were further analysed with the software HepaVision (MeVis, Germany). RESULTS: Of the 135 evaluated donors, we excluded 99 (73 %) from donation based on the HepaVision-data. Reason for exclusion was an inadequate liver volume (70.8 %) or a risk related anatomical anomaly (2.2 %). In the remaining 36 cases a successful graft donation was possible. There were no postoperative complications in the donors and recipients, directly related to a misjudgment of the anatomy or miscalculation of the liver volume. CONCLUSION: The systematic use of HepaVision for surgery planning proved to be indispensable for proper donor selection. A virtual simulation of the liver transsection on 3D-model additionally increased the safety of the operation, consequently decreasing the risk for the donor.     

Evidence of liver histological alterations in apparently healthy individuals evaluated for living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) represents an important therapeutic option for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD). It has been reported that steatosis may be a serious problem in patients who donate a part of their liver. Liver biopsy represents an accepted method to assess the rate of steatosis and the possible risk to the donor. Nonetheless, some histological abnormalities have been documented in the specimens from potential donors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible hepatic histological alterations among apparently healthy candidates for liver donation who did not show serological or ultrasound (US) evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 1, 2005 until October 15, 2006, we performed virological, biochemical, and tumor marker evaluations and liver biopsies on 20 LDLT donor candidates. At histological evaluation we classified the evidence of steatosis (5%-10% or 10%-20%), fibrosis (absent or 1-3 portal space), inflammation, iron deposition, biliary neoductulation, and portal vein vascular alterations. RESULTS: Among the 20 subjects, serological markers did not show any pathological alterations. At liver biopsy we found: steatosis (5%-10%) in 6 individuals (about 30%) with 1 ranging from 10% to 20%; iron deposition in 4 (20%); biliary neoductulation in 3 (about 16%); fibrosis in 4 (20%); inflammation in 5 (25%); and portal vein dilatation in 10 (50%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed that apparently healthy individuals who did not display serological markers or US evidence of pathology had liver histological abnormalities. This result suggested that in absence of clinical or laboratory alterations, liver biopsy may represent a useful diagnostic tool for living donor candidates. Long-term follow-up results for the laboratory data among those patients should be performed even though they were not qualified for LDLT.     

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

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

Preoperative donor liver biopsy for adult living donor liver transplantation: risks and benefits.

The role of liver biopsy (LB) in donor selection for adult living donor liver transplantation remains controversial, since the procedure is associated with additional potential risks for the donor. From April 1998 to August 2004, 730 potential living donors for 337 adult recipients underwent our multistep evaluation program. In 144 candidates, LB was performed. LB was obtained in a percutaneous ultrasound-guided fashion by means of Menghini needle (32 cases) or Tru-cut needle (112 cases). The biopsy specimen was preserved in 5% formalin and processed with hematoxylin & eosin-stained sections. Thirty-one (21%) of 144 candidates who underwent an LB had a positive finding at histological examination that induced their exclusion from donation, of whom 21 had liver steatosis of varying kind and grade (10%-80%) and 10 had a nonsteatotic hepatopathy (non-A-D hepatitis in 6 cases, diffuse granulomatosis in 2, schistosomiasis in 1, fibrosis in 1). The only observed major complications related to LB were 2 intraparenchymal haematomas, both of which resolved spontaneously within a few months. In conclusion, based on these findings, we believe that preoperative LB in the donor selection for adult LDLT is necessary, once the initial donor screening and noninvasive evaluation is complete. Because other screening modalities can be unreliable, without preoperative LB a fraction of potential donors will be operated on inappropriately, risking both donor and recipient. The main objective of LB should be to ensure the donor's safety more than the preservation of the graft function.     

Regeneration and outcome of dual grafts in living donor liver transplantation

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), the essential aims are to provide an adequate graft volume to the recipient and to keep a sufficient remnant liver volume in the donor. In some instances, these aims cannot be met by a single donor and LDLT using dual grafts from two donors is a good solution. From 2002 to 2009, five recipients in our hospital received dual graft LDLT. Two recipients received one right lobe and one left lobe grafts; the other three received two left lobe grafts. The mean final liver regeneration rate was 91.2%. Left lobe graft atrophy in the long term was observed in recipients who received a right and a left lobe grafts. The initial bigger volume graft in all recipients was noted to have better regeneration than the smaller volume grafts. Portal flow and bilateral grafts volume size discrepancy were considered as two major factors influencing graft regeneration in this study. We also noted that the initial graft volume correlated with portal flow in the separate grafts and finally contribute to individual graft regeneration. Because of compensatory hypertrophy of the other graft, recipients who experienced atrophy of one graft did not show signs of liver dysfunction.     

Preoperative evaluation of biliary anatomy of donor in living donor liver transplantation by conventional nonenhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography

Detailed preoperative evaluation of the biliary anatomy of the donor in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) can minimize postoperative morbidity in the recipient and maximize safety for the donor. We prospectively evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and clinical usefulness of nonenhanced conventional magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC) for depicting the biliary anatomy of LDLT donors. MRC and intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) examinations of 111 donors were performed between August 2005 and February 2006. We observed the classical branching pattern of the biliary system in 67 subjects (60.4%), with the remaining 44 subjects (39.6%) showing anatomical variations. MRC showed accurate anatomy of the biliary system, using IOC as the reference standard, in 98 (88.3%) subjects. MRC had a sensitivity in differentiating normal from variant anatomy of 95.5%, specificity of 95.2%, a positive predictive value of 96.8% and a negative predictive value of 93.3%. The agreement between MRC and IOC findings, as evaluated by kappa-value (0.865) was statistically significant (P<0.001). In conclusion, the diagnostic accuracy of conventional nonenhanced MRC is sufficient for this method to be used for the preoperative evaluation of biliary anatomy in LDLT donor candidates.     

The challenge of finding donors for living donor liver transplantation in Saudi Arabia

INTRODUCTION: Organ shortage remains the main limiting factor for expanding liver transplantation (LT) in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was recently undertaken by our team at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center (KFSH&RC), in an effort to meet the increasing demand for LT in Saudi Arabia. OBJECTIVE: Analysis of donors assessed for LDLT at KFSH&RC. METHODS: Between September 2002 and May 2003, 39 potential donors were assessed for LDLT. First- or second-degree relationship to the recipient was an essential precondition. Assessment included biochemical testing, radiological studies (computed tomography: magnetic resonance angiography, magnetic resonance cholangiography), and thorough psychosocial analysis. Liver biopsy and hepatic angiogram was performed in some but not all donors. RESULTS: Male:female ratio was 28:11. Median age was 27 (18 to 34). Of 39 potential donors, only three underwent LDLT. The remaining 36 were rejected for different reasons including: psychosocial in 8 (20.5%), fatty liver in 7 (17.9%), recipient issues in 6 (15.4%), refusal after initial approval in 3 (7.7%), unfavorable anatomy in 2 (5.1%), inadequate liver volume in 2 (5.1%), abnormal liver functions in 2 (5.1%), hepatitis C virus in 2 (5.1%), liver pathology in 1 (2.6%), and other medical concerns in remaining 3 donors (7.7%). CONCLUSION: In Saudi Arabia, donor availability as well as recipient characteristics may limit the value of LDLT in overcoming organ shortage. Therefore, efforts should be directed to improve the number and quality of available cadaveric organs. Until then, LDLT may be the only way forward to save patients from dying on the waiting list.     

活体肝移植治疗HBV相关性急性亚急性肝功能衰竭

目的 探讨活体肝移植(living donor liver transplantation,LDLT)HBV感染导致的急性肝功能衰竭(acute liver failure,ALF)和亚急性肝功能衰竭(subacute liver failure,SALF)患者的可行性,并评价其疗效.方法 回顾性分析2000年11月至2007年10月完成的10例LDLT治疗ALF、SALF患者的临床资料.10例LDLT的供、受者均为成人,切取右半肝为移植物,8例含肝中静脉(middle hepatic vein,MHV).10例供者的评估均在确定实施LDLT的24 h内完成,供、受者手术均在确定供者后的12 h内完成.移植物质量与受者体质量比为(1.03±0.17)%(0.86%～1.22%),移植物体积与受者标准肝体积比为(52.2±11.8)%(47.6%～70.1%).结果 10例受者中,2例分别于术后7、28 d时因肺部感染、十二指肠球部溃疡穿孔腹腔感染死亡.1例胆管吻合口胆漏,经十二指肠镜下置入鼻胆管引流治愈.2例术后1周出现轻度急性排斥反应,增强免疫抑制强度后肝功能恢复正常.8例中位随访期9.6个月(2～84个月),生存质量优良.10例供者中,1例出现急性门静脉高压症导致脾脏破裂,行脾脏切除术,其后出现胆管断端胆漏,经鼻胆管引流结合经皮穿刺腹腔引流治愈.其余9例无并发症发生.结论 LDLT适宜治疗HBV感染导致的ALF、SALF,而且能获得较好的中、远期疗效.     

Analysis of caudate lobe biliary anatomy and its implications in living donor liver transplantation – a single centre prospective study

Biliary complications are a significant cause of morbidity after living donor liver transplant (LDLT). Bile leak may occur from bile duct (anastomotic site in recipient and repaired bile duct stump in donor), cystic duct stump, cut surface pedicles or from divided caudate ducts. The first three sites are amenable to post‐operative endoscopic stenting as they are in continuation with biliary ductal system. However, leaks from divided isolated caudate ducts can be stubborn. To minimize caudate duct bile leaks, it is important to understand the anatomy of hilum with attention to the caudate lobe biliary drainage. This single‐centre prospective study of 500 consecutive LDLTs between December 2011 and December 2016 aims to define the biliary anatomy of the caudate lobe in liver donors based on intraoperative cholangiograms (IOCs) with special attention to crossover caudate ducts and to study their implications in LDLT. Caudate ducts were identified in 468 of the 500 IOCs. Incidence of left‐to‐right crossover drainage was 61.37% and right to left was 21.45%. Incidence of bile leak in donors was 0.8% and in recipients was 2.2%. Proper intraoperative identification and closure of divided isolated caudate ducts can prevent bile leak in donors as well as recipients.     

Preoperative evaluation of biliary anatomy in adult live liver donors with volumetric mangafodipir trisodium enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography.

Accurate preoperative depiction of biliary anatomy is not always adequately accomplished by imaging techniques in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We present the results of a prospective study designed to evaluate the ability of mangafodipir trisodium (Mn-DPDP)-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) cholangiography (MRC) for this purpose in a series of 25 adult living liver donors (LLDs). We also analyze if a simple or a more complex surgical procedure can be preoperatively suggested for biliary reconstruction in the recipients. Findings on MRC were compared with operative cholangiography (OC). A conventional distribution with a right hepatic duct (RHD) longer than 1 cm anticipated a simple procedure (duct-to-duct anastomosis or hepaticojejunostomy [HJ]). A shorter RHD or any variant were predictors of a more complex surgery (bench ductoplasty or multiple anastomoses). Agreement between MRC and OC in assessing the biliary anatomy was measured using the kappa statistic, and differences between the kind of surgery predicted at MRC and the biliary anastomosis performed were evaluated with Fisher's exact test. Normal variants were present in 16 / 25 donors (64%). MRC was accurate in depicting the pattern of bile duct distribution observed at OC in 22 / 25 (88%) donors (kappa = .831), and correctly predicted the complexity of biliary anastomosis in the recipient in 22 / 25 (88%) donors. No significant differences were observed between complexity of biliary surgery proposed at MRC and the final surgery performed (P = .002). In conclusion, Mn-DPDP-enhanced MRC is highly accurate in depicting the biliary duct anatomy and can be used preoperatively for surgical planning in LDLT.     

Computer-Assisted Operative Planning in Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A New Way to Resolve the Dilemma of the Middle Hepatic Vein

An adequate venous outflow is essential for securing viability of both graft and remnant in adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT). Seventy-five potential live liver donors were evaluated for LDLT by means of an "all-in-one" CT, which defined the biliary tree, portal vein, hepatic artery, and hepatic vein anatomy. The acquired data sets were further analysed by means of the software HepaVision (MeVis, Germany). Only a minority (29%) of potential donors were found to have a vascular and biliary anatomy consistent with the classically described "normal" patterns. The vast majority (71%) had "anatomical variations". Thirty-nine (52%) donors underwent ALDLT hepatectomy. The right hepatic vein was dominant in 64 cases, representing 48 +/- 6% of the total liver volume (TLV). The middle hepatic vein was dominant in 11 cases, making up 40 +/- 8% of the TLV. The left hepatic vein was never dominant. The volume contribution of the middle hepatic vein (MHV) was 114-782 ml for the right and 87-419 ml for the left hemiliver. Computer-assisted planning allows for the 3D reconstruction of the vascular and biliary anatomy, automatic calculation of the total and territorial liver volumes, and risk analysis of hepatic vein dominance relationships. This comprehensive data acquisition supports preoperative evaluation and provides a high degree of safety for donors and improved outcomes for recipients.     

Significant role of middle hepatic vein in remnant liver regeneration of right-lobe living donors

For adult patients with end-stage liver disease, living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) of right-lobe grafts with or without the middle hepatic vein (MHV) has been increasingly used in recent years. We investigated the role of the MHV in donor remnant liver regeneration after right-lobe LDLT, which has not been described in previous studies. A total of eight living donors were included in this study of right-lobe LDLT. Four donors underwent right lobectomy (without MHV), and the remaining four underwent extended right lobectomy (with MHV). Regeneration of the donor remnant liver was assessed by volumetric computed tomography studies before and 90 days after LDLT. Comparison between the right-lobe and extended right-lobe donors did not show a clear-cut difference in the net increase of remnant liver volume at 3 months. However, the mean volume increase of the medial segment at the 90th postoperative day was 7% in the extended right-lobe donors and 61% in the right-lobe donors, showing a lower value in the remnant livers without MHV. The MHV plays a specific role in remnant liver regeneration of right-lobe living donors. We expect that this knowledge will contribute to securing a margin of safety in right-lobe LDLT.     

University of California at San Francisco criteria can be applied to living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: single-center preliminary results in 27 patients

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) can provide life-saving therapy for many patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), who otherwise would succumb due to tumor progression. However, donor risk must be balanced against potential recipient benefit. METHODS: From January 2002 to December 2006, a total of 27 LDLT were performed for HCC patients in our center, including 25 right lobe grafts, and 2 dual grafts. Twenty-four (88.89%) met the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) criteria, whereas 3 (11.11%) did not. RESULTS: Of our 29 donors, the overall complication rate was 17.24%. Two (6.90%) experienced major complications including intra-abdominal bleeding and portal vein thrombosis in 1, respectively; 3 (10.34%) experienced minor complications: wound steatosis, pleural effusion, and transient chyle leakage in 1, respectively. We did not observe any donor mortality; all donors fully recovered and returned to their previous occupations. No recipient developed small-for-size syndrome. The overall HCC patient survival rates at 1- and 3-years were 84.01% and 71.40%, respectively, similar to those of patients undergoing LDLT for various nonmalignant diseases during the same period (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Although further study is needed to fully assess the risks and benefits of LDLT for both HCC patients and donors, our preliminary results suggested that LDLT offered an acceptable chance and duration of survival for HCC patients. It was not only a relatively safe procedure provided that every effort was taken to minimize donor morbidities, but also beneficial for HCC recipients.     

Lessons learned from 1,000 living donor liver transplantations in a single center: how to make living donations safe.

Serious complications have occurred in a considerable proportion of living donors of liver transplants, but data from a single high-volume center has rarely been available. We analyzed the medical records of donors and recipients of the first 1,000 living donor liver transplants, performed at Asan Medical Center from December 1994 to June 2005, with a focus on donor safety. There were 107 pediatric and 893 adult transplants. The most common diagnoses were biliary atresia in pediatric recipients (63%) and hepatitis B-associated liver cirrhosis (80%) in adult recipients. Right lobe donors were strictly selected based on liver resection rate and steatosis. From 1,162 living donors, 588 right lobes, 6 extended right lobes, 7 right posterior segments, 464 left lobes, and 107 left lateral segments were obtained. Of these, 837 grafts were implanted singly, whereas 325, along with 1 cadaveric split graft, were implanted as dual grafts into 163 recipients. The 5-yr survival rates were 84.8% in pediatric recipients and 83.2% in adult recipients. There was no donor mortality, but 3.2% of donors experienced major complications. Until the end of 2001, the major donor complication rate was 6.7%, with most occurring in right liver donors. Since 2002, liver resection exceeding 65% of whole liver volume were avoided except for young donors with no hepatic steatosis, and the donor complication rate has been reduced to 1.3%. In conclusion, a majority of major living donor complications appear to be avoidable through the strict selection of living donor and graft type, intensive postoperative surveillance, and timely feedback of surgical techniques. Selection of right lobe graft should be very prudently considered if the donor right liver appears to be larger than 65% of the whole liver volume.     

Toward 300 liver transplants a year

The technical success of cadaveric whole-size liver transplantation and better immunosuppressive drugs has extended the application of this life-saving procedure to include patients with irreversible acute and chronic liver diseases. However, because of the scarcity of cadaveric liver grafts, living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has emerged as an alternative to cadaveric-donor liver transplantation (CDLT), especially in Asia. In Korea, 8% of the population are hepatitis B virus (HBV) carriers, and the resultant HBV cirrhosis, with or without hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), is common in the 40- to 60-year-old generation. Accordingly, many patients require orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). In 1992, we started performing CDLTs in the Asan Medical Center. In 1994, the first successful pediatric LDLT was performed in Korea, on a 9-monthold infant with biliary atresia. In 1997, the first successful adult LDLT was performed in our department, using a left lobe, on a 37-year-old patient with HBV cirrhosis associated with HCC. Even after the first successful right-lobe LDLT, we faced the obstacle of anterior segment congestion of a right-lobe graft, and initiated reconstruction of the middle hepatic venous tributaries of a right-lobe graft in 1998. In 1999, we performed more than 100 OLTs a year. Insufficient graft size has hindered the expansion of adult LDLT, when the remaining left-lobe of potential donors is too small to assure donor safety. Dual two-left-lobe graft LDLT (transplanting from two donors into one recipient) was developed in 2000 to solve graft-size insufficiency and minimize donor risk. More than 200 OLTs a year have been performed since 2004, while broadening the indications for adult LDLT to near complete obstruction of the portal vein, with the application of intraoperative portography (IOP) and portal vein stenting. In 2007, 320 LTs were performed, including 276 adult LDLTs, 10 pediatric LDLTs, and 34 CDLTs (including 7 adult and 1 pediatric split-liver transplant). There has been no donor mortality in LDLT. With technical refinement and advanced perioperative care, the in-hospital mortality of recipients has dropped to 4%: attributed to the dedication of our liver transplantation team members.     

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation using extended right lobe grafts.

OBJECTIVE: The authors report their experience with living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using extended right lobe grafts for adult patients under high-urgency situations. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The efficacy of LDLT in the treatment of children has been established. The major limitation of adult-to-adult LDLT is the adequacy of the graft size. A left lobe graft from a relatively small volunteer donor will not meet the metabolic demand of a larger recipient. METHODS: From May 1996 to November 1996, seven LDLTs, using extended right lobe grafts, were performed under high-urgency situations. All recipients were in intensive care units before transplantation with five having acute renal failure, three on mechanical ventilation, and all with hepatic encephalopathy. The median body weight for the donors and recipients was 58 kg (range, 41-84 kg) and 65 kg (range, 53-90 kg), respectively. The body weights of four donors were less than those of the corresponding recipients, and the lowest donor-to-recipient body weight ratio was 0.62:1. The extended right lobe graft was chosen because the left lobe volume was <40% of the ideal liver mass of the recipient. RESULTS: Median blood loss for the donors was 900 mL (range, 700-1600 mL) and hospital stay was 19 days (range, 8-22 days). Homologous blood transfusion was not required. Two donors had complications (one incisional hernia and one bile duct stricture) requiring reoperation after discharge. All were well with normal liver function 5 to 10 months after surgery. The graft weight ranged from 490 g to 1140 g. All grafts showed immediate function with normalization of prothrombin time and recovery of conscious state of the recipients. There was no vascular complication, but six recipients required reoperation. One recipient died of systemic candidiasis 16 days after transplantation and 6 (86%) were alive with the original graft at a median follow-up of 6.5 months (range, 5-10 months). CONCLUSIONS: When performed by a team with experience in hepatectomy and transplantation, LDLT, using an extended right lobe graft, can achieve superior results. The technique extends the success of LDLT from pediatric recipients to adult recipients and opens a new donor pool for adults to receive a timely graft of adequate function.     

Experience after the evaluation of 700 potential donors for living donor liver transplantation in a single center.

Adequate selection of donors is a major prerequisite for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Few centers report on the entire number of potential donors considered or rejected for living donation. From April 1998 to July 2003, a total of 111 living donor liver transplantations were performed at our institution, with 622 potential donors for 297 adult recipients and 78 potential donors for 52 pediatric recipients evaluated. In the adult group, only 89 (14%) potential donors were considered suitable, with a total of 533 (86%) potential donors rejected. Of these, 67% were excluded either at initial screening or during the first and second steps of the evaluation procedure. In 31% of all cases, the evaluation of donors was canceled because of recipient issues. In the pediatric group, 22 (28%) donors were selected, with the other 56 (72%) rejected. Costs of the complete evaluation process accounted for 4,589 Euro (Euro) per donor. The evaluation of a potential living donor is a complex and expensive process. We present the results on the evaluation of the largest group of potential donors for adults reported in the literature. Only 14% of potential donors in our series were considered suitable candidates. It has not yet been established who should cover the expenses of the evaluation of all rejected donors. In conclusion, all efforts should be made in order to develop an effective screening protocol for the evaluation of donors with the aim of saving time and resources for a liver transplantation program.     

Biliary complications in living liver donors

With the increasing use of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), the morbidity and mortality of the donors have thus become inevitable problems associated with this procedure. The most common postoperative complications among donors for LDLT involve the biliary tract. The incidence of biliary complications in donors tends to be about 5% based on recent publications. Anatomical variations in the biliary tract, higher predonation alkaline phosphatase levels, and intraoperative blood transfusions are also risk factors for biliary complications in the donors after donation. Donors with biliary complications often show unspecific symptoms and most of the biliary complications can be normally treated by nonsurgical methods. Interventional procedures such as percutaneous placement of a peritoneal drain, percutaneous/endoscopic biliary drainage, and combinations of balloon dilatation and/or stenting are effective in the treatment of bile leakage and biliary stricture. A clear understanding of the biliary anatomy of each donor and refined surgical techniques will help to minimize risk of biliary complications for living liver donors.     

Adult living donor liver transplantation: Perspectives from 100 liver transplant surgeons

The involvement of healthy living donors and the degree of technical difficulty make adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) different from any other surgical procedure. We surveyed 100 liver transplant surgeons to assess their views on the complex issues raised by LDLT. Data were collected at meetings on LDLT and by electronic mail. The study instrument was divided into general, donor, surgeon, recipient, and donor and recipient issues. Subjects provided the projected 1-year survival threshold that they would require for the recipient before they would perform LDLT. They listed the three topics that they thought were most critical for transplant fellows to know about LDLT. A majority agreed that transplant programs have a duty to their patients to offer LDLT, that the increasing success of the procedure will expand indications for liver transplantation, and that the risk to the donor causes them a moral dilemma. There was more divergence of opinion regarding who should have the final say about a potential donor's candidacy, whether it is difficult for donors to comprehend the risks of the procedure, and whether repeat cadaveric transplantations should be offered for failed LDLT performed for extended indications. Surgeons' median recipient survival threshold was a conservative 79%. Priorities for educating trainees focused on understanding complications and risks, technical factors, and ethical concerns such as putting the donor first. In conclusion, the findings of this survey indicate that transplant surgeons are working to balance their moral imperative to provide life-saving therapy for transplantation candidates with the risks posed to living donors. (Liver Transpl 2003;9:637-644.)     

Safety of modified extended right hepatectomy in living liver donors

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), the standard right graft has been adopted by many centers to meet the metabolic demands of large recipients. In conventional right liver graft, congestion at anterior section may be problematic especially when graft volume is insufficient. We previously introduced a technical aspect of modified extended right hepatectomy (MERH), in which the middle hepatic vein was excavated by preserving the entire segment 4 (Sg4) to the donor. In this report, we investigated the safety of donors who received MERH. Between August 2002 and July 2005, 97 donors underwent right liver donation. MERH was considered when remnant-left liver volume exceeded 35% of whole liver. Eighteen donors underwent MERH (MERH group, n=18). We compared the clinical outcomes of MERH group with those of donors who underwent conventional right hepatectomy (RH) with remnant liver volume exceeding 35% (RH group, n=37). No donor mortality occurred. No intra-operative transfusion and no re-operation were performed. There were no differences in operative time (290.8 min in MERH group vs. 297.0 min in RH group, respectively), blood loss (453.3 ml vs. 426.5 ml), and postoperative hospital stay (12.5 days vs. 12.8 days) between the two groups (P>0.05). Period of drain removal was longer in MERH group (12.5 days vs. 9.4 days, P<0.05). But, there was no difference in complication rate between the two groups (11/18 vs. 23/37, P>0.05). Computed tomography scan showed that congestion of Sg4 was occurred in 13 out of 18 MERH donors in early postoperative period, but all recovered at 4 months. The regeneration of the remnant liver after MERH and RH were similar (209.8% vs. 200.0% at 4 months, P>0.05). Our results show that MERH did not impair recovery or liver regeneration in donors, and indicate that MERH can be safely done in adult LDLT when the remnant liver exceeds 35%.