Donor complications associated with living donor liver transplantation in Japan

Estimates of early death, acute liver failure, and long-term mortality among live liver donors

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We sought to estimate the risk of perioperative mortality or acute liver failure for live liver donors in the United States and avoid selection or ascertainment biases and sample size limitations.

METHODS

We followed up 4111 live liver donors in the United States between April 1994 and March 2011 for a mean of 7.6 years; deaths were determined from the Social Security Death Master File. Survival data were compared with those from live kidney donors and healthy participants of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III.

RESULTS

Seven donors had early deaths (1.7 per 1000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-3.5); risk of death did not vary with age of the liver recipient (1.7 per 1000 for adults vs 1.6 per 1000 for pediatric recipients; P = .9) or portion of liver donated (2.0 per 1000 for left lateral segment, 2.8 per 1000 for left lobe, and 1.5 per 1000 for right lobe; P = .8). There were 11 catastrophic events (early deaths or acute liver failures; 2.9 per 1000; 95% CI, 1.5-5.1); similarly, risk did not vary with recipient age (3.1 per 1000 adult vs 1.6 per 1000 pediatric; P = .4) or portion of liver donated (2.0 per 1000 for left lateral segment, 2.8 per 1000 for left lobe, and 3.3 per 1000 for right lobe; P = .9). Long-term mortality of live liver donors was comparable to that of live kidney donors and NHANES participants (1.2%, 1.2%, and 1.4% at 11 years, respectively; P = .9).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of early death among live liver donors in the United States is 1.7 per 1000 donors. Mortality of live liver donors does not differ from that of healthy, matched individuals over a mean of 7.6 years.

Long-term follow-up after right hepatectomy for adult living donation and attitudes toward the procedure

OBJECTIVES

To determine the long-term health status of donors after right hepatectomy for adult live donor liver transplantation (ALDLT).

BACKGROUND

The long-term outcomes for ALDLT donors are unknown.

METHODS

ALDLT donors undergoing right hepatectomy from April 1998 to June 2007 were invited to complete a questionnaire regarding health status, satisfaction (1-10/worst-best scale), self-esteem, willingness to donate again, and suggestions for improvement. In addition, donor files and cholecystectomy specimens were reviewed. Fisher's exact test, Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Eighty-three donors were contacted (median age: 36 years; median follow-up: 69 months). 39 (47%) were free of symptoms. The remaining 44 (53%) reported: intolerance to fatty meals and diarrhea (31%), gastroesophageal reflux associated with left liver hypertrophy (9%), incisional discomfort requiring pain medications (6%), severe depression requiring hospitalization (4%), rib pain affecting lifestyle (2%), and exacerbation of psoriasis (1%). Median satisfaction score was 8. Self-esteem diminished in 5%. Thirty-nine (47%) recommended improvements particularly more detailed informed donor consent and a centralized living donor liver registry. Seventy-eight (94%) were willing to donate again. There were no differences between donors with and without complaints with respect to: donor age, gender, early complications and follow-up time, young-to-old donation, recipient diagnosis of malignancy and death of the recipient. Noninflamed donor cholecystectomy specimens correlated with intolerance to fatty meals and diarrhea (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ALDLT donors are at risk for long-term complaints that are neither reflected nor related to early complications. This information should be included in both the donor evaluation and the ALDLT decision-making process.

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: the Japanese experience

Treatment strategies against hepatocellular carcinoma have progressed remarkably over the past decade. In Asia, evidence-based guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma have evolved, including the option of liver transplantation. Due to severe organ shortage, however, living donor liver transplantation has become mainstream in Japan. Unlike deceased donor transplantation, living donor transplantation is not limited by the restrictions imposed by the nationwide allocation system. The decision for transplantation often depends on institutional or case-by-case considerations, balancing the will of the donor, the operative risk, and the overall survival benefit for the recipient. Cumulative data from the national multicenter registry analysis as well as individual center experience suggest that expansion of the Milan criteria is warranted.

Living donor hepatectomy: the importance of the residual liver volume

Living liver donation is a successful treatment for patients with end-stage liver disease. Most adults are provided with a right lobe graft to ensure a generous recipient liver volume. Some centers are re-exploring the use of smaller left lobe grafts to potentially reduce the donor risk. However, the evidence showing that the donor risk is lower with left lobe donation is inconsistent, and most previous studies have been limited by potential learning curve effects, small sample sizes, or poorly matched comparison groups. To address these deficiencies, we conducted a case-control study. Forty-five consecutive patients who underwent left hepatectomy (LH; n = 4) or left lateral segmentectomy (LLS; n = 41) were compared with matched controls who underwent right hepatectomy (RH) or extended right hepatectomy (ERH). The overall complication rates of the 3 groups were similar (31%-37%). There were no grade 4 or 5 complications. There were more grade 3 complications for the RH patients (13.3%) and the ERH patients (15.6%) versus the LH/LLS patients (2.2%). The extent of the liver resection significantly correlated with the peak international normalized ratio (INR), the days to INR normalization, and the peak bilirubin level. A univariate analysis demonstrated that hepatectomy, the spared volume percentage, and the peak bilirubin level were strongly associated with grade 3 complications. A higher peak bilirubin level, which correlated with a lower residual liver volume, was associated with grade 3 complications in a multivariate analysis (P = 0.005). RH and grade 3 complications were associated with an increased length of stay (>7 days) in a multivariate analysis. In conclusion, this analysis demonstrates a significant correlation between the residual liver volume and liver dysfunction, serious adverse postoperative events, and longer hospital stays. Donor safety should be the first priority of all living liver donor programs. We propose that the surgical procedure removing the smallest amount of the liver required to provide adequate recipient graft function should become the standard of care for living liver donation.

Split liver transplantation

We analyzed the results of 55 patients who underwent split liver transplantation at our center between September 1996 and December 2008, 30 adults (54.5%) and 25 children (45.5%). Median follow-up was 12 years. Overall patient survival was 71%, adult 70% and pediatric 72%. Mean patient survival was 61.58 months, and mean graft survival was 44.35 months. Pediatric survival and pediatric graft survival after 1 and 5 years were 84% and 72% and 72% and 52.4%, respectively. Adult survival and adult graft survival after 1 and 5 years were 75% and 66.2% and 60.7% and 51.5%, respectively. Twelve patients required retransplantation, 6 for primary nonfunction, 3 for chronic rejection, and 3 for vascular complications. Blood groups of the recipient patients were: 34 O, 14 A, 7 B, and 0 AB. The use of split liver for adult and pediatric populations allows us to expand the cadaveric donor pool and has the potential to significantly reduce waiting list mortality, especially for certain blood groups.

Evaluation outcomes of donors in living donor liver transplantation: a single-center analysis of 132 donors

BACKGROUND

Donor safety has always been a major concern, and potential risk to the donor must be balanced against recipient benefit. However, lack of a standardized and uniform evaluation of perioperative complications is a serious limitation of the evaluation of donor morbidity. This study was designed to evaluate the outcomes of donors in adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using the newer Clavien classification system in a single center in China.

METHODS

We prospectively analyzed the outcomes of 132 consecutive living liver donors from 2005 to 2008 using the newer Clavien classification system. The preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative data of the donors were collected and analyzed. Ordinal regression was used to analyze the ordered grades of complications.

RESULTS

Ninety-four (71.2%) of the donors developed postoperative complications of grade I (n=45, 34.1%), grade II (n=39, 29.5%) and grade III (n=10, 7.6%). There was no death or grade IV morbidity. Hepatic functional impairment and pleural effusion were the most frequent morbidities for living donors. Fifty-three donors (40.1%) developed hepatic functional impairment of grade I (n=40, 31.1%) and grade II (n=13, 10.0%). The ICU stay (7.8+/-1.8 days) and length of hospital stay (17.7+/-4.6 days) were significantly longer in donors with grade III than others. Furthermore, ordinal logistic regression revealed that donor's older age (>40 years) and right hepatectomy were associated with morbidity. In addition, only preoperative total bilirubin (within the normal range) and postoperative nadir serum phosphorus were independently associated with hepatic functional impairment. The receiver operator characteristic curve revealed that preoperative total bilirubin >18.0 μmol/L and postoperative nadir of serum phosphorus <1 mg/dL may lead to more severe hepatic functional impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the fact that donors are relatively safe to undergo hepatectomy, many living donors still experience postoperative morbidity. Meticulous technical and preoperative donor evaluation and treatment are sure to reduce the incidence of complications.

Living donor liver transplantation in adults in the MELD era in Germany--a multi-center retrospective analysis

The aim of this analysis was to provide an update on the current trend in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for adult recipients in the model of end stage liver disease (MELD) era in Germany and to encourage a wider implementation of LDLT. We descriptively analysed the data of LDLTs in Germany from 15 December 2006 to 31 December 2009 using a multi-center retrospective analysis via a questionnaire and data provided by Eurotransplant. Ten German centers performed LDLTs in adults. Eighty four transplantations in 50 male recipients and 34 female recipients were performed during the review period, ranging from 1 to 16 LDLTs per center. Hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis (15/84) was the most common transplantation indication. The recipient mean lab-MELD score was 15 (±8). Six re-transplantations were necessary after initial LDLTs. The 1-year patient survival was 81%. We obtained data of 79/84 donors. The incidence of complications was 30.4% (n = 24). There were no grade 5 complications according to the Clavien classification. LDLT is an established treatment option that may reduce the waiting time, provides high quality split liver grafts and should be advocated in the MELD era to reduce organ shortage and 'death on the waiting list'.

Health-related quality of life in living liver donors after transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has recently emerged as an effective therapeutic alternative for patients with end-stage liver disease. In the meantime, the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the donors is becoming better appreciated. Here we aimed to review the current literature and summarize the effects of liver donation on the long-term HRQoL of living donors.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of PubMed using "donors", "living donor liver transplantation", "health-related quality of life", and "donation" was performed, and all the information was collected.

RESULTS

The varied postoperative outcomes of liver donors are attributive to the different evaluation instruments used. On the whole, donors experienced good long-term physical and mental well-being with a few complaining of compromised quality of life due to mild symptoms or psychiatric problems. The psychosocial dimension has received increasing attention with the vocational, interpersonal and financial impact of liver donation on donors mostly studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, donors have a good HRQoL after LDLT. Nevertheless, to achieve an ideal donor outcome, further work is necessary to minimize the negative effects as well as to incorporate recent progress in regenerative medicine.

Donor hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation: learning steps and surgical outcome

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Complications associated with live liver donor surgery should be minimized. There is little information on the impact of team experience and learning on the surgical outcome. The aim of this study was to clarify the impact of team experience in a single center on the outcome of live donor hepatectomy.

METHODS

Graft livers consisted of 56 right lobes, 40 left lobes with/without caudate, 36 left lateral section (LLS), and 11 right posterior section (RPS). Surgeries were divided according to the time of execution: era I (n=50), era II (n=50) and era III (n=43).

RESULTS

No postoperative mortality was recorded. Blood loss steadily decreased and operation time decreased after era II (P<0.0001). The overall frequency of postoperative morbidities by the Clavien system was significantly less for LLS graft [P=0.009, right lobe (42.9%) vs. LLS (13.9%)]. Multivariate risk factor analysis showed that donors in recent years were at low risk of morbidity and bile leakage (P=0.025 and 0.010, respectively). There was less impact for team experience on the outcome in LLS graft than other types of grafts.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis demonstrated several learning steps in live liver donor surgery and confirmed their positive impact on surgical outcome.

Outcome comparison of right hepatectomy for living liver donation versus for hepatic patients without cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Hepatectomy is one of the primary methods used in the treatment of hepatic lesions and liver graft harvesting. However, few studies have evaluated the postoperative recovery process of donor patients and that of normal liver hepatic patients following a right hepatectomy procedure.

METHODS

For this current study, the clinical data from the most recent 60 cases of each patient type receiving treatment at West China Hospital (group A [donors] and group B [normal liver hepatic patients]) were retrospectively analysed. Preoperative parameters, intraoperative variables, postoperative complications classified by the Clavien-Dindo classification system, and liver function changes were all statistically analysed and compared.

RESULTS

The preoperative parameters of the two groups were comparable. Group A experienced more intraoperative bleeding; however, the average amount of blood transfusion products was similar between the two groups. The overall postoperative surgical morbidity incidence for group A was 31.7% and for group B was 35%, with a p value of 0.699. The total bilirubin level and coagulation functions of group A were worse than what was observed in group B during the early postoperative period.

CONCLUSION

Live liver donation via right hepatectomy results in similar complication rates and average blood product use to non-cirrhotic hepatic diseases. However, following the procedure, donor liver function showed greater dysfunction during the early postoperative period.

Living-donor liver transplantation in 126 patients with biliary atresia: single-center experience

OBJECTIVES

To describe our experience with 126 consecutive living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) procedures performed because of biliary atresia and to evaluate the optimal timing of the operation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between May 2001 and January 2010,126 patients with biliary atresia underwent 130 LDLT procedures. Mean (SD) patient age was 3.3 (4.2) years, and body weight was 13.8 (10.7) kg. Donors included 64 fathers, 63 mothers, and 3 other individuals. The left lateral segment was the most commonly used graft (75%). Patients were divided into 3 groups according to body weight: group 1, less than 8 kg (n = 40); group 2,8 to 20 kg (n = 63); and group 3, more than 20 kg (n = 23). Medical records were reviewed retrospectively. Follow up was 4.5 (2.7) years.

RESULTS

All group 3 donors underwent left lobectomy, and all group 1 donors underwent left lateral segmentectomy. No donors required a second operation or died. Comparison of the 3 groups demonstrated that recipient Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease score in group 1 was highest, operative blood loss in group 2 was lowest (78 mL/kg), and operative time in group 3 was longest (1201 minutes). Hepatic artery complications occurred more frequently in group 1 (17.9%), and biliary stenosis (43.5%) and gastrointestinal perforation (8.7%) occurred more frequently in group 3. The overall patient survival rates at 1, 5, and 9 years was 98%, 97%, and 97%, respectively. Five-year patient survival rate in groups 1,2, and 3 were 92.5%, 100%, and 95.7%, respectively. Gastrointestinal perforation (n = 2) was the primary cause of death.

CONCLUSIONS

Living-donor liver transplantation is an effective treatment of biliary atresia, with good long-term outcome. It seems that the most suitable time to perform LDLT to treat biliary atresia is when the patient weighs 8 to 20 kg.

Epidural analgesia provides better pain management after live liver donation: a retrospective study

Despite the increase in surgical volumes of live liver donation, there has been very little documentation of the postoperative pain experience. The primary aim of this study was to examine the difference in acute postoperative pain intensity and adverse effects between patients who received intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) or patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) for pain control after live liver donation surgery. A retrospective chart review was performed of 226 consecutive patients who underwent right living donor hepatic surgery at the Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Canada. Patients who received as their primary postoperative analgesic modality IV PCA (n = 158) were compared to patients who received PCEA (n = 68). Demographic profiles for the 2 groups were similar with respect to age, sex, and body mass index at the time of surgery. For the first 3 postoperative days, pain intensity was significantly lower in patients who received epidural analgesia (P < 0.01). Clinically significant moderate pain (defined as a Numeric Rating Scale pain score >4) was reported more frequently in the IV PCA group (P < 0.05) along with increased sedation (P < 0.05). Pruritus was reported more frequently in the PCEA group of patients compared to the IV PCA group (P < 0.05). Significant between-group differences were not found for the incidence of postoperative vomiting, the time at which patients began fluid intake, the time to initial ambulation, or the length of hospital stay. In conclusion, epidural analgesia provides better postoperative pain relief, less sedation, but more pruritus than IV PCA after live liver donation.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation

A perception that living donor liver transplantation can be accomplished with an acceptable donor complication rate and recipient survival rate has led to the acceptance of living donor liver transplantation as a viable alternative to decreased deceased donor transplantation. Careful candidate evaluation and selection has been crucial to the success of this procedure. Advancements in the understanding of the lobar nature of the liver and of liver regeneration have advanced the surgical technique. Initial attempts at adult-to-adult donation utilized the left hepatic lobe, but now have evolved into use of the right hepatic lobe. Size matching is very important to successful graft function in the recipient. There is great concern regarding morbidity and mortality in donors. Biliary complications and infections continue to be among the most highly reported complications, although rates vary among centers and countries. Reports of single center complications have ranged from 9% to 67%. A survey of centers in the United States in 2003 reported complications of 10%. A series from our institution reported complications arising in 13 (33%) of 39 patients. A review focused on documenting donor deaths found 33 living liver donor deaths worldwide. The much publicized immediate postoperative mishap of 2002 that resulted in a donor’s death resulted in a drop in the utilization of living donor liver transplantation in the United States, from which this procedure has never fully recovered. The future development and expansion of living donor liver transplantation depends on open communication regarding donor complications and deaths. Close immediate postoperative monitoring and meticulous management will remain an essential aspect in limiting donor complications and deaths.

Is there any difference between right hepatectomy and left lateral sectionectomy for living donors? as much you cut, as much you hurt?

BACKGROUND

The worldwide rising demand for cadaveric donors in liver transplantation is an important incentive for the development of alternative transplantation options, such as living donors. A precise evaluation of surgical complications is, therefore, considered to be an important issue in this setting.

AIM

Present a retrospective analysis of 126 living donors hepatectomies undertaken at our centre.

METHODS

From December 2002 to August 2009, 126 living donors were submitted to hepatectomy. Donors' complications were stratified according to Clavien's scoring system to compare the morbidity of right hepatectomy (RH) (Group 1) and left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) (Group 2).

RESULTS

Thirty-nine complications were observed in 35 patients. Sixty LLS, 3 left (LH) and 63 RH were performed. The complications were classified as: Clavien grade 1-11 (28.2%), grade 2-12 (30.7%), grade 3A-13 (33.3%), grade 3B-2 (5.1%) and grade 4A-1 (2.5%). When Group 1 (63 patients) and Group 2 (60 patients) were compared, there was no significant difference between the number of complications: 20 (31%) and 14 (23%), respectively (P > 0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was a safe procedure, regardless of the type of liver resection undertaken. We found no difference in morbidity between RH and LLS, which suggests that complications may occur despite the amount of liver retrieved.

Living donor liver transplantation: effect of the type of liver graft donation on donor mortality and morbidity

To investigate the influence of the type of liver graft donation on donor mortality and morbidity. The clinical course of 87 living liver donors operated on at our center between 2002 and 2009 was retrospectively analysed and data pertaining to all complications were retrieved. No donor mortality was observed and no donor suffered any life-threatening complication. Four donors (4.6%) developed biliary leakage, nine (10.3%) had to be readmitted to hospital and six (6.9%) required some or other type of reoperation related to the previous liver donation. Reoperations included incisional or diaphragmatic hernia repair (n = 4), biliary leakage repair (n = 1) and segmental colon resection combined with diaphragmatic hernia repair (n = 1). There was a statistically significant difference in hospital stay (P < 0.001), autologous blood transfusions (P < 0.001) and operating time (P < 0.005) when right lobe donations (Segments V-VIII) were compared with left lobe (Segments II-IV) and left lateral lobe (Segments II-III) donations, whereas no difference was found between these groups regarding hospital readmission, operative revisions and the incidence or severity of complications. Right lobe donation was associated with prolonged hospital stay, increased blood transfusions and prolonged operating time when compared with left and left lateral lobe donation, whereas donor mortality and morbidity did not differ between these groups.

Does living donation have advantages over deceased donation in liver transplantation?

Liver transplantation (LT) is the best treatment option for patients with end-stage liver disease. Living donor LT (LDLT) has developed as an alternative to deceased donor LT (DDLT) in order to overcome the critical shortage of deceased organ donations, particularly in Asia. LDLT offers several advantages over DDLT. The major advantage of LDLT is the reduction in waiting time mortality. Especially among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), LDLT can shorten the waiting time and lower the dropout rate. The Hong Kong group reported that median waiting time was significantly shorter for LDLT than for DDLT. Intention-to-treat survival rates of HCC patients with voluntary live donors were significantly higher than those of patients without voluntary live donors. In contrast, a multicenter adult-to-adult LDLT retrospective cohort study reported that LDLT recipients displayed a significantly higher rate of HCC recurrence than DDLT recipients, although LDLT recipients had shorter waiting times than DDLT recipients. The advantage of LDLT involves the more liberal criteria for HCC compared with those for DDLT. Various preoperative interventions including nutritional treatment can also be planned for both the donor and recipient in LDLT. Conversely, LDLT has marked unfavorable characteristics in terms of donor risks. Donor morbidity is not infrequent and the donor mortality rate is estimated at around 0.1-0.3%. In conclusion, living donation is not necessarily advantageous over deceased donation in LT. Taking the advantages and disadvantages of each option into consideration, LDLT and DDLT should both be used to facilitate effective LT for patients requiring transplant.

Perioperative management of hepatic resection toward zero mortality and morbidity: analysis of 793 consecutive cases in a single institution

BACKGROUND

The mortality rates associated with hepatectomy are still not zero. Our aim was to define the risk factors for complications and to evaluate our perioperative management.

STUDY DESIGN

Between 2001 and 2008, 793 consecutive patients (547 men and 246 women; mean age ± SD, 56.1 ± 14.9 years) underwent hepatectomy without gastrointestinal resection and choledocojejunostomy at our center. Of these patients, 354 (44.6%) were positive for the hepatitis B virus surface antigen and/or the hepatitis C virus antibody. We categorized 783 (98.7%) patients as Child-Pugh class A. Major resection (sectionectomy, hemihepatectomy, and extended hemihepatectomy), was performed in 535 patients (67.5%) and re-resection in 81 patients (10.2%).

RESULTS

The median operative time was 345.5 minutes and median blood loss was 360 mL. The rate of red blood cell transfusion was 6.8%. The morbidity rate was 15.6%. Reoperations were performed in 19 patients (2.4%). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 18.4 ± 10.4 days. The in-hospital mortality rate was 0.1% (1 of 793 patients; caused by hepatic failure). The independent relative risk for morbidity was influenced by an operative time of more than 360 minutes, blood loss of more than 400 mL, and serum albumin levels of less than 3.5 g/dL, as determined using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Shorter operative times and reduced blood loss were obtained by improving the surgical technique and using new surgical devices and intraoperative management, including anesthesia. Additionally, decision making using our algorithm and perioperative management according to CDC guidelines reduced the morbidity and mortality associated with hepatectomy.

Living donor liver transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The widening gap between the growing number of liver transplant candidates and the supply of deceased donor organs became a strong motivation for the development of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). LDLT has gone through its developmental phase and become an established life-saving procedure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite the challenging nature of the technique of LDLT, there have been continuous innovations. A better understanding of complex surgical anatomy and physiologic differences of partial hepatic allografts has helped to avoid graft congestion, small-for-size syndrome, or graft hypoperfusion from portal flow steal. LDLT for patients with high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score can achieve comparable results with deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Size limitation of partial grafts can be overcome with dual grafts. The extended application of LDLT for hepatocellular carcinoma beyond Milan criteria seems feasible but at the cost of slightly compromised survival. More information has become available for prospective donors about the consequences of living liver donation in terms of psychosocial impact.

SUMMARY

Although LDLT is still evolving, it has become the most effective alternative to DDLT. Proven or potential benefit of LDLT include the superior quality of the allograft despite the smaller size, selection of proper timing for transplantation and a reduced waiting time, which prevents waiting list mortality.

Living donor liver transplantation using dual grafts: ultrasonographic evaluation

AIM

To evaluate the dual-graft living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) with ultrasonography, with special emphasis on the postoperative complications.

METHODS

From January 2002 to August 2007, 110 adult-to-adult LDLTs were performed in West China Hospital of Sichuan University. Among them, dual-graft implantations were performed in six patients. Sonographic findings of the patients were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

All the six recipients survived the dual-graft adult-to-adult LDLT surgery. All had pleural effusion. Four patients had episodes of postoperative abdominal complications, including fluid collection between the grafts in three patients, intrahepatic biliary dilatation in two, hepatofugal portal flow of the left lobe in two, and atrophy of the left lobe in one.

CONCLUSION

Although dual-graft LDLT takes more efforts and is technically complicated, it is safely feasible. Postoperative sonographic monitoring of the recipient is important.

Acute liver failure

Acute liver failure is a rare disorder with high mortality and resource cost. In the developing world, viral causes predominate, with hepatitis E infection recognised as a common cause in many countries. In the USA and much of western Europe, the incidence of virally induced disease has declined substantially in the past few years, with most cases now arising from drug-induced liver injury, often from paracetamol. However, a large proportion of cases are of unknown origin. Acute liver failure can be associated with rapidly progressive multiorgan failure and devastating complications; however, outcomes have been improved by use of emergency liver transplantation. An evidence base for practice is emerging for supportive care, and a better understanding of the pathophysiology of the disorder, especially in relation to hepatic encephalopathy, will probably soon lead to further improvements in survival rates.