Extensive Thrombectomy as a Legitimate Strategy in Living Donor Liver Transplantation With Advanced Portal Vein Thrombosis

Thrombectomized autologous portal Y-graft inflow construction can be an option in living-donor liver transplantation: a case report

BACKGROUND

In living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT), portal Y-graft interposition using the recipient's portal vein (PV) bifurcation has been used for right lobe grafts with double PV orifices. We herein report the use of thrombectomized autologous portal Y-graft interposition for a recipient with preoperative portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in a right lobe LDLT with double PV orifices.

CASE PRESENTATION

The recipient was a 54-year-old male with end-stage liver disease due to alcoholic liver cirrhosis. There was PV thrombus in the recipient's PV. The living liver donor was his 53-year-old spouse, and a right lobe graft was planned for the transplantation. Since the donor's liver had a type III PV anomaly, autologous portal Y-graft interposition after thrombectomy was planned for PV reconstruction in the LDLT. The portal Y-graft was resected from the recipient and a thrombus extending from the main PV to the right PV branch was removed on the back table. The portal Y-graft was anastomosed to the anterior and posterior portal branches of the right lobe graft. Followed by venous reconstruction, the Y-graft was anastomosed to the recipient's main PV. The operation time was 545 min and the intraoperative blood loss was 1355 ml. The recipient was discharged on postoperative day 13 without any complications. The recipient remains well with the patency of the portal Y-graft one year after the liver transplantation.

CONCLUSION

We herein report the successful use of autologous portal Y-graft interposition after thrombectomy on the back table for a recipient with PVT in a right lobe LDLT.

Physiological reno-portal bypass in liver transplantation with non-tumorous portal vein thrombosis

Reno-portal anastomosis (RPA) in presence of spleno-renal shunts (SRS) is a physiological option to restore blood flow in liver transplantation with portal vein thrombosis (PVT). Diffuse splanchnic venous system thrombosis (complex PVT) is its main indication but RPA proved to be useful in selected cases of less extensive thrombosis (non-complex PVT). Up until now only two monocentric and one multicentric case series has been published on this topic in addition to few anecdotal reports. After 2014, we introduced RPA in our institution to manage some cases of complex PVT in presence of SRS. Here, we present the evolution of indication to RPA. From 2014 to 2020, we performed ten RPA: nine patients presented non-complex and one complex PVT. Overall early and late complication rates were 66.6% and 50%, respectively. Two patients developed RPA stenosis, treated by interventional radiology. Self-resolving acute kidney injury (AKI) was observed in three cases. No re-transplantation was necessary. RPA was patent in all patients, with a mean follow-up of 41.9 months. The overall patient survival was 70% at 1 year and 60% at 3 and 5 years. Four patients died at 1, 2, 3 and 20 months from LT. Causes of deaths were, respectively, stroke, cerebral infection, sepsis (MOF) and sudden variceal bleeding in sinusoidal obstruction syndrome. The relative simplicity and effectiveness of RPA in presence of SRS allowed us to rely more and more often on this technique in liver transplantation with challenging non-complex PVT.

Meta-analysis and systematic review: Prevalence, graft failure, mortality, and post-operative thrombosis in liver transplant recipients with pre-operative portal vein thrombosis

AIMS

This study seeks to evaluate the association between pre-transplant portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and overall survival, graft failure, waitlist mortality, and post-operative PVT after liver transplantation.

METHODS

A conventional pairwise meta-analysis between patients with and without pre-transplant PVT was conducted using hazard ratios or odds ratios where appropriate.

RESULTS

Prevalence of preoperative PVT was 11.6% (CI 9.70-13.7%). Pre-operative PVT was associated with increased overall mortality (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.27-1.65) and graft loss (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.34-1.85). In particular, grade 3 (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.00-2.51) and 4 (HR 2.24, 95% CI 1.45-3.45) PVT significantly increased mortality, but not grade 1 or 2 PVT. Patients with PVT receiving living donor (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.24-1.91) and deceased donor (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.21-1.92) liver transplantation had increased mortality, with no significant difference between transplant types (P = .13). Furthermore, pre-transplant PVT was associated with higher occurrence of post-transplant PVT (OR 5.06, 95% CI 3.89-6.57). Waitlist mortality was not significantly increased in patients with pre-transplant PVT.

CONCLUSION

Graft failure, mortality, and post-operative PVT are more common in pre-transplant PVT patients, especially in grade 3 or 4 PVT. Prophylactic anticoagulation can be considered to reduce re-thrombosis and improve survival.

A no-ligation technique to prevent intraoperative hepatic artery dissection in living-donor liver transplantation

Intrahepatic recipient hepatic artery dissection caused by hepatic artery thrombosis is a lethal complication of living-liver donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We herein report a new surgical technique that avoids the ligation of the recipient hepatic arteries in LDLT. Patients undergoing LDLT between 2009 and 2019 were evaluated. In the second half of this period, a technique involving no ligation of the recipient hepatic artery was initiated and its impact on the incidence of intrahepatic recipient hepatic artery dissection was determined. The middle and left hepatic arteries were ligated in 195 cases (53.4%), and the no-ligation technique was used in 170 (46.6%). The incidence of intraoperative hepatic artery dissection was significantly lower in the no-ligation group (n = 0, 0.0%) than in the ligation group (n = 10, 5.1%) (p = 0.0021). After propensity score matching to evaluate the patient characteristics, the incidence of intraoperative hepatic artery dissection was also significantly lower in the no-ligation group (n = 0, 0.0%) than in the ligation group (n = 6, 4.5%) (p = 0.0295). As a result, this new surgical technique is highly recommended to avoid recipient hepatic artery ligation in LDLT.

Risk Factors and Outcome of Portal Vein Thrombosis After Laparoscopic and Open Hepatectomy for Primary Liver Cancer: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Post-hepatectomy portal vein thrombosis (PH-PVT) is a severe complication. The risk factors of PH-PVT after laparoscopic and open hepatectomy have not been clarified yet. We aimed to retrospectively investigate the risk factors and outcome of PH-PVT in patients with primary liver cancer.

METHODS

We enrolled 622 consecutive patients who underwent hepatectomy in our hospital between January 2006 and August 2016.

RESULTS

Of 21 patients (3.4%) with PH-PVT, 7 had grade I; 13, grade II; and 1, grade III. The patients with PH-PVT were significantly older than those without PH-PVT. Of the 413 patients who underwent open hepatectomy, those who underwent a major right hepatectomy (4.1%) had a slightly higher incidence of PH-PVT. Of the 209 patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy, those who underwent a left lateral sectionectomy (21.2%) and major right hepatectomy (16.7%) had high incidence rates of PH-PVT. The treatment was only observation in five patients, medication with an antithrombotic drug in 15 patients, and reoperation in one patient. PH-PVT diminished in 17 patients. Cavernous transformation and/or stenosis of the portal vein developed in three patients. The patient with grade III PH-PVT after open right hemihepatectomy underwent reoperation but died of hepatic failure.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that patient age, left lateral sectionectomy were risk factors of PH-PVT. Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy and major right hepatectomy might bring about relatively higher risk of PH-PVT. Major right hepatectomy tends to lead to severe PH-PVT. Careful handling of the PV during hepatectomy and early treatment of PH-PVT are necessary.

Small-for-size graft, small-for-size syndrome and inflow modulation in living donor liver transplantation

The extended application of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has revealed the problem of graft size mismatching called "small-for-size syndrome (SFSS)." The initial trials to resolve this problem involved increasing the procured graft size, from left to right, and even extending to include a right lobe graft. Clinical cases of living right lobe donations have been reported since then, drawing attention to the risks of increasing the liver volume procured from a living donor. However, not only other modes of increasing graft volume (GV) such as auxiliary or dual liver transplantation, but also control of the increased portal pressure caused by a small-for-size graft (SFSG), such as a porto-systemic shunt or splenectomy and optimal outflow reconstruction, have been trialed with some positive results. To establish an effective strategy for transplanting SFSG and preventing SFSS, it is essential to have precise knowledge and tactics to evaluate graft quality and GV, when performing these LDLTs with portal pressure control and good venous outflow. Thus, we reviewed the updated literature on the pathogenesis of and strategies for using SFSG.

Liver transplantation in patients with portal vein thrombosis: A strategic road map throughout management

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation in the setting of portal vein thrombosis is an intricate issue that occasionally necessitates extraordinary procedures for portal flow restoration. However, to date, there is no consensus on a persistent management strategy, particularly with extensive forms. This work aims to introduce our experience-based surgical management algorithm for portal vein thrombosis during liver transplantation and to clarify some of the debatable circumstances associated with this problematic issue.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2019, 494 adults underwent liver transplantation at our institute. Ninety patients had preoperative portal vein thrombosis, and 79 patients underwent living donor liver transplantation. Our algorithm trichotomized the management plan into 3 pathways based on portal vein thrombosis grade. The surgical procedures implemented included thrombectomy, interposition vein grafts, jump grafts from the superior mesenteric vein, jump grafts from a collateral and renoportal anastomosis in 56, 13, 11, 4, and 2 patients, respectively. Four patients with mural thrombi did not require any special intervention.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients experienced posttransplant portal vein complications. They all proved to have a patent portal vein by the end of follow-up regardless of the management modality. No significant survival difference was observed between cohorts with versus without portal vein thrombosis. The early graft loss rate was significantly higher with advanced grades (P = .048) as well as technically demanding procedures (P = .032).

CONCLUSION

A stepwise broad-minded strategy should always be adopted when approaching advanced portal vein thrombosis during liver transplantation. An industrious preoperative evaluation should always be carried out to locate the ideal reliable source for portal flow restoration.

Post-transplant inflow modulation for early allograft dysfunction after living donor liver transplantation

Background

To treat small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), many procedures were described for portal flow modulation before, during, or after transplantation. The selection of the procedure as well as the best timing remains controversial.

Case presentation

A 43-year-old female with end-stage liver disease underwent LDLT with extended left with caudate lobe graft from her donor who was her 41-year-old brother (graft volume/standard liver volume (GV/SLV), 35.7%; graft to recipient weight ratio (GRWR), 0.67%). During the surgery, splenectomy could not be performed owing to severe peri-splenic adhesions to avoid the ruined bleedings. The splenic artery ligation was not also completely done because it was dorsal to the pancreas and difficult to be approached. Finally, adequate portal vein (PV) inflow was confirmed after portal venous thrombectomy. As having post-transplant optional procedures that are accessible for PV flow modulation, any other procedures for PV modulation during LDLT were not done until the postoperative assessment of the graft function and PV flow for possible postoperative modulation of the portal flow accordingly. Postoperative PV flow kept as high as 30 cm/s. By the end of the 1st week, there was a progressive deterioration of the total bilirubin profile (peak as 19.4 mg/dL) and ascitic fluid amount exceeded 1000 mL/day. Therefore, splenic artery embolization was done effectively and safely on the 10th postoperative day (POD) to reverse early allograft dysfunction as PV flow significantly decreased to keep within 20 cm/s and serum total bilirubin levels gradually declined with decreased amounts of ascites below 500 mL on POD 11 and thereafter. The patient was discharged on POD 28 with good condition.

Conclusions

SFSS can be prevented or reversed by the portal inflow modulation, even by post-transplant procedure. This case emphasizes that keeping accessible angiographic treatment options for PV modulation, such as splenic artery embolization, after LDLT is quite feasible.