Adult living donor liver transplantation: living donation of the right liver lobe

Donor safety of remnant liver volumes of less than 30% in living donor liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the acceptability of donor remnant liver volume (RLV) to total liver volume (TLV) ratio (RLV/TLV) being <30% as safe in living donor liver transplantations (LDLTs).

METHODS

Online databases were searched from January 2000 to June 2022. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects model.

RESULTS

One prospective and seven retrospective studies comprising 1935 patients (164 RLV/TLV <30% vs. 1771 RLV/TLV ≥30%) were included. Overall (OR = 1.82; 95% CI [1.24, 2.67]; p = .002) and minor (OR = 1.88; 95% CI [1.23, 2.88]; p = .004) morbidities were significantly lower in the RLV/TLV ≥30% group than in the RLV/TLV <30% group (OR = 1.82; 95% CI [1.24, 2.67]; p = .002). No significant differences were noted in the major morbidity, biliary complications, and hepatic dysfunction. Peak levels of bilirubin (SMD = .50; 95% CI [.07, .93]; p = .02) and international normalized ratio (SMD = .68; 95% CI [.04, 1.32]; p = .04) were significantly lower in the RLV/TLV ≥ 30% group than in the RLV/TLV <30% group. No significant differences were noted in the peak alanine transferase and aspartate transaminase levels and hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the safety of the donor as the top priority, the eligibility of a potential liver donor in LDLT whose RLV/TLV is expected to be <30% should not be accepted.

Liver Transplantation for Patients with Cholestatic Liver Diseases

Background

Cholestatic liver diseases (CD) account for 11% of all liver transplantations (LT) in the Eurotransplant region. Despite the excellent long-term outcome that is considerably superior to all other indications for LT, transplant surgeons and physicians face nowadays – in the era of MELD (Model of End-Stage Liver Disease)-based allocation, organ shortage, and extended allocation policies – more and more challenges in this patient cohort, especially since there is no curative medical treatment for these entities.

Methods

Based on a literature review and personal experience in liver transplantation for CD, we show the status quo of indication, allocation, and outcome as well as potential strategies to overcome long waiting times and organ shortage.

Results

Concerning graft and patient survival, CD remain the ‘best indications’ for LT. Since the implementation of MELD-based allocation results in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) could be preserved on good levels only by the implementation and revision of standard exceptions. Recurrence of PSC after LT remains a challenge for transplant surgeons and physicians. New data has kindled a debate on biliary reconstruction in LT for PSC. Promising data on living donor LT motivate to push the boundaries in this direction.

Conclusion

CD are excellent indications for liver transplantation since excellent long-term outcomes are achievable when the transplant is performed at the right time. The decisions concerning evaluation, listing, and allocation should be made by an interdisciplinary team of gastroenterologists and transplant surgeons.

Risk of venous congestion in live donors of extended right liver graft

AIM: To investigate middle hepatic vein (MHV) management in adult living donor liver transplantation and safer remnant volumes (RV).

METHODS: There were 59 grafts with and 12 grafts without MHV (including 4 with MHV-5/8 reconstructions). All donors underwent our five-step protocol evaluation containing a preoperative protocol liver biopsy Congestive vs non-congestive RV, remnant-volume-body-weight ratios (RVBWR) and postoperative outcomes were evaluated in 71 right graft living donors. Dominant vs non-dominant MHV anatomy in total liver volume (d-MHV/TLV vs nd-MHV/TLV) was constellated with large/small congestion volumes (CV-index). Small for size (SFS) and non-SFS remnant considerations were based on standard cut-off- RVBWR and RV/TLV. Non-congestive RVBWR was based on non-congestive RV.

RESULTS: MHV and non-MHV remnants showed no significant differences in RV, RV/TLV, RVBWR, total bilirubin, or INR. SFS-remnants with RV/TLV < 30% and non-SFS-remnants with RV/TLV ≥ 30% showed no significant differences either. RV and RVBWR for non-MHV (n = 59) and MHV-containing (n = 12) remnants were 550 ± 95 mL and 0.79 ± 0.1 mL vs 568 ± 97 mL and 0.79 ± 0.13, respectively (P = 0.423 and P = 0.919. Mean left RV/TLV was 35.8% ± 3.9%. Non-MHV (n = 59) and MHV-containing (n = 12) remnants (34.1% ± 3% vs 36% ± 4% respectively, P = 0.148. Eight SFS-remnants with RVBWR < 0.65 had a significantly smaller RV/TLV than 63 non-SFS-remnants with RVBWR ≥ 0.65 [SFS: RV/TLV 32.4% (range: 28%-35.7%) vs non-SFS: RV/TLV 36.2% (range: 26.1%-45.5%), P < 0.009. Six SFS-remnants with RV/TLV < 30% had significantly smaller RVBWR than 65 non-SFS-remnants with RV/TLV ≥ 30% (0.65 (range: 0.6-0.7) vs 0.8 (range: 0.6-1.27), P < 0.01. Two (2.8%) donors developed reversible liver failure. RVBWR and RV/TLV were concordant in 25%-33% of SFS and in 92%-94% of non-SFS remnants. MHV management options including complete MHV vs MHV-4A selective retention were necessary in n = 12 vs n = 2 remnants based on particularly risky congestive and non-congestive volume constellations.

CONCLUSION: MHV procurement should consider individual remnant congestive- and non-congestive volume components and anatomy characteristics, RVBWR-RV/TLV constellation enables the identification of marginally small remnants.

Medical students' education on organ donation and its evaluation during six consecutive years: results of a voluntary, anonymous educational intervention study

BACKGROUND

One of the main reasons for organ shortage is insufficient education on organ donation. Knowledgeable medical students could share the information with friends and families resulting in a positive attitude to organ donation of the general public.

METHODS

During six consecutive years (2009 to 2014), we conducted a voluntary, anonymous educational intervention study on organ donation among fourth year medical students in the course of the main surgery lecture at the University of Essen, Germany.

RESULTS

Questionnaires of 383 students were analyzed. Prior to the specific lecture on organ donation, 64% of the students carried a signed organ donor card with the intention to donate. Further information regarding organ donation was required by 37% of the students. The request for further information was statistically significantly higher among students without a donor card compared to organ donor card carriers (P < 0.0001). After the lecture, the number of students requiring further information decreased statistically significantly to 19% (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Already a 45-minute lecture for fourth year medical students significantly decreases their request for further information on organ donation and improves their attitude to organ donation. Continued training on organ donation will help medical students to become disseminators for this important topic in our society.

Transhilar passage in right graft live donor liver transplantation: intrahilar anatomy and its impact on operative strategy

The passage through the hilar plate during right graft live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) can have dangerous consequences for both donors and recipients. The purpose of our study was to delineate hilar transection and biliary reconstruction strategies in right graft LDLT, with special consideration of central and peripheral hilar anatomical variants. A total of 71 consecutive donors underwent preoperative three-dimensional (3D) CT reconstructions and virtual 3D hepatectomies. A three-modal hilar passage strategy was applied, and its impact on operative strategy analyzed. In 68.4% of cases, type I and II anatomical configurations allowed for an en block hilar transection with simple anastomotic reconstructions. In 23.6% of cases, donors had "difficult" type II and types III/IV hilar bile duct anatomy that required stepwise hilar transections and complex graft biliary reconstructions. Morbidity rates for our early (A) and recent (B) experience periods were 67% and 39%, respectively. (1) Our two-level classification and 3D imaging technique allowed for donor-individualized transhilar passage. (2) A stepwise transhilar passage was favored in types III and IV inside the right-sided hilar corridor. (3) Reconstruction techniques showed no ameliorating effect on early/late biliary morbidity rates.

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.