Results of 132 hepatectomies for living donor liver transplantation: report of one death

Hepatic and portal vein transection by vascular stapler in open living donor hepatectomy – A retrospective cohort study

Background

In an effort to increase donor safety in living donor liver transplantation, the utilization of vascular staplers for the division of the right portal and hepatic veins in patients undergoing right lobe liver donation for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was implemented. In here we report our experience with vascular staplers in patients undergoing LDLT and evaluate the subsequent feasibility and safety for donors.

Material and methods

17 cases of living donor liver transplant were retrospectively analyzed. The right portal vein was transected directly at the bifurcation of the main portal vein, the right hepatic vein was resected directly at the wall of the inferior vena cava using a vascular stapler device.

Results

We registered a complication rate of 41.2% (7 donors). According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, grade II and grade III complications were each observed in 5.9% and grade IIIb complications in 29.4%, whereas catastrophic bleeding, complications with residual disability or the necessity of re-laparatomy did not occur. Upon 6 weeks, all donors were able to return to their previous occupation in fully recovered condition.

Conclusions

The utilization of vascular staplers in donors during open LDLT presents an encouraging alternative to manual over-sewing of vascular stumps. Apart from its timesaving aspect, the technique reduces the potential risk of life-threatening clamp slippage with subsequent uncontrolled blood loss.

•

Portal or hepatic vein injuries are severe complications in liver transplant.

•

Vascular staplers were used in an effort to increase donor safety.

•

Hepatic or portal vein injuries or bleeding did not occur when using staplers.

•

Vascular staplers may be a safe alternative to manual vascular sewing.

•

Their use may be timesaving and reduce the risk of clamp slippage.

Sex differences in postsurgical skeletal muscle depletion after donation of living-donor liver transplantation, although minimal, should not be ignored

BACKGROUND

Donor safety is the top priority in living-donor liver transplantation. Splenic hypertrophy and platelet count decrease after donor surgery are reported to correlate with the extent of hepatectomy, but other aftereffects of donor surgeries are unclear. In this study, we evaluated the surgical effects of donor hepatectomy on skeletal muscle depletion and their potential sex differences.

METHODS

Among a total of 450 consecutive donor hepatectomies performed from April 2001 through March 2017, 277 donors who completed both preoperative and postoperative (60-119 days postsurgery) evaluation by computed tomography were the subjects of this study. Donors aged 45 years or older were considered elderly donors. Postoperative skeletal muscle depletion was assessed on the basis of the cross-sectional area of the psoas major muscle. Postoperative changes in the spleen volume and platelet count ratios were also analysed to evaluate the effects of major hepatectomy.

RESULTS

The decrease in the postoperative skeletal muscle mass in the overall donor population was slight (99.4 ± 6.3%). Of the 277 donors, 59 (21.3%) exhibited skeletal muscle depletion (i.e., < 95% of the preoperative value). Multivariate analysis revealed that elderly donor (OR:2.30, 95% C.I.: 1.27-4.24) and female donor (OR: 1.94, 95% C.I. 1.04-3.59) were independent risk factors for postoperative skeletal muscle depletion. Stratification of the subjects into four groups by age and sex revealed that the elderly female donor group had significantly less skeletal muscle mass postoperatively compared with the preoperative values (95.6 ± 6.8%), while the other three groups showed no significant decrease. Due to their smaller physical characteristics, right liver donation was significantly more prevalent in the female groups than in the male groups (112/144, 77.8% vs 65/133, 48.9%; p < 0.001). The estimated liver resection rate correlated significantly with the splenic hypertrophy ratio (r = 0.528, p < 0.001) and the extent of the platelet count decrease (r = - 0.314, p < 0.001), but donor age and sex did not affect these parameters.

CONCLUSION

Elderly female donors have a higher risk of postoperative skeletal muscle depletion. Additionally, female donors are more likely to donate a right liver graft, whose potential subclinical risks include postoperative splenic enlargement and a platelet count decrease.

Living Liver Donor Selection and Resection at the University of Tokyo Hospital

OBJECTIVES

Donor selection and operative procedures for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation at the University of Tokyo are presented.

METHODS

Donor selection criteria are as follows: age between 20 and 65 years, within 3 degrees of consanguinity, without coercion, free from any major comorbidities, body mass index (BMI) < 30, and ABO blood type identical or compatible. Liver biopsy is indicated for BMI > 25 kg/m(2) or any liver function abnormality, and those with macroscopic steatosis >10% are rejected. Thereafter, an indocyanine green retention test and dynamic computed tomography are evaluated. Graft type is determined based on computed tomography volumetry. An estimated graft volume of 40% to recipient standard liver volume ratio is the lower limit. For donor safety, the left liver is the first choice, provided that it satisfies the lower limit. Otherwise, right liver harvesting is indicated, providing that the estimated remnant liver volume is >30% of the donor's total liver volume. A posterior sector graft is a possible option.

RESULTS

Between 1996 and 2014, 462 donor hepatectomies were performed, with 257 right livers, 179 left livers, and 26 posterior sectors. There was no mortality, and the incidence of morbidity grades I, II, IIIa, and IIIb was 16%, 5%, 5%, and 3%, respectively, without a difference between right and left liver grafts. The left liver was used without impairing recipient outcome. Two aborted hepatectomies (0.4%) and 3 near-miss events (0.6%) were encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

Maximal effort should be applied to donor selection and operation for donor safety.

Living donor liver transplantation in Brazil-current state

Currently in Brazil, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) represents 8.5% of liver transplantation (LT), being the majority pediatric one. Up to now, according to Brazilian Organ Transplantation Association (ABTO) annual report, 2,086 procedures have been done nationwide, most of them in southeast and south regions. Based on national centers reports, biliary complication is the most common recipient postoperative complication (14.5-20.6%), followed by hepatic artery thrombosis (3.1-10.7%) and portal vein thrombosis (2.3-9.1%). Patient and graft overall 5-y survival correspond to 76% and 74%, respectively. Regarding the donor, morbidity rate ranges from 12.4% to 28.3%, with a national mortality rate of 0.14%. In conclusion, Brazilian LDLT programs enhance international experience that this is a feasible and safe procedure, as well as an excellent alternative strategy to overcome organs shortage.

Pushing the frontiers of living donor right hepatectomy

Living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) is currently the most common donor surgery in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation although the morbidity and mortality reported in living donors still contradicts the Hippocratic tenet of “do no harm”. Achieving low complication rates in LDRH remains a matter of major concern. Living donor surgery is performed worldwide as an established solution to the donor shortage. The aim of this study was to assess the current status of LDRH and comment on the future of the procedure; assessment was made from the standpoint of optimizing the donor selection criteria and reducing morbidity based on both the authors’ 8-year institutional experience and a literature review. New possibilities have been explored regarding selection criteria. The safety of living donors with unfavorable conditions, such as low remnant liver volume, fatty change, or old age, should also be considered. Abdominal incisions have become shorter, even without laparoscopic assistance; upper midline laparotomy is the primary incision used in more than 400 consecutive LDRHs in the authors’ institution. Various surgical techniques based on preoperative imaging technology of vascular and biliary anomalies have decreased the anatomical barriers in LDRH. Operative time has been reduced, with low blood loss. Laparoscopic or robotic LDRH has been tried in only a few selected donors. The LDRH-specific, long-term outcomes remain to be addressed. The follow-up duration of these studies should be long enough to address possible late complications. Donor safety, which is the highest priority, is ensured by three factors: preoperative selection, intraoperative surgical technique, and postoperative management. These three focus areas should be continuously refined, with the ultimate goal of zero morbidity.

Left hepatectomy versus right hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation: shifting the risk from the donor to the recipient

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), originally used in children with left lateral segment grafts, has been expanded to adults who require larger grafts to support liver function. Most adult LDLT procedures have been performed with right lobe grafts, and this means a significant risk of morbidity for the donors. To minimize the donor risk for adults, there is renewed interest in smaller left lobe grafts. The smaller graft size increases the recipient risk in the form of small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) and essentially transfers the risk from the donor to the recipient. We review the donor and recipient risks of LDLT and pay particular attention to the different types of liver grafts and the use of graft inflow modification to ameliorate the risk of SFSS. Finally, a new metric is proposed for quantifying the recipient benefit in exchange for a specific donor risk.

Incidence of death and potentially life-threatening near-miss events in living donor hepatic lobectomy: a world-wide survey

The incidence of morbidity and mortality after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is not well understood because reporting is not standardized and relies on single-center reports. Aborted hepatectomies (AHs) and potentially life-threatening near-miss events (during which a donor's life may be in danger but after which there are no long-term sequelae) are rarely reported. We conducted a worldwide survey of programs performing LDLT to determine the incidence of these events. A survey instrument was sent to 148 programs performing LDLT. The programs were asked to provide donor demographics, case volumes, and information about graft types, operative morbidity and mortality, near-miss events, and AHs. Seventy-one programs (48%), which performed donor hepatectomy 11,553 times and represented 21 countries, completed the survey. The average donor morbidity rate was 24%, with 5 donors (0.04%) requiring transplantation. The donor mortality rate was 0.2% (23/11,553), with the majority of deaths occurring within 60 days, and all but 4 deaths were related to the donation surgery. The incidences of near-miss events and AH were 1.1% and 1.2%, respectively. Program experience did not affect the incidence of donor morbidity or mortality, but near-miss events and AH were more likely in low-volume programs (≤50 LDLT procedures). In conclusion, it appears that independently of program experience, there is a consistent donor mortality rate of 0.2% associated with LDLT donor procedures, yet increased experience is associated with lower rates of AH and near-miss events. Potentially life-threatening near-miss events and AH are underappreciated complications that must be discussed as part of the informed consent process with any potential living liver donor.

Incidental appendectomy in donors undergoing hepatectomy for living-donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the morbidity associated with appendectomy in living liver donors undergoing hepatectomy.

METHODS

The medical records of 338 donors who underwent hepatectomies for living-donor liver transplantation between 2008 and 2010 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into 2 groups on the basis of appendectomy: patients in group A (n = 126) received incidental appendectomies in conjunction with donor hepatectomy, and those in group B (n = 212) underwent hepatectomy alone.

RESULTS

No significant difference in age, gender, or body mass index was found between groups. The wound infection rate (P = .037) and length of hospital stay (P = .0038) were higher in group A than in group B. Intraoperative findings in 126 donors in group A were subserosal (n = 4), retrocecal (n = 6), or hard nodular (n = 11) appendix; hyperemic appendix with edema (n = 9); appendix length ≥ 8 cm (n = 18); and palpable fecalith (n = 78). Histopathologic examination of appendix specimens revealed lymphoid hyperplasia with a fecalith (n = 32), fecalith only (n = 32), acute appendicitis (n = 20), normal anatomy (n = 18), fibrous obliteration (n = 9), lymphoid hyperplasia (n = 9), Enterobius vermicularis (n = 3), appendiceal neuroma (n = 1), carcinoid tumor (n = 1), and mucoceles (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

Although incidental appendectomy increased the wound infection rate and length of hospital stay, this procedure is necessary for the prevention of potential complications due to appendicitis when the exploration of the ileocecal region in patients undergoing donor hepatectomy reveals one or more of the following: appendix length ≥ 8 cm; dropsical, hyperemic, subserosal, nodular, and/or retrocecal appendix; and/or palpable fecaloma.

Live donor hepatectomy for liver transplantation in Egypt: Lessons learned

PURPOSE

To retrospectively review anesthesia and intensive care management of 145 consented volunteers subjected to right lobe or left hepatectomy between 2003 and 2011.

METHODS

After local ethics committee approval, anesthetic and intensive care charts, blood transfusion requirements, laboratory data, complications and outcome of donors were analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-three volunteers successfully tolerated the surgery with no blood transfusion requirements, but with a morbidity rate of (50.1%). The most frequent complication was infection (21.1%) (intraabdominal collections), followed by biliary leak (18.2%). Two donors had major complications: one had portal vein thrombosis (PVT) treated with vascular stent. This patient recovered fully. The other donor had serious intraoperative bleeding and developed postoperative PVT and liver and renal failure. He died after 12 days despite intensive treatment. He was later reported among a series of fatalities from other centers worldwide. Epidural analgesia was delivered safely (n=90) with no epidural hematoma despite significantly elevated prothrombin time (PT) and international normalization ratio (INR) postoperatively, reaching the maximum on Day 1 (16.9±2.5 s and 1.4±0.2, P<0.05 when compared with baseline). Hypophosphatemia and hypomagnesemia were frequently encountered. Total Mg and phosphorus blood levels declined significantly to 1.05±0.18 mg/dL on Day 1 and 2.3±0.83 mg/dL on Day 3 postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Coagulation and electrolytes need to be monitored perioperatively and replaced adequately. PT and INR monitoring postoperatively is still necessary for best timing of epidural catheter removal. Live donor hepatectomy could be performed without blood transfusion. Bile leak and associated infection of abdominal collections requires further effort to better identify biliary leaks and modify the surgical closure of the bile ducts. Donor hepatectomy is definitely not a complication-free procedure; reported complication risks should be available to the volunteers during consenting.

Trends in liver transplantation 2011

This review will highlight some of the important recent trends in liver transplantation. When possible, we will compare and contrast these trends across various regions of the world, in an effort to improve global consensus and better recognition of emerging data.

Outcome of right hepatectomy for living liver donors: a single Egyptian center experience

BACKGROUND

This study aims to evaluate living liver donor outcome after right hepatectomy in a single Egyptian center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between April 2004 and July 2010, 100 living donors underwent right hepatectomy. Their medical records and postoperative follow-up visits were retrospectively revised. Perioperative complications were reported. Postoperative complications were classified according to the five tier version of Clavien system.

RESULTS

There were 71 males and 29 females. The mean age was 27.6 ± 7.4 years. The mean graft weight was 999 ± 167 g and the mean volume percent of the remaining liver was 36.8 ± 8%. The mean ICU and hospital stay were 2.6 ± 2.7 and 12.4 ± 9.1, respectively. A total of 57 complications developed in 38 donors (38%). The commonest complication type was biliary complications. There were 22 grade I, 6 grade II, 15 grade IIIa, 12 grade IIIb, 1 grade IVa, and 1 grade V complications. One donor died due to posttransfusion ARDS on the 30th postoperative day. On follow-up, no donor developed long lasting disability. A donor died in a road traffic accident 1 year after donation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Donor right hepatectomy is not an entirely safe procedure. Biliary complications are the commonest early postoperative complications.

Utilization of elderly donors in living donor liver transplantation: when more is less?

An accepted definition of donor exclusion criteria has not been established for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The use of elderly donors to expand the living donor pool raises ethical concerns about donor safety. The aims of this study were (1) the comparison of the postoperative outcomes of living liver donors by age (≥ 50 versus < 50 years) and (2) the evaluation of the impact of the extent of right hepatectomy on donor outcomes. The study group included 150 donors who underwent donor right hepatectomy between October 2004 and April 2009. Extended criteria surgery (ECS) was defined as right hepatectomy with middle hepatic vein (MHV) harvesting or right hepatectomy resulting in an estimated remnant liver volume (RLV) less than 35%. The primary endpoints were donor outcomes in terms of donor complications graded according to the Clavien classification. Group 1 consisted of donors who were 50 years old or older (n = 28), and group 2 consisted of donors who were less than 50 years old (n = 122). At least 1 ECS criterion was present in 74% of donors: 57% had 1 criterion, and 17% had 2 criteria. None of the donors had grade 4 complications or died. The overall and major complication rates were similar in the 2 donor age groups [28.6% and 14.3% in group 1 and 32% and 8.2% in group 2 for the overall complication rates (P = 0.8) and the major complication rates (P = 0.2), respectively]. However, there was a significant correlation between the rate of major complications and the type of surgery in donors who were 50 years old or older. In LDLT, extending the limits of surgery comes at the price of more complications in elderly donors. Right hepatectomy with MHV harvesting and any procedure causing an RLV less than 35% should be avoided in living liver donors who are 50 years old or older.

The dilemma of living liver donor death: to report or not to report?

Living donor liver transplantation has become a life-saving alternative for end-stage liver disease patients who have no chance of receiving a deceased donor organ. On the basis of information available to the medical community, mortality risk for the living donor is reviewed and implications of not reporting donor deaths are discussed.

Outcome of and risk factors for incisional hernia after partial hepatectomy

INTRODUCTION

This study was conducted to analyze differences among abdominal incisions, and risk factors for incisional hernia after partial hepatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 626 posthepatectomy cases, we analyzed retrospectively the distribution regarding the type of incision and assessed risk factors for incisional hernia.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 95 (15.2%) had median incisions, 233 (37.2%) had J-shaped incisions, 206 (32.9%) had right transverse incisions with vertical extensions in the midline from the subumbilical region to the xiphoid process (RTVE), and 92 (14.7%) had bilateral transverse incision with a vertical extension to the xiphoid process (a reversed T incision). The respective frequencies of incisional hernia after median, J-shaped, RTVE, and reversed T incisions were 6.3, 4.7, 5.4, and 21.7%, so that the difference between reversed T and other incisions was significant. A diagnosis of "no hernia" required a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The risk factors for incisional hernia were incision type, postoperative ascites, body mass index, repeat hepatectomy, and steroid use in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of incisional hernia after reversed T incision was significantly higher than after other incisions. If incision extension is necessary, the midline incision should be extended from the subumbilical region.

Donor safety in adult living donor liver transplantation using the right lobe: Single center experience in China

AIM: To evaluate the safety of donors in adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using the right lobe in a single liver transplantation center in China.

METHODS: We investigated retrospectively 52 living donor liver resections performed from October 2003 to July 2006. All patients were evaluated by blood tests and abdominal CT. The mean donor age was 28.2 ± 7.4 years. Residual liver volume was 42.1% ± 4.7%. Mean operative time was 420 ± 76.2 min; mean ICU stay, less than 36 h; mean hospital stay, 16.4 ± 8.6 d; and mean follow-up period, 6 mo.

RESULTS: There was no mortality. The overall complication rate was 40% (21 donors). Major complications included biliary leak in two, and pneumonia in 2 donors. Minor complications included mild pleural effusion in 12 donors, transient ascites in 6, mild depression in 4, intra-abdominal collections in 2, and wound infections in 1 donor. Residual liver volume did not affect the complication rate. None required re-operation. Return to pre-donation activity occurred within 5-8 wk.

CONCLUSION: Right hemi-hepatectomy can be performed safely with minimal risk in cases of careful donor selection. Major complications occurred in only 7.7% of our series.

Current trends in live liver donation

The introduction of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been one of the most remarkable steps in the field of liver transplantation (LT), able to significantly expand the scarce donor pool in countries in which the growing demands of organs are not met by the shortage of available cadaveric grafts. Although the benefits of this procedure are enormous, the physical and psychological sacrifice of the donors is immense, and the expectations for a good outcome for themselves, as well as for the recipients, are high. We report a current overview of the latest trends in live liver donation in its different aspects (i.e. donor's selection, evaluation, operation, morbidity, mortality, ethics and psychology). This review is based on our center's personal experience with almost 200 LDLTs and a detailed analysis of the international literature of the last 7 years about this topic. Knowing in detail how to approach to the different aspects of living liver donation may be helpful in further improve donor's safety and even recipient's outcome.

Toward current standards of donor right hepatectomy for adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation through the experience of 200 cases

OBJECTIVE

To define the current standards of donor right hepatectomy, including the middle hepatic vein for adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Donor morbidity and mortality are inevitable given the ultra-major nature of the donor operation. Results from a matured center could define the true impact of this donor procedure most accurately.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From May 9, 1996 to April 13, 2005, 200 consecutive donors underwent donor right hepatectomy at the University of Hong Kong Medical Center. All right liver grafts except one included the middle hepatic vein. Donor characteristics, operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, laboratory results, and complications graded by Clavien's classification divided into four eras (each consecutive 50 cases) were compared.

RESULTS

Donor characteristics of the four eras were generally comparable. Operative outcomes improved progressively through the four eras. From era 1 to era 4, operation time decreased from 598 minutes (range, 378-932 minutes) to 391 minutes (range, 304-635 minutes). Blood loss also decreased from 500 mL (200-1600 mL) of era 1 to 251 mL (range, 95-595 mL) of era 4. Overall complication rate was 20.5% (41 of 200). Complications rates from eras 1 to 4 were 34%, 16%, 16%, and 16%, respectively. The most common complications were of grade I (24 of 41, 58.5%). A late donor death occurred in era 4 from the development of a duodenocaval fistula 10 weeks postoperation, giving a donor mortality of 0.5% (1 of 200).

CONCLUSIONS

This study validated the estimated morbidity and mortality of donor right hepatectomy of 20% and 0.5%, respectively. The data provide reference for counseling potential donors and setting the standards of donor right hepatectomy in the current era.

Live donor liver transplantation in adults

Live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was initiated in 1988 for children recipients. Its application to adult recipients was limited by graft size until the first right liver LDLT was performed in Hong Kong in 1996. Since then, right liver graft has become the major graft type. Despite rapid adoption of LDLT by many centers, many controversies on donor selection, indications, techniques, and ethics exist. With the recent known 11 donor deaths around the world, transplant surgeons are even more cautious than the past in the evaluation and selection of donors. The need for routine liver biopsy in donor evaluation is arguable but more and more centers opt for a policy of liberal liver biopsy. Donation of the middle hepatic vein (MHV) in the right liver graft was considered unsafe but now data indicate that the outcome of donors with or without MHV donation is about equal. Right liver LDLT has been shown to improve the overall survival rate of patients with chronic liver disease, acute or acute-on-chronic liver failure and hepatocellular carcinoma waiting for liver transplantation. The outcome of LDLT is equivalent to deceased donor liver transplantation despite a smaller graft size and higher technical complexity.

Documented deaths of hepatic lobe donors for living donor liver transplantation

The actual risk of death in hepatic lobe donors for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is unknown because of the lack of a comprehensive database. In the absence of a definitive estimate of the risk of donor death, the medical literature has become replete with anecdotal reports of donor deaths, many of which cannot be substantiated. Because donor death is one of the most important outcomes of LDLT, we performed a comprehensive survey of the medical and lay literature to provide a referenced source of worldwide donor deaths. We reviewed all published articles from the medical literature on LDLT and searched the lay literature for donor deaths from 1989 to February 2006. We classified each death as "definitely," "possibly," or "unlikely" related to donor surgery. We identified 19 donor deaths (and one additional donor in a chronic vegetative state). Thirteen deaths and the vegetative donor were "definitely," 2 were "possibly," and 4 were "unlikely" related to donor surgery. The estimated rate of donor death "definitely" related to donor surgery is 0.15%. The rate of donor death which is "definitely" or "possibly" related to the donor surgery is 0.20%. This analysis provides a source document of all identifiable living liver donor deaths, provides a better estimate of donor death rate, and may provide an impetus for centers with unreported deaths to submit these outcomes to the liver transplantation community.

Regeneration and function of hemiliver graft: right versus left

BACKGROUND

A right liver graft used almost routinely for adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), is associated with a higher incidence of morbidity and mortality in the donor. We compared volume regeneration and graft function between left and right liver grafts to examine the feasibility of using left liver grafts.

METHODS

The left liver was considered acceptable as a graft when it was estimated to be over 40% of the recipient standard liver volume. Otherwise, right liver harvesting was used, provided the estimated right liver volume was less than 70% of the donor's standard liver volume. Graft volume on computed tomography and the results of liver function tests 1, 3, and 12 months after LDLT were compared between recipients with left (n = 76) and right (n = 83) grafts. Possible factors influencing graft regeneration were evaluated by multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A higher regeneration rate in the left liver graft group resulted in the same ratio of graft to standard liver volume as in the right liver graft group (88% vs 87%) 1 year after LDLT. Liver function tests and 5-year survival rates were comparable between the 2 groups. An episode of acute rejection was a predictive factor for impaired graft regeneration 1 month after LDLT. The initial ratio of graft volume to standard liver volume was an independent factor for regeneration 1 year after LDLT.

CONCLUSIONS

A properly evaluated left liver graft can be used as safely as a right liver graft in adult-to-adult LDLT. The findings of the present study justify LDLT with a left liver graft under specific selection criteria and may be preferred to a right liver graft.

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.

Feasibility of left lobe living donor liver transplantation between adults: an 8-year, single-center experience of 107 cases

Operative mortality for a right lobe (RL) donor in adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is estimated to be as high as 0.5-1%. To minimize the risk to the donor, left lobe (LL)-LDLT might be an ideal option in adult LDLT. The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility of LL-LDLT between adults based on a single-center experience of 107 LL-LDLTs performed over 8 years. The mean graft weight of LL grafts was 452 g, which amounted to 40.5% of the estimated standard liver volume of the recipients. The overall 1-, 3- and 5-year patient survival rates in LL-LDLT were 81.4, 76.9 and 74.7%, respectively, which were comparable to those of RL-LDLT. Twenty-six grafts (24.3%) were lost for various reasons with three losses directly attributable to small-for-size graft syndrome. Post-operative liver function and hospital stay in LL donors were significantly better and shorter than that in RL donors, while the incidence of donor morbidity was comparable between LL and RL donors. In conclusion, LL-LDLT was found to be a feasible option in adult-to-adult LDLT. Further utilization of LL grafts should be undertaken to keep the chance of donor morbidity and mortality minimal.

Live donor liver transplantation

With ever-increasing demand for liver replacement, supply of organs is the limiting factor and a significant number of patients die while waiting. Live donor liver transplantation has emerged as an important option for many patients, particularly small pediatric patients and those adults that are disadvantaged by the current deceased donor allocation system. Ideally there would be no need to subject perfectly healthy people in the prime of their lives to a potentially life-threatening operation to procure transplantable organs. Donor safety is imperative and cannot be compromised regardless of the implication for the intended recipient. The evolution of split liver transplantation is the basis upon which live donor transplantation has become possible. The live donor procedures are considerably more complex than whole organ decreased donor transplantation and there are unique considerations involved in the assessment of any specific recipient and donor. Donor selection and evaluation have become highly specialized. The critical issue of size matching is determined by both the actual size of the donor graft and the recipient as well as the degree of recipient portal hypertension. The outcomes after live donor liver transplantation have been at least comparable to those of deceased donor transplantation. Nevertheless, all efforts should be made to improve deceased donor donation so as to minimize the need for live donors. Transplant physicians, particularly surgeons, must take responsibility for regulating and overseeing these procedures.

Living liver donor mortality: where do we stand?

OBJECTIVE

To explore the use of medical journals, lay media, registries, and transplant center websites to discuss living liver donor mortality.

METHODS

To study the incidence of and circumstances relating to living liver donor death, medical journals and lay print media were searched to create a case summary of worldwide living liver donor deaths. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) and European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR) were also queried for information regarding living liver donor deaths. Lastly, the Websites of United States transplant centers offering living liver donation were reviewed to identify whether or not death was stated as a donor risk.

RESULTS

Literature review revealed 14 living liver donor deaths. One of the five deaths occurring in the United States had been reported to UNOS. One of the 14 cases had been reported only in lay literature, and another only in the ELTR. In at least five cases, surgical complications were not the cause of donor death. Among the 62 transplant center Websites, only 12 centers (19%) specifically mentioned death as a donation risk. Eight of these 12 centers (67%) mentioned death in terms of percent mortality risk; however, risk rates spanned a 10-fold range from 0.2% to 2%.

CONCLUSION

Potential living liver donors are best served by accurate information about donor mortality. Access to such data is difficult and these individuals would benefit by a worldwide living liver donor registry and peer-reviewed publication of donor mortality.