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

EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) is an established life-saving procedure. The field of LT has changed in the past 10 years from several perspectives, with the expansion of indications, transplantation of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure, evolution of transplant oncology, the use of donations after cardiac death, new surgical techniques, and prioritisation of recipients on the waiting list. In addition, the advent of organ perfusion machines, the recognition of new forms of rejection, and the attention paid to the transition from paediatric to adult patients, have all improved the management of LT recipients. The purpose of the EASL guidelines presented here is not to cover all aspects of LT but to focus on developments since the previous EASL guidelines published in 2016.

Right Lobe Versus Left Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Donor and Recipient Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an established treatment for advanced liver disease. Whether right lobe (RL) or left lobe (LL) LDLT provides the best outcomes for donors and recipients remains contentious.

METHODS

MedLine, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central were searched to identify studies comparing RL- and LL-LDLT and reporting donor and/or recipient outcomes. Effect sizes were pooled using random-effect meta-analysis. Meta-regressions were used to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies were included. RL donors were more likely to experience major complications (relative risk [RR] = 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30-2.05; I2 = 19%) than LL donors; however, no difference was observed in the risk of any biliary complication (RR = 1.41; 95% CI = 0.91-2.20; I2 = 59%), bile leaks (RR = 1.56; 95% CI = 0.97-2.51; I2 = 52%), biliary strictures (RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.43-1.88; I2 = 27%), or postoperative death (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.25-1.05; I2 = 0%). Among recipients, the incidence of major complications (RR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.68-1.06; I2 = 21%), biliary complications (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 0.91-1.33; I2 = 8%), and vascular complications (RR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.44-1.43; I2 = 0%) was similar. Although the rate of small for size syndrome (RR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30-0.74; I2 = 0%) and postoperative deaths (RR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.44-0.87; I2 = 0%) was lower among RL-LDLT recipients, no differences were observed in long-term graft (hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.55-1.38; I2 = 74%) and overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.60-1.22; I2 = 44%).

CONCLUSIONS

LL donors experience fewer complications than RL donors, and LL-LDLT recipients had similar outcomes to RL-LDLT recipients. These findings suggest that LL-LDLT offers the best outcomes for living donors and similar outcomes for recipients when measures are taken to prevent small for size syndrome.

Effect of the response to preoperative treatment for hepatorenal syndrome on the outcome of recipients of living-donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

The effect of pretransplant hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) on the outcomes of living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) recipients with special reference to the recovery of HRS before LDLT was investigated.

METHODS

The rate of HRS was 43.9% (125/285) among the cohort, and the subjects were divided into three groups: those without HRS (No-HRS group, n = 160), those with HRS but recovered following pretransplant renal function restoration treatment (Responders group, n = 55), and those with persistent HRS (Non-responders group, n = 70).

RESULTS

While the 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival rates were comparable between those with and without HRS (89.6%, 84.7%, and 84.7% vs 95.6%, 92.2%, and 87.5%), the cumulative incidence of the development of posttransplant chronic kidney disease (CKD) was significantly higher in those with HRS (P < .001). In addition, there was a significant difference between Responders and Non-responders in the development of CKD (P = .01). In the Cox regression model, Non-responders (P = .032, HR 1.79 [95% C.I. 1.05-3.03]) and recipient age (P = .014, HR 1.62 [95% C.I. 1.10-2.37]) were independent predictors for the development of CKD after LDLT.

CONCLUSION

Living-donor liver transplantation is safe and effective for patients with HRS, and CKD progression could be reduced among those with HRS who responded to renal restoration treatment.

Donor Morbidity Is Equivalent Between Right and Left Hepatectomy for Living Liver Donation: A Meta-Analysis

Maximizing liver graft volume benefits the living donor liver recipient. Whether maximizing graft volume negatively impacts living donor recovery and outcomes remains controversial. Patient randomization between right and left hepatectomy has not been possible due to anatomic constraints; however, a number of published, nonrandomized observational studies summarize donor outcomes between 2 anatomic living donor hepatectomies. This meta-analysis compares donor-specific outcomes after right versus left living donor hepatectomy. Systematic searches were performed via PubMed, Cochrane, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar databases to identify relevant studies between January 2005 and November 2019. The primary outcomes compared overall morbidity and incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo >III) between right and left hepatectomy in donors after liver donation. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to derive summary risk estimates of outcomes. A total of 33 studies (3 prospective and 30 retrospective cohort) were used to identify 7649 pooled patients (5993 right hepatectomy and 1027 left hepatectomy). Proportion of donors who developed postoperative complications did not significantly differ after right hepatectomy (0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.40) and left hepatectomy (0.23; 95% CI, 0.17-0.29; P = 0.19). The overall risk ratio (RR) did not differ between right and left hepatectomy (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.83-1.63; P = 0.36). The relative risk for a donor to develop severe complications showed no differences by hepatectomy side (Incidence rate ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.67-1.40; P = 0.86). There is no evidence that the overall morbidity differs between right and left lobe donors. Publication bias reflects institutional and surgeon variation. A prospective, standardized, multi-institutional study would help quantify the burden of donor complications after liver donation.

Clinical Significance of Spontaneous Portosystemic Shunts in Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Spontaneous portosystemic shunts (SPSS) are commonly observed in patients undergoing living donor liver transplantation (LDLT); however, their impact on the outcome after transplantation is unclear. We aimed to assess the type, size, and the effects of SPSS on outcomes after LDLT. A total of 339 LDLT recipients in a single institution were included. The type and diameter of the SPSS (splenorenal shunt [SRS], oesogastric shunt, and umbilical shunt) were retrospectively analyzed. A large shunt was defined as having a diameter ≤7 mm. No portal flow modulation was attempted over time. Portal complications were defined as stenosis, thrombosis, or hepatofugal flow requiring any treatment after transplantation. There were 202 (59.0%) patients who exhibited at least 1 large SPSS. Neither the size nor type of SPSS was associated with mortality, morbidity, or liver function recovery. However, the incidence of portal complications was significantly higher in patients with a large SRS (8.6% versus 2.9%; P = 0.04). Multivariate analysis of portal complications revealed 2 independent predictors: pre-LT portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and SRS size. The observed risk among recipients with pre-LT PVT was 8.3% when the SRS was ≤7 mm, but increased to 38.5% when the SRS was >15 mm. The present study suggests that large SPSS do not negatively affect the outcomes after LDLT. However, a large SRS is associated with a higher risk of portal complications, particularly in recipients with pre-LT PVT, for whom intraoperative intervention for SRS should be considered. Otherwise, a conservative approach to SPSS during LDLT seems reasonable.

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.

Bilateral proficiency over time leads to reduced donor morbidity in living donor hepatectomy

Background

Although left-lobe donation is considered safer, right-sided donor hepatectomy predominates in adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We hypothesized that bilateral proficiency with donor hepatectomy reduces overall donor complications.

Methods

A retrospective review of 834 adult LDLT donors (221 left lobes) from January 2004 to December 2014 was performed, dividing cases into two eras based on left-graft experience. Donor complications within 6 months were investigated, focusing on graft side and surgical era.

Results

The overall complication rate was 17.6%, and was higher in right-lobe donors. In Era 2, during which left-lobe donation rates were three times higher, total complications decreased (14.7% vs. 20.9%, P=0.02). A significant reduction in postoperative ascites accounted for the lower overall complication rate. The proportion of major biliary complications (BCs) was halved from 62.5% to 25.0%. Right-lobe donor complications also decreased significantly (15.8% vs. 22.9%, P=0.032), demonstrating that it was not only increased left-lobe donations leading to lowered complication rates, but also greater experience with donor hepatectomy in general.

Conclusions

Accumulating experience with bilateral donor hepatectomy leads to decreased donor morbidity and comparable outcomes for right and left lobes, further enhancing the goal of donor safety while balancing recipient needs.

Psychological profiles of excluded living liver donor candidates: An observational study

Living donor liver transplantation has advantages over deceased organ liver transplantation. However, the living liver donor candidates must be carefully assessed before surgery. Candidates may be excluded for various reasons. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychological profiles of excluded living liver donor candidates according to the reason for exclusion.A descriptive and cross-sectional study was conducted. Donor candidates were invited to participate if they were at least 20 years of age, related biologically or by marriage to the recipient (within 5 degrees), and had undergone living donor evaluation. Among the 338 participants recruited from August 2013 to December 2015, 116 were excluded for the following reasons: a medical condition (n = 35), failure to be chosen (n = 63), or withdrawal from the selection process (n = 18). The psychological profiles of these 3 exclusion groups were evaluated.There were no significant group differences in age, sex, education level, religion, marital status, and consanguinity (P > .05). The withdrawal group had fewer recipients with an hepatitis B virus infection than did the other groups (χ = 9.28, P = .01). Additionally, compared with the unchosen group, the withdrawal group had lower intimacy with the recipient (F = 5.32, P = .006) and higher ambivalence (F = 5.53, P = .005). In terms of family relationship parameters, the withdrawal group had lower family cohesion than the medical condition and unchosen groups (F = 4.44, P = .01), lower family expressiveness than the medical condition group (F = 3.76, P = .03), and higher family conflict than the medical condition and unchosen groups (F = 7.05, P = .001). The withdrawal group also had lower emotional social support than the medical condition group (F = 3.55, P = .03). There were no significant group difference in motivation, expectations, donation-related concerns, informational social support, value social support, instrumental social support, and health-related quality of life.The living donor candidates who withdrew from the selection process had obvious ambivalence, poorer family relationships, and insufficient emotional social support. The transplantation team should respect the autonomy of the candidate's decision and mitigate the impact of the donation decision on living liver donor candidates.

Pediatric living-donor liver transplantation

Living-donor liver transplantation is an important component of all liver transplant programs especially in those that care for the pediatric population. Over the last 30 years, innovations in surgical technique have converted living donation from an experimental procedure to a standard of care. Many of these innovations occurred in countries where culturally, deceased donation is limited leaving no alternatives but living donation. The Organ Transplantation Center at the National Center for Child Health and Development (NCCHD) in Tokyo, Japan, was established in 2005 where we have generated some of those innovations and in so doing, have performed living-donor liver transplantation in over 400 children. Here we review the indications, technical details, and outcomes of that cohort.