Pediatric liver retransplantation from living donors can be considered as a therapeutic option for patients with irreversible living donor graft failure

Impact of Altered Graft Position During Living Donor Liver Retransplantation and its Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Liver retransplantation (reLT), which is the only treatment for liver graft failure, remains challenging not only because of its technical nature but also because it is performed in high-risk patients.

METHODS

Nineteen patients who underwent reLT (second LT, n = 18; third LT, n = 1) between 1999 and 2021 were divided into two groups according to the graft laterality between prior transplantation and reLT (ipsilateral group, n = 9; contralateral group, n = 10). The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and the long-term outcomes of patients who underwent living donor reLT and compared graft survival between ipsilateral and contralateral grafts.

RESULTS

For hepatic vein reconstruction, the previous anastomotic orifice of the recipient was used in 8 (88.9%) patients in the ipsilateral group, while a new orifice on inferior vena cava of the recipient was created in 8 (80%) patients in the contralateral group. The conduit for the portal vein and hepatic artery were employed in 2 and 2 patients in the ipsilateral group and in 5 and 0 patients in the contralateral group, respectively. The overall incidence of hepatic artery and portal vein complications was 11.1% and 11.1% in the ipsilateral group, and 30% and 11.1% in the contralateral group, respectively. The 1-, 5-year graft survival rates were 70.8%, 66.7% in the ipsilateral group, and 70%, 70% in the contralateral group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference between ipsilateral and contralateral grafts in reLT in terms of surgical complications and graft survival.

Comparing the Outcomes of Deceased-Donor and Living-Donor Liver Re-Transplantation In Adult Patients

BACKGROUND

Patients with liver graft failures have an extremely low chance of finding a cadaveric graft in countries with a scarcity of deceased donors. We compared the outcomes of liver re-transplantation with living-donor liver grafts (re-LDLT) and deceased-donor liver grafts (re-DDLT) in adult patients (>18 years).

METHODS

The medical records of 1513 (1417 [93.6%] LDLT and 96 [6.3%] DDLT) patients who underwent liver transplantation at Memorial Hospital between January 2011 and October 2022 were reviewed. Forty patients (24 adults and 16 pediatric) were re-transplanted (2.84%); 24 adult patients (2.72%: 25 re-LDLT, 1 patient with second re-LDLT) were divided into 2 groups: re-DDLT (n = 6) and re-LDLT (n = 18). The groups were compared in demographics, pre-, peri-, postoperative characteristics, and outcomes.

RESULTS

The overall survival rates were 91.7%, 79.2%, 75.0%, and 75% for <30 days, 31 to 90 days, 1, and 3 years, respectively. The LDLT group was significantly younger (P = .022), had smaller graft weight (P = .03), shorter mechanical ventilation (P = .036) but longer operation time (P = .019), and hospitalization period (P = .003). The groups were otherwise comparable. There was no statistically significant difference in survival rates between the groups (P = .058), although the re-LDLT group had an evidently higher survival rate (88.9% and 83.3 % vs 50.0%).

CONCLUSION

Re-LDLT has shown comparable outcomes to re-DDLT, if not better (even not far from significance P = .058). These results may encourage performing re-LDLTs in patients with indications for re-LT without worrying about low chances of survival, especially in countries with limited sources of deceased donors.

Surgical approach to supradiaphragmatic inferior vena cava in patients with metallic stent in the hepatic vein during repeat liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Repeat liver transplantation (LT) for patients with the liver graft failure who underwent metallic stent placement in the previous graft hepatic vein (HV) for HV complications can be very difficult. We retrospectively reviewed the safer surgical procedures during repeat LT for patients with a metallic stent in the graft HV.

CASE REPORTS

Patient 1 with biliary atresia who was treated with metallic stent placement for HV stenosis underwent a third LT form a deceased donor at the age 17 years. Patient 2 with ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency who was treated with metallic stent placement for refractory HV stenosis underwent a second LT form a deceased donor at age 9 years. In both patients, transection of the previous graft HV through an intraabdominal approach was difficult during repeat LT, and a supradiaphragmatic inferior vena cava (IVC) approach was introduced. Using a midline incision of the diaphragm, the pericardium was incised and the supradiaphragmatic IVC was encircled. After clamping the supradiaphragmatic IVC, graft hepatectomy was performed. The metallic stent was successfully removed breaking, and HV reconstruction was performed on the suprahepatic IVC. Both patients did well without serious HV complications after repeat LT.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical technique for the supradiaphragmatic IVC approach is useful to decrease the risk of fatal operative complications during repeat LT for patients with a metallic stent in the graft HV.

Progress in living donor liver transplantation for biliary atresia and challenges faced: A thirty-year single institutional experience

BACKGROUND

Biliary atresia (BA) is the most common indication for liver transplantation in the pediatric population, and living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) have been established as a radical treatment for BA .The aim of this study was to clarify the long term outcomes and risk factors affecting the LDLT outcomes, as well as the challenges faced.

METHODS

Between 1990 and 2019, 666 BA patients underwent LDLT in our institution and were enrolled in this study. Data regarding the recipient's age, anatomic findings of the biliary tree at Kasai's portoenterostomy, basic characteristics at transplantation, transplant profiles, donor characteristics, and outcomes of LDLT were analyzed.

RESULTS

The 1-, 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, and 25-year graft survival rates of BA patients who underwent LDLT were 88.1%, 85.4%, 81.5%, 78.9%, 76.6%, and 75.5%, respectively. The transplant era, age at transplantation, ABO incompatible transplant, and presence of pulmonary vascular complications were identified as significant risk factors for overall graft survival. When the study period was divided into the first (1990-1999) and second (2000-2019) phases and re analyzed, the outcomes of ABO-incompatible transplants and LDLT for adult BA patients remained inferior to others in the second phase. The 20-year graft survival rate in patients who underwent re transplantation in the second phase was 54.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of LDLT in children are generally good, but the immunosuppression procedures need to be further improved for ABO-incompatible cases in the future. Further improvements in LDLT results for adult patients and re transplantation remain challenges to be addressed in this field, and future attempts, including revision to the organ allocation system of deceased donors, are necessary.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III (case control study).

Pediatric retransplantation of the liver: A prognostic scoring tool

Few prognostic models have been created in children that receive liver retransplantation (rLT). We examined the SRTR database of 731 children that underwent second liver transplant between 2002 and 2018. Proportional hazards models using backward variable selection were used to identify recipient, donor, and surgical characteristics associated with survival. A simple prognostic scoring system or nomogram (ie, each risk factor was weighted on a five-point scale) was constructed based on the fitted model. Recipient age (P < .001), MELD/PELD (P < .001), recipient ventilated (P = .003), donor cause of death (P = .024), graft type (P = .045), first graft loss due to biliary tract complications (P = .048), and survival time of the first graft (P = .006) were significant predictors of retransplant survival. The bias-corrected Harrell's C-index for the multivariable model was 0.63. Survival was significantly different (P < .001) for those at low risk (0-4 points), medium risk (5-7 points), and high risk (8+ points). Survival was equivalent between low risk pediatric second transplant recipients and pediatric primary liver transplant recipients (P = .67) but significantly worse for medium- (P < .001) and high-risk (P < .001) recipients. With simple clinical characteristics, this scoring tool can modestly discriminate between those children at high risk and those children at low risk of poor outcomes after second liver transplant.

The outcomes of pediatric liver retransplantation from a living donor: a 17-year single-center experience

PURPOSE

Liver retransplantation is the only therapeutic option for patients with graft failure after liver transplantation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of pediatric retransplantation from living donor at a single center.

METHODS

Between December 1998 to August 2015, retransplantation from a living donor was performed for 14 children (<18 years of age) at Kumamoto University Hospital. The characteristics of the retransplantation recipient and the clinicopathological factors between primary transplantation and retransplantation were analyzed to detect the prognostic factors.

RESULTS

In retransplantation, the operative time was longer and the amount of blood loss was greater in comparison to primary transplantation. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates from the date of retransplantation were 85.7, 85.7, and 78.6%, respectively. The rates of re-laparotomy after primary transplantation, bile leakage and postoperative bleeding after retransplantation were higher than after primary transplantation. Among the three patients who died after retransplantation, the operative time, the rate of re-laparotomy after primary transplantation and the incidence of gastrointestinal complications were higher in comparison to the surviving patients.

CONCLUSION

Pediatric retransplantation from a living donor is an acceptable procedure that could save the lives of recipients with failing allografts when organs from deceased donors are scarce. To ensure good results, it is essential to make an appropriate assessment of the cardiopulmonary function and the infectious state of the patients before Re-LDLT.

Outcomes and technical aspects of liver retransplantation with living donors in children

Re-LT is the only recourse for patients with liver graft failure. However, survival rates after re-LT are lower than those of primary transplants. Few reports are available regarding re-LT with LDs in children. The objective of this study was to describe our cohort of patients retransplanted with LD and emphasize the technical aspects of a re-LT with LD. This is a retrospective report of a series of 18 children (<18 yr old) submitted to 20 re-LT from January 1997 to December 2013 at Hospital Sirio-Libanes and Hospital AC Camargo Cancer Center. The one- and five-yr survival for patients retransplanted with LD was 70.6% and 58.6%. Little technical modifications from a regular LD primary transplant were needed in patients retransplanted with LD. Seven (38.8%) patients presented vascular complications following re-LT and three presented biliary complications (16.6%). In conclusion, a re-LT with LD is an acceptable alternative for children who experience liver graft failure and it does not compromise the donor pool. Further experience with re-LT with LD may support this therapy.

[Living liver donor: indications and technical aspects]

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) nowadays represents an important and safe alternative to conventional deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). A major concern related to the LDLT procedure is still represented by donor safety because a serious operation not without risks must be carried out on a healthy individual. In the present review of the indications for LDLT the technical concepts of donor surgery, criteria for donor selection and evaluation and morbidity and mortality results related to the procedure are presented. In general, the indications for LDLT are almost the same as for DDLT. The donor hepatectomy (right, left or left lateral) is presented in five main phases. The reported morbidity rates vary between 10 % and 60 % and are strongly related to the experience of the transplant center. The currently reported postoperative mortality rates for left and right hepatectomy are 0.1 % and 0.5 %, respectively. The results of LDLT are similar if not even better than those for DDLT depending on the specific indications.