Technical refinement of prosthetic vascular graft anastomosis to recipient inferior vena cava for secure middle hepatic vein reconstruction in living donor liver transplantation

Technical Refinement to Prevent Hepatic Outflow Disturbance in Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation: The New Simplified One-Orifice Venoplasty Technique

Middle hepatic vein (MHV) reconstruction is often essential to avoid hepatic congestion and serious graft dysfunction in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This article introduces the evolution of our MHV reconstruction technique and the excellent outcomes of a new simplified one-orifice venoplasty. We compared clinical outcomes among 3 types of one-orifice techniques through a retrospective review of 378 recipients who underwent LDLT using a modified right lobe graft at our institution from January 2008 to December 2018; group I (n = 34) received separate outflow reconstruction, group II (n = 166) received the one-orifice technique to create a wider single outflow with patchwork, and group III (n = 178) received the more simplified one-orifice technique in which neo-MHV was reconstructed into the right hepatic vein without patch venoplasty. Patient demographic characteristics did not differ significantly among the 3 groups, but cold ischemic time and operative time in groups II and III were significantly shorter than those in group I. Moreover, the early patency rates of MHV in groups II and III were higher than those in group I. In particular, group I received an MHV or right hepatic vein stenting more frequently than group II or III during the early posttransplant period. In conclusion, this new simplified one-orifice technique could be an effective method to overcome technical difficulties and the outflow disturbance during right lobe LDLT without complex benchwork to create a large outflow.

Outcomes in Living Donor Compared With Deceased Donor Primary Liver Transplantation in Lower Acuity Patients With Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Scores <30

Although recent studies have reported favorable outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), it remains unclear which populations benefit most from LDLT. This study aims to evaluate LDLT outcomes compared with deceased donor LT (DDLT) according to Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score categories. Using data from the United Network for Organ Sharing registry, outcomes were compared between 1486 LDLTs; 13,568 donation after brain death (DBD)-DDLTs; and 1171 donation after circulatory death (DCD)-DDLTs between 2009 and 2018. Because LDLT for patients with MELD scores >30 was rare, all patients with scores >30 were excluded to equalize LDLT and DDLT cohorts. Risk factors for 1-year graft loss (GL) were determined separately for LDLT and DDLT. Compared with LDLT, DBD-DDLT had a lower risk of 30-day (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.60; P < 0.001) and 1-year GL (aHR, 0.57; P < 0.001). The lower risk of GL was more prominent in the mid-MELD score category (score 15-29). Compared with LDLT, DCD-DDLT had a lower risk of 30-day GL but a comparable risk of 1-year GL, regardless of MELD score category. In LDLT, significant ascites was an independent risk for GL in patients with mid-MELD scores (aHR, 1.68; P = 0.02), but not in the lower-MELD score group. The risk of 1-year GL in LDLT patients with ascites who received a left liver was higher than either those who received a right liver or those without ascites who received a left liver. In LDLT, combinations of MELD scores of 15 to 29, moderate/severe ascites, and the use of a left liver are associated with worse outcomes. These findings help calibrate appropriate patient and graft selection in LDLT.

Patency of Hemashield grafts versus ringed Gore-Tex grafts in middle hepatic vein reconstruction for living donor liver transplantation

Backgrounds/Aims

Owing to the short supply of homologous vein allografts, we previously used ringed Gore-Tex vascular grafts for middle hepatic vein (MHV) reconstruction in living donor liver transplantation. When ringed Gore-Tex grafts became unavailable, we used Hemashield vascular grafts. This study aimed to compare the patency and complication rates of Hemashield and ringed Gore-Tex grafts.

Methods

This retrospective two-arm study compared the study group that received Hemashield grafts (n=157) and the propensity score-matched control group that received ringed Gore-Tex grafts (n=157).

Results

In the Hemashield and Gore-Tex groups, the recipient age was 54.7±9.4 and 53.3±6.3 years; Model for End-stage Liver Disease scores were 15.9±9.2 and 16.9±8.3; and graft-recipient weight ratios were 1.07±0.24 and 1.10±0.23, respectively. In the Hemashield group, V5 reconstruction was performed using single (n=113, 72.0%), double (n=39, 24.8%), and triple (n=3, 1.9%) anastomoses. The proportion of double and triple anastomoses for V5 and V8 was higher in the Hemashield group than in the Gore-Tex group. Two (1.3%) patients required MHV conduit stenting owing to early thrombosis of the Hemashield graft. There was no difference in conduit occlusion- free patient survival rates between groups (p=0.91). The incidence of accidental conduit migration in the Hemashield and Gore-Tex groups was 0 (0%) and 2 (1.3%), respectively.

Conclusions

Hemashield grafts used in MHV reconstruction demonstrated acceptably high short- and mid-term patency rates, no incidences of conduit migration, easy handling, and good flexibility for length adjustment. Therefore, we suggest that the Hemashield graft is the preferentially suitable prosthetic material for MHV reconstruction.