Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Technical Innovations

The application of magnetic anchoring traction device in assisting donor liver bench surgery in classic orthotopic liver transplantation

Objective

To explore the clinical application of a newly developed magnetic anchoring traction (MAT) system in the liver bench trimming and transplantation surgery.

Background

The conventionally limited space, vision, and exposure have always been a challenge for the quality of surgery in the liver bench trimming due to the fact that the exposure depends largely on the experience of surgeon. To deal with this problem, a MAT system is developed as an alternative support to enhance exposure. The preliminarily experiments on animals verified its feasibility and reliability in the practical use, and its clinical application and effects were examined in the present research.

Methods

A total of 20 DCD (donation of cardiac death) donor livers were collected and divided evenly between the magnetic anchor traction (MAT) assisted group (n = 10) and the manual assisted group (n = 10). The results and quality assessment from experts about the liver bench surgery performed by two groups were examined and compared.

Results

The MAT system can be employed effectively to compete and replace the manual assistance to achieve a better exposure in the liver bench trimming. No statistical difference was found regarding the baseline data between the MAT and the manual groups. In the inferior vena cava and hepatic artery trimming, the MAT group outperformed the manual group remarkably in many aspects. The surgery time for liver bench shortened considerably after a quick grasp of MAT skills by surgeons.

Conclusion

The MAT system provides a more stable, reliable and qualified local exposure in the liver bench surgery, and can preferably be employed to replace the manual assistance in the procedures of liver transplantation.

Perioperative management of adult living donor liver transplantation: Part 1 - recipients

Living donor liver transplantation was first developed to mitigate the limited access to deceased donor organs in Asia in the 1990s. This alternative liver transplantation option has become an established and widely practiced transplantation method for adult patients suffering from end-stage liver disease. It has successfully addressed the shortage of deceased donors. The Society for the Advancement of Transplant Anesthesia and the Korean Society of Transplant Anesthesia jointly reviewed published studies on the perioperative management of live donor liver transplant recipients. The review aims to offer transplant anesthesiologists and critical care physicians a comprehensive overview of the perioperative management of adult live liver transplantation recipients. We feature the status, outcomes, surgical procedure, portal venous decompression, anesthetic management, prevention of acute kidney injury, avoidance of blood transfusion, monitoring and therapeutic strategies of hemodynamic derangements, and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols for liver transplant recipients. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Assessment of the global practice of living donor liver transplantation

Criteria that drive the selection and utilization of living liver donors are limited. Herein, the global availability of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and components of donor selection and utilization were assessed via an international survey. There were 124 respondents representing 41 countries, including 47 from Asia/Middle East (A/ME), 20 from Europe, and 57 from the Americas. Responses were obtained from 94.9% of countries with ≥10 LDLT cases/year. Most centers (82.3%) have defined donor age criteria (median 18-60 years), while preset recipient MELD cutoffs (median 18-30) were only reported in 54.8% of programs. Overall, 67.5% of programs have preset donor BMI (body mass index) ranges (median 18-30), and the mean acceptable macrosteatosis was highest for A/ME (20.2 ± 9.2%) and lowest for Americas (16.5 ± 8.4%, P = 0.04). Americas (56.1%) and European (60.0%) programs were more likely to consider anonymous donors versus A/ME programs (27.7%, P = 0.01). There were no differences in consideration of complex anatomical variations. Most programs (75.9%) perform donor surgery via an open approach, and A/ME programs are more likely to use microscopic arterial reconstruction. Despite variations in practice, key aspects of living donor selection were identified. These findings provide a contemporary reference point as LDLT continues to expand into areas with limited access to liver transplantation.

Modified Dual Hepatic Vein Anastomosis in Pediatric Living-Donor Liver Transplantation Using Left Lateral Segment Grafts With Two Wide Orifices

Background: The anatomic variation of hepatic vein in the left lateral segment (LLS) increases the risk of outflow complication in pediatric living liver transplantation (LDLT). Here, we share a modified method for dual hepatic vein reconstruction in pediatric LDLT using LLS with two wide orifices. Methods: From Sep 2018 to Dec 2019, 434 pediatric LDLTs using LLS were performed in our center. Hepatic veins of grafts were classified into three types with emphasis on the number, size, and location of orifices at the cut surface: a single opening (type I, n = 341, 78.57%); two adjacent orifices (type II, n = 66, 15.21%); two wide orifices with orifices distances <20 mm (type IIIa, n = 15, 3.46%); and two wide orifices with orifices distances >20 mm (type IIIb, n = 12, 2.76%). Rv was defined as the ratio of diameter of V2 and V3 (refer to hepatic vein drained segments II and III). We developed a modified dual hepatic vein anastomosis to reconstruct outflow for type IIIb grafts with Rv ≤1. Briefly, the hepatic vein of segment II was anastomosed to the common stump of middle hepatic vein (MHV) and left hepatic vein (LHV), followed by unification of V3 and the longitudinal incision orifice in inferior venous cave (IVC). Results: During median follow-up of 15.6 months (7.5-22.9 months), no hepatic vein complications occurred. Conclusion: This novel modified dual hepatic vein anastomosis could serve as a feasible surgical option for type IIIb LLS grafts with Rv ≤1 in pediatric LDLT.

Hepatic Artery Microvascular Anastomosis in Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

The operating microscope is used in many centers for microvascular hepatic arterial reconstruction in living as well as deceased donor liver transplantation in adult and pediatric recipients. To date, a systematic review of the literature examining this topic is lacking.

METHODS

This systematic review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Three different electronic databases (PubMed, Embase OVID, and Cochrane CENTRAL) were queried.

RESULTS

A total of 34 studies were included. The rate of hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) in noncomparative studies (28) ranged from 0% to 10%, with 8 studies reporting patient deaths resulting from HAT. Within comparative studies, the rate of HAT in patients who underwent arterial reconstruction using the operating microscope ranged from 0% to 5.3%, whereas the rate of HAT in patients who underwent arterial reconstruction using loupe magnification ranged from 0% up to 28.6%, and 2 studies reported patient deaths resulting from HAT. Two comparative studies did not find statistically significant differences between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our comprehensive systematic review of the literature seems to suggest that overall, rates of HAT may be lower when the operating microscope is used for hepatic arterial reconstruction in liver transplantation. However, matched comparisons are lacking and surgical teams need to be mindful of the learning curve associated with the use of the operating microscope as compared with loupe magnification, as well as the logistical and time constraints associated with setup of the operating microscope.

Liver Transplantation in Children: An Overview of Organ Allocation and Surgical Management

Liver transplantation is the standard treatment for children with end-stage liver disease, primary hepatic neoplasms, or liver-localized metabolic defects. Perioperative mortality is almost absent, and long-term survival exceeds 90%. Organ shortage is managed thanks to advances in organ retrieval techniques; living donation and partial liver transplantation almost eliminated waiting list mortality, thus leading to expanding indications for transplantation. The success of pediatric liver transplantation depends on the prompt and early referral of patients to transplant Centers and on the close and integrated multidisciplinary collaboration between pediatricians, hepatologists, surgeons, intensivists, oncologists, pathologists, coordinating nurses, psychologists, and social workers.

The Human Immune Response to Cadaveric and Living Donor Liver Allografts

The liver is an important contributor to the human immune system and it plays a pivotal role in the creation of both immunoreactive and tolerogenic conditions. Liver transplantation provides the best chance of survival for both children and adults with liver failure or cancer. With current demand exceeding the number of transplantable livers from donors following brain death, improved knowledge, technical advances and the desire to prevent avoidable deaths has led to the transplantation of organs from living, ABO incompatible (ABOi), cardiac death donors and machine based organ preservation with acceptable results. The liver graft is the most well-tolerated, from an immunological perspective, of all solid organ transplants. Evidence suggests successful cessation of immunosuppression is possible in ~20–40% of liver transplant recipients without immune mediated graft injury, a state known as “operational tolerance.” An immunosuppression free future following liver transplantation is an ambitious but perhaps not unachievable goal. The initial immune response following transplantation is a sterile inflammatory process mediated by the innate system and the mechanisms relate to the preservation-reperfusion process. The severity of this injury is influenced by graft factors and can have significant consequences. There are minimal experimental studies that delineate the differences in the adaptive immune response to the various forms of liver allograft. Apart from ABOi transplants, antibody mediated hyperacute rejection is rare following liver transplant. T-cell mediated rejection is common following liver transplantation and its incidence does not differ between living or deceased donor grafts. Transplantation in the first year of life results in a higher rate of operational tolerance, possibly due to a bias toward Th2 cytokines (IL4, IL10) during this period. This review further describes the current understanding of the immunological response toward liver allografts and highlight the areas of this topic yet to be fully understood.

Ultrasonographic hemodynamics for prediction of poor liver regeneration induced by severe portal vein stenosis in rats

Background

Insufficient portal vein blood flow, such as portal vein stenosis (PVS), plays a significant influence on liver regeneration. Early prediction of poor liver regeneration induced by severe PVS is critical. Ultrasound serves as a first-line imaging technique in diagnosing PVS based on the changes of portal vein hemodynamics. However, there is still no consensus on the criteria for evaluating the degree of PVS. Moreover, which degree of PVS can induce poor liver regeneration still is unclear. Therefore, it is essential to determine the stenosis degree that leads to significantly poor liver regeneration and to evaluate the value of ultrasonographic hemodynamics for predicting poor liver regeneration induced by severe PVS.

Methods

Rats were randomly subjected to sham operation rats group (SOR), PH group (group A), and PVS groups with mild, moderate, or severe stenosis flowing PH (groups B-D). PH group was set up a model of 70% hepatectomy, and PVS groups were produced by different degrees of partial portal vein ligation following PH. In the SOR group and PH group, the portal vein diameter (PVD) and portal vein velocity (PVV) were measured by Ultrasound at preoperative and postoperative 1, 3, 7, and 14 d. In PVS groups, PVD and PVV at the stenotic (PVD_s, PVV_s) and pre-stenotic (PVD_pre, PVV_pre) sites were also detected on 1, 3, 7, and 14 d after surgery, calculating the diameter stenosis ratio (DSR) and accelerating blood flow velocity ratio (AVR). Rats were sacrificed at 1, 3, 7, and 14 d post-surgery, and the expression of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) and the liver regeneration rate (LRR) at 14 d were evaluated. The PVV_s, DSR, and AVR in the different groups were analyzed combined with the status of liver regeneration, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was also applied to assess the value of PVV_s, DSR, and AVR in diagnosing severe PVS and the resulting poor liver regeneration.

Results

Seventy-two rat models of different degrees of PVS were successfully set up following 70% PH. The stenosis ratios (SRs) of each PVS group were 45.16%±3.44%, 59.21%±3.83%, and 69.56%±2.16%, respectively. Poor liver regeneration appeared to be significant when PVS was greater than 65% (group D), of which the LRR at 14 d was significantly lower compared to PH group (group A) and PVS groups with SR ≤50% (group B) and SR >50-65% (group C), respectively (all P<0.05). Meanwhile, PCNA expression of group D was significantly lower compared to group C at 1 d and groups A-C at 3 d (all P<0.05). Differences were also detected at 3 d between groups A and B and groups A and C (both P<0.05). Among PVS groups, PVV_s accelerated dramatically, with significant differences demonstrated between group D and groups B and C at 1 d, as well as group B and groups C and D at 3 d (all P<0.05). At 1, 3, and 7 d, DSR of groups C and D were significantly higher than that of group A (all P<0.05). At 1 and 3 d, AVR of group D was significantly higher than that of groups B and C (all P<0.05). ROC analysis showed the AUC of PVV_s at 1 d in diagnosing severe PVS was 0.84, while at 3 d, it was unable to differentiate from mild-moderate or severe PVS by PVV_s (P>0.05 vs. AUC =0.50). At 1 and 3 d, the AUC of DSR and AVR in diagnosing severe PVS were all greater than 0.80, comparatively much better in AVR (AUC >0.95). The best cut-off points of AVR at 1 and 3 d were 6.91 and 5.36, with the sensitivity and specificity respectively 100%, 91.67% at 1 d, and 100%, 83.33% at 3 d.

Conclusions

Poor liver regeneration could be significantly induced when PVS was greater than 65%. Ultrasound can well prove the changes of portal vein hemodynamics in different degrees of PVS in rats. The parameters PVV_s could be regarded as a valid index for diagnosing PVS but were not applicable for evaluating the stenosis degree. Comparatively, the parameters DSR and AVR, especially AVR, proved to be useful for differentiating severe PVS (>65%) in the early postoperative period, predicting the resulting poor liver regeneration.

Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant: Hemodynamic Evaluation, Prognosis, and Recipient Selection

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplant (LDLT) is a well-established treatment for end-stage liver disease. A better recipient selection and hemodynamic evaluation may improve transplant outcomes. The aim of this study was to establish recipient parameters that could enhance the results of adult-to-adult LDLT.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of all adult-to-adult LDLTs from a single center between January 2006 and December 2018. Variables analyzed included demographic and clinical parameters, laboratory tests, performance of intraoperative temporary portocaval shunt (TPCS), graft weight/recipient weight ratio (GW/RW), preoperative portal vein thrombosis (PVT), previous major abdominal surgery, and patient survival. Patients were divided in 2 groups according to GW/RW (0.8% cutoff point).

RESULTS

A total of 92 adult-to-adult LDLTs were analyzed, encompassing 53 male patients (57.6%). Mean Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was 13.97 (SD, 4.74), and 57 patients (61.95%) had Child-Pugh-Turcotte score B. Mean GW/RW was 1.1% (SD, 0.37%). Group 1 with GW/RW > 0.8% (n = 74) and group 2 with it ≤ 0.8% (n = 13) presented mean GW/RW of 1.14% (SD, 0.24%) and 0.69% (SD, 0.09%) and P < .01, respectively. Eighteen patients (19.56%) presented PVT, with a worse survival than those without PVT (P = .006). Sixteen patients (17.39%) with previous major abdominal or biliary operations also presented higher mortality (P = .341). Forty-six (50%) intraoperative TPCSs were performed with a better 1- and 3-year patient survival. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed PVT area under the curve of 0.701 (95% CI, 0.526-0.876; P = .018), positive predictive value of 0.69, and negative predictive value of 0.62. Multivariate analysis showed important risk regarding PVT (odds ratio, 6.160; 95% CI, 1.566-24.223; P = .004) and retransplant (odds ratio, 4.452; 95% CI, 0.843-23.503; P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

Better recipient selection without PVT or previous major abdominal surgery, an adequate GW/RW, and intraoperative TPCS with hemodynamic modulation significantly improve outcomes of adult-to-adult LDLT.

Comparison of liver regeneration in laparoscopic versus open right hemihepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation

Backgrounds/Aims

This study aims to compare differences between laparoscopic donor right hemihepatectomy (LDRH) and open donor right hemihepatectomy (ODRH) in the quality of the operation, postoperative complications, and liver regeneration measured via volumetry.

Methods

This study included 119 patients who underwent living donor right hemihepatectomy at Samsung Medical Center from January 2016 to December 2017. We compared several aspects of LDRH and ODRH and analyzed the results using the independent t-test, chi-square test and Fisher's exact test.

Results

Among 119 enrolled patients, 66 patients (55.5%) underwent open surgery, and 53 patients (44.5%) underwent laparoscopic surgery. The mean operation time was significantly shorter for ODRH (290.57±54.04 minutes) than LDRH (312.28±53.5 minutes) (p=0.031). Estimated blood loss was significantly less in LDRH (258.49±119.99 ml) than ODRH (326.52±157.68 ml) (p=0.011). The remnant liver recovered to 83.35±10.71% of the preoperative estimate whole liver volume (pre-EWLV) in the ODRH group and 84.04±8.98% of the pre-EWLV in the LDRH group (p=0.707). The percentage of increased estimated liver volume to postoperative estimate remnant liver volume (post-ERLV) was 137.62±40.34% in the ODRH group and 130.56±36.78% in the LDRH group, and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p=0.326). An analysis of postoperative complications showed no significant differences.

Conclusions

LDRH is safe, and there is no significant difference in hepatic regeneration compared with ODRH. Therefore, LDRH can be applied for living donation of liver.

The postoperative hepatic artery resistance index after living donor liver transplantation can predict early allograft dysfunction

To investigate whether postoperative hepatic hemodynamics have an impact on graft function.Using a retrospective cohort with 262 adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) recipients, we discussed the relationship between postoperative hepatic hemodynamics and patient outcomes.According to the definition of early allograft dysfunction (EAD), the patients were classified into the EAD group (43 patients) and the non-EAD group (219 patients). In terms of postoperative hemodynamic parameters, there was no significant differences between these 2 groups regarding hepatic artery flow (HAF), hepatic artery velocity (HAV), portal vein flow (PVF), and portal vein velocity (PVV), except for the hepatic artery resistance index (HARI) which was somewhat higher in the EAD group on postoperative day 3 (POD3) (0.70 vs 0.61, P < .05). According to these results, we used a ROC curve and found that a HARI of 0.68 was the cutoff point (with 73.8% sensitivity and 58.3% specificity) for predicting EAD after LDLT. In addition, multivariate analysis showed that fulminant hepatic failure, pretransplant hepatorenal syndrome, and HARI ≥ 0.68 on POD3 were independent risk factors for postoperative EAD.Our results showed that postoperative hemodynamics might influence graft function by altering hepatic artery flow.

Pre-hepatic and pre-pancreatic transplant donor evaluation

Innovations in surgical techniques coupled with advances in medical and pharmacological management in the past few decades have enabled organ transplantation to become integral to the management of end stage organ failure. In this review article, we will review the role of the radiologist in the work up of liver and pancreas donors during evaluation of their donor candidacy. The critical role of imaging in assessing the parenchymal, biliary and vascular anatomy in liver donor candidates will be reviewed, as well as highlighting the anatomical findings that may pose a contraindication to transplantation. The limited role of imaging in pancreas donor evaluation is also covered, as well as a brief overview of the surgical techniques available and how the radiologist's findings influence operative technique selection.