Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy:Report of 105 Cases

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy offers an intrinsic advantage over conventional transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy because of the potentially lower risk for early and late donor intraperitoneal complications.Herein we presented our experience performing retroperitoneal laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in 105 donors.All donor nephrectomy was successful.There were no donor deaths and no conversion to open surgery.Mean operation time was 112 min（range,70-200 min）.Intraoperative blood loss was 10-150 mL with an average of 30 mL.Warm ischemia time was 1.3 to 6 min with an average of 3.1 min.Postoperative retroperitoneal hematoma occurred in only one case and there were no other surgical complications.Donors were discharged from the hospital 5 to 10 days postoperation.Average postoperative hospital stay was 6.4 days.One graft was removed due to acute rejection.Delayed graft function occurred in two recipients but renal function returned to normal within four weeks.The other recipients had normal renal function in two weeks except three recipients in four weeks.We believe that retroperitoneal laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is safe,reliable,and less invasive.

Versatility and viability of hepatic venoplasty in live donor liver transplantation using the right lobe with the middle hepatic vein

Including the middle hepatic vein in the right lobe liver graft has the advantage of providing direct venous drainage of the right anterior segment. To allow unimpeded passage of blood flow, we previously designed venoplasty of the middle and right hepatic veins. We found that venoplasty is also feasible when the inferior right hepatic vein is near to the right hepatic vein, or when multiple segment 8 hepatic vein orifices are exposed adjacent to the middle hepatic vein at the graft transection surface. By joining the hepatic vein orifices into a single opening, the anastomosis into the inferior vena cava is much facilitated. The technique is simple, yet versatile , and able to cope with variation of the configurations of the hepatic vein.

Live donor liver transplantation in adults: graft size, related anatomical anomaly and imaging evaluation of donor

The shortage of cadaveric livers has sparked aninterest in adult live donor liver transplantation. Rightlobe donor hepatectomy is frequently required to ob-tain a graft of adequate size for adult recipients. Thisprocedure requires not only a precise understanding ofliver anatomy and anatomic anomaly, but also themeans of assessing them. This review focuses on thekey points in adult live donor liver transplantation us-ing the right lobe combined with our own experiencein 81 cases including graft size, related anatomicalanomaly and imaging evaluation of donor.

Life made easy:simplifying reconstruction for dual portal veins in adult right lobe live donor liver transplantation

In live donor liver transplantation, anatomical anomalies of the portal vein are more frequently encountered in right lobe than left lobe grafts. Of these, a dual portal vein is one of the most common anatomical anomalies encountered. We hereby report our method of using a recipient portal vein patch after venoplasty for reconstruction in a right lobe graft with separate anterior and posterior portal vein branches.

Current practice of live donor nephrectomy in Turkey

BACKGROUND Over the last few years,the deceased donor organ donation rate was declined or remained stable,whereas the live donor organ donation rate has increased to compensate for the demand.Minimally invasive techniques for live donor nephrectomy(LDN)have also improved the live donor kidney donation rates.This increase has led to an interest in the surgical procedures used for LDN.AIM To evaluate the LDN techniques performed in Turkey,the structure of surgical teams,and the training received.Additionally,the number of kidney transplantations at different centers,the surgeon experience level,differences in surgical approach during donor surgeries,and outcomes were assessed.METHODS A questionnaire was sent to the Turkish Ministry of Health-accredited transplant centers.It inquired of the number of LDN surgeries,surgical techniques,complications,optimization protocols,the experience of surgeons,and the training.Descriptive statistics were outlined as follows:Discrete numeric variables were expressed as medians(minimum-maximum),while categorical variables were shown as numbers and percentages.As a result of the goodness-of-fit tests,if the significance of the differences between the groups in discrete numerical variables for which the parametric test statistical assumptions were not met,data were analyzed with the Mann Whitney U test and theχ^(2)test.RESULTS The questionnaire was sent to 72 transplant centers,all of which replied.Five centers that reported not performing LDN procedures were excluded.Responses from the remaining 67 centers were analyzed.In 2019,the median number of kidney transplants performed was 45,and the median number of kidney transplants from living donors was 28(1-238).Eleven(16.5%)centers performed 5-10,while 34(50.7%)centers performed more than 100 live donor kidney transplants in 2019.While 19(28.4%)centers performed the LDN procedures using the open technique,48(71.6%)centers implemented minimally invasive techniques.Among the centers preferring minimally invasive techniques for LDN,eight(16.6%)used more than one surgical technique.The most and the least common surgical techniques were transperitoneal laparoscopic(43 centers,89.6%)and single port laparoscopic LDN(1 center,2.1%)techniques,respectively.A positive association was found between the performance of minimally invasive techniques and the case volume of a transplant center,both in the total number and live donor kidney transplants(15 vs 55,P=0.001 and 9 vs 42,P≤0001 respectively).The most frequently reported complication was postoperative atelectasis(n=33,49.2%).There was no difference between the techniques concerning complications except for the chyle leak.CONCLUSION Turkish transplant centers performed LDN surgeries successfully through various techniques.Centers implementing minimally invasive techniques had a relatively higher number of live donor kidney transplants in 2019.

Risk of venous congestion in live donors of extended right liver graft

AIM: To investigate middle hepatic vein(MHV)management in adult living donor liver transplantation and safer remnant volumes(RV).METHODS: There were 59 grafts with and 12 grafts without MHV(including 4 with MHV-5/8 reconstructions).All donors underwent our five-step protocol evaluation containing a preoperative protocol liver biopsy Congestive vs non-congestive RV, remnantvolumebody-weight ratios(RVBWR) and postoperative outcomes were evaluated in 71 right graft living donors. Dominant vs non-dominant MHV anatomy in total liver volume(d-MHV/TLV vs nd-MHV/TLV) was constellated with large/small congestion volumes(CVindex).Small for size(SFS) and non-SFS remnant considerations were based on standard cut-off- RVBWR and RV/TLV. Non-congestive RVBWR was based on non-congestive RV.RESULTS: MHV and non-MHV remnants showed no significant differences in RV, RV/TLV, RVBWR, total bilirubin, or INR. SFS-remnants with RV/TLV < 30%and non-SFS-remnants with RV/TLV ≥ 30% showedno significant differences either. RV and RVBWR for non-MHV(n = 59) and MHV-containing(n = 12)remnants were 550 ± 95 ml and 0.79 ± 0.1 ml vs568 ± 97 ml and 0.79 ± 0.13, respectively(P = 0.423 and P = 0.919. Mean left RV/TLV was 35.8% ± 3.9%.Non-MHV(n = 59) and MHV-containing(n = 12)remnants(34.1% ± 3% vs 36% ± 4% respectively,P = 0.148. Eight SFS-remnants with RVBWR < 0.65 had a significantly smaller RV/TLV than 63 non-SFSremnants with RVBWR ≥ 0.65 [SFS: RV/TLV 32.4%(range: 28%-35.7%) vs non-SFS: RV/TLV 36.2%(range: 26.1%-45.5%), P < 0.009. Six SFS-remnants with RV/TLV < 30% had significantly smaller RVBWR than 65 non-SFS-remnants with RV/TLV ≥ 30%(0.65(range: 0.6-0.7) vs 0.8(range: 0.6-1.27), P < 0.01.Two(2.8%) donors developed reversible liver failure.RVBWR and RV/TLV were concordant in 25%-33%of SFS and in 92%-94% of non-SFS remnants. MHV management options including complete MHV vs MHV-4A selective retention were necessary in n = 12 vs n =2 remnants based on particularly risky congestive and non-congestive volume constellations.CONCLUSION: MHV procurement should consider individual remnant congestive- and non-congestive volume components and anatomy characteristics,RVBWR-RV/TLV constellation enables the identification of marginally small remnants.

Pre-emptive live donor kidney transplantation-moving barriers to opportunities:An ethical,legal and psychological aspects of organ transplantation view

Live donor kidney transplantation(LDKT)is the optimal treatment modality for end stage renal disease(ESRD),enhancing patient and graft survival.Pre-emptive LDKT,prior to requirement for renal replacement therapy(RRT),provides further advantages,due to uraemia and dialysis avoidance.There are a number of potential barriers and opportunities to promoting pre-emptive LDKT.Significant infrastructure is needed to deliver robust programmes,which varies based on socio-economic standards.National frameworks can impact on national prioritisation of pre-emptive LDKT and supporting education programmes.Focus on other programme’s components,including deceased kidney transplantation and RRT,can also hamper uptake.LDKT programmes are designed to provide maximal benefit to the recipient,which is specifically true for pre-emptive transplantation.Health care providers need to be educated to maximize early LDKT referral.Equitable access for varying population groups,without socioeconomic bias,also requires prioritisation.Cultural barriers,including religious influence,also need consideration in developing successful outcomes.In addition,the benefit of pre-emptive LDKT needs to be emphasised,and opportunities provided to potential donors,to ensure timely and safe work-up processes.Recipient education and preparation for pre-emptive LDKT needs to ensure increased uptake.Awareness of the benefits of pre-emptive transplantation require prioritisation for this population group.We recommend an approach where patients approaching ESRD are referred early to pre-transplant clinics facilitating early discussion regarding pre-emptive LDKT and potential donors for LDKT are prioritized for work-up to ensure success.Education regarding preemptive LDKT should be the norm for patients approaching ESRD,appropriate for the patient’s cultural needs and physical status.Pre-emptive transplantation maximize benefit to potential recipients,with the potential to occur within successful service delivery.To fully embrace preemptive transplantation as the norm,investment in infrastructure,increased awareness,and donor and recipient support is required.

Multiple Renal Arteries in Live Donor Renal Transplantation;Impact on Graft Function and Outcome: A Prospective Cohort Study

Introduction: The presence of multiple renal arteries (MRA) in the donor allograft was once a contraindication to transplantation. Despite concerns about risks, these allografts are being increasingly used to overcome a shortage of renal donors. Objectives: To compare the outcomes of live-donor renal allografts with multiple and single renal arteries (SRA) in terms of overall ischemia times, early and late graft function, and vascular and urological complications. Methods: A prospective, non-randomized cohort study was conducted including all live donor renal transplants done by the Vascular and Transplant Unit of the National Institute of Nephrology Dialysis and Transplantation, Sri Lanka between March 2010 and March 2016. 312 recipients of live donor renal allografts were recruited to the study. Patients were divided into three groups: Group 1—SRA: single anastomosis (n = 264, 85%);Group 2—MRA: single conjoined anastomosis (n = 39, 12%);and Group 3—MRA: ≥2 anastomoses (n = 9, 3%). Results: Mean ischaemia times (donor clamping to graft reperfusion) in the three groups were 14, 21 and 17 minutes respectively. Failure to normalize creatinine within 72 hours was seen in 29/264 (11%), 4/39 (10.2%) and 1/9 (11%), (P >0.05). Delayed graft function (attributable to severe rejection) occurred in only one patient who was from group 2. One-year graft survival among the groups was 243/264 (92%), 35/39 (90%) and 8/9 (89%), (P > 0.05). One patient from groups 1 and 2 developed transplant renal artery stenosis. Two patients from group 1 needed stenting for ureteric stenosis. Conclusions: Donor grafts with MRA may be accepted safely with careful surgical reconstruction and close surveillance post-transplant.

Comparative study of living donor kidney transplants:Right vs left

BACKGROUND Transplant teams often hesitate to use the right kidney(RK)in living donor(LD)transplants due to the complexities of anastomosing the short,thin-walled right renal veins,which can potentially lead to graft loss or graft dysfunction.Nevertheless,circumstances may arise where selecting the RK over the left kidney(LK)is unavoidable.Consequently,it is crucial to thoroughly examine the implications of such a choice on the overall transplant outcome.AIM To compare transplant outcomes between recipients of RK and LK while examining the factors that influence these outcomes.METHODS We retrospectively analyzed data from adult patients who received LD kidney transplants involving meticulous patient selection and surgical techniques at our center from January 2020 to December 2023.We included all kidney donors who were over 18,fit to donate,and had undergone diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid split function and/or computed tomography based volumetry.The variables examined comprised donor and recipient demographics,and outcome measures included technical graft loss(TGL),delayed or slow graft function(SGF),and post-transplant serum creatinine(SC)trends.We used a logistic regression model to assess the likelihood of adverse outcomes considering the donor kidney side.RESULTS Of the 250 transplants performed during the period,56(22%)were RKs.The recipient demographics and transplant factors were comparable for the right and LKs,except that the donor warm and cold ischemia time were shorter for RKs.TGL and SGF each occurred in 2%(n=1)of RKs and 0.5%(n=1)of LKs,the difference being insignificant.These complications,however,were not related to the venous anastomosis.One RK(2%)developed delayed graft function after 48 hours,which was attributable to postoperative hypoxia rather than the surgical technique.The post-transplant SC trend and mean SC at the last follow-up were similar across both kidney sides.CONCLUSION The donor kidney side has little impact on post-transplant adverse events and graft function in LD transplants,provided that careful patient selection and precise surgical techniques are employed.

Doppler ultrasonography in living donor liver transplantation recipients: Intra- and post-operative vascular complications

Living-donor liver transplantation has provided a solution to the severe lack of cadaver grafts for the replacement of liver afflicted with end-stage cirrhosis, fulminant disease, or inborn errors of metabolism. Vascular complications remain the most serious complications and a common cause for graft failure after hepatic transplantation. Doppler ultrasound remains the primary radiological imaging modality for the diagnosis of such complications. This article presents a brief review of intra- and post-operative living donor liver transplantation anatomy and a synopsis of the role of ultrasonography and color Doppler in evaluating the graft vascular haemodynamics both during surgery and post-operatively in accurately defining the early vascular complications. Intra-operative ultrasonography of the liver graft provides the surgeon with useful real-time diagnostic and staging information that may result in an alteration in the planned surgical approach and corrections of surgical complications during the procedure of vascular anastomoses. The relevant intraoperative anatomy and the spectrum of normal and abnormal findings are described. Ultrasonography and color Doppler also provides the clinicians and surgeons early post-operative potential developmental complications that may occur during hospital stay. Early detection and thus early problem solving can make the difference between graft survival and failure.

Advances in endoscopic management of biliary complications after living donor liver transplantation: Comprehensive review of the literature

Apart from noticeable improvements in surgical techniques and immunosuppressive agents, biliary complications remain the major causes of morbidity and mortality after living donor liver transplantation(LDLT). Bile leakage and stricture are the predominant complications. The reported incidence of biliary complications is 15%-40%, and these are known to occur more frequently in living donors than in deceased donors. Despite the absence of a confirmed therapeutic algorithm, many approaches have been used for treatment, including surgical, endoscopic, and percutaneous transhepatic techniques. In recent years, nonsurgical approaches have largely replaced reoperation. Among these, the endoscopic approach is currently the preferred initial treatment for patients who undergo duct-to-duct biliary reconstruction. Previously, endoscopic management was achieved most optimally through balloon dilatation and single or multiple stents placement. Recently, there have been significant developments in endoscopic devices, such as novel biliary stents, as well as advances in endoscopic technologies, including deep enteroscopy, the rendezvous technique, magnetic compression anastomosis, and direct cholangioscopy. These developments have resulted in almost all patients being managed by the endoscopic approach. Multiple recent publications suggest superior long-term results, with overall success rates ranging from 58% to 75%. This article summarizes the advances in endoscopic management of patients with biliary complications after LDLT.

Clinical study on safety of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation in both donors and recipients

AIM： TO investigate the safety of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation （A-A LDLT） in both donors and recipients. METHODS： From January 2002 to July 2006, 50 cases of A-A LDLT were performed at West China Hospital, Sichuan University, consisting of 47 cases using right lobe graft without middle hepatic vein （HHV）, and 3 cases using dual grafts （one case using two left lobe, 2 using one right lobe and one left lobe）. The most common diagnoses were hepatitis B liver cirrosis, 30 （60%） cases; and hepatocellular carcinoma, 15 （30%） cases in adult recipients. Among them, 10 cases had the model of end-stage liver disease （HELD） with a score of more than 25. Donor screening consisted of reconstruction of the hepatic blood vessels and biliary system with 3-dimension computed tomography and volumetry of whole liver and right liver volume. Various improved surgical techniques were adopted in the procedures for both donors and recipients. RESULTS： Forty-nine right lobes and 3 left lobes （2 left lobe grafts for 1 recipient, 1 left lobe graft for 1 recipient who had received right lobe graft donated by relative living donor） were obtained from 52 living donors. The 49 right lobe grafts, without HHV, weighed 400 g-850 g （media 550 g）, and the ratio of graft volume to recipient standard liver volume （GV/SLV） ranged from 31.74% to 71.68% （mean 45.35%）. All donors＇ remnant liver volume was over 35% of the whole liver volume. There was no donor mortality. With a follow- up of 2-52 mo （media 9 too）, among 50 adult recipients, complications occurred in 13 （26%） cases and 4 （8%） died postoperatively within 3 mo. Their 1-year actual survival rate was 92%.CONCLUSION： When preoperative CT volumetry shows volume of remnant liver is more than 350, the ratio of right lobe graft to recipients standard liver volume exceeding 40%, A-A LDLT using right lobe graft without MHV should be a very safe procedure for both donors and recipients, otherwise dual grafts liver transplantation should be considered.

Microsurgical reconstruction of hepatic artery in living donor liver transplantation:experiences and lessons

BACKGROUND: Hepatic artery (HA) reconstruction is one of the key steps for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The incidence of HA thrombosis has been reduced by the introduction of nucrosurgical techniques under a high resolution microscope or loupe. METHODS: We report our experience in 101 cases of HA reconstruction in LDLTs using the graft-artery-undamp and posterior-wall-first technique. The reconstructions were completed by either a plastic surgeon or a transplant surgeon. RESULTS: The rate of HA thrombosis was 2% (2/101). The risk factors for failed procedures appeared to be reduced by participation of the transplant surgeon compared with the plastic surgeon. For a graft with duplicate arteries, we considered no branches should be discarded even with a positive clamping test. CONCLUSIONS: HA reconstruction without clamping the graft artery is a feasible and simplified technique, which can be mastered by transplant surgeons with considerable microsurgical training.

Analysis of infections in the first 3-month after living donor liver transplantation

AIM:To identify factors related to serious postoperative bacterial and fungal infections in the first 3 mo after living donor liver transplantation(LDLT).METHODS:In the present study,the data of 207 patients from 2004 to 2011 were reviewed.The pre-,intra-and post-operative factors were statistically analyzed.All transplantations were approved by the ethics committee of West China Hospital,Sichuan University.Patients with definitely preoperative infections and infections within 48 h after transplantation were excluded from current study.All potential risk factors were analyzed using univariate analyses.Factors significant at a P < 0.10 in the univariate analyses were involved in the multivariate analyses.The diagnostic accuracy of the identified risk factors was evaluated using receiver operating curve.RESULTS:The serious bacterial and fungal infection rates were 14.01% and 4.35% respectively.Enterococcus faecium was the predominant bacterial pathogen,whereas Candida albicans was the most common fungal pathogen.Lung was the most common infection site for both bacterial and fungal infections.Recipient age older than 45 years,preoperative hyponatremia,intensive care unit stay longer than 9 d,postoperative bile leak and severe hyperglycemia were independent risk factors for postoperative bacterial infection.Massive red blood cells transfusion and postoperative bacterial infection may be related to postoperative fungal infection.CONCLUSION:Predictive risk factors for bacterial and fungal infections were indentified in current study.Pre-,intra-and post-operative factors can cause postoperative bacterial and fungal infections after LDLT.

Living donor liver transplantation does not increase tumor recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma compared to deceased donor transplantation

AIM: to compare the recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-positive hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). METHODS: We retrospectively collected clinical data from 408 liver cancer patients from February 1999 to September 2012. We used the chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test to analyze the characteristics of LDLT and DDLT. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare the RFS and OS in HCC. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty HBV-positive patients (276 DDLT and 84 LDLT) were included in this study. The mean follow-up time was 27.1 mo (range 1.1-130.8 mo). One hundred eighty-five (51.2%) patients died during follow-up. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates for LDLT were 85.2%, 55.7%, and 52.9%, respectively; for DDLT, the RFS rates were 73.2%, 49.1%, and 45.3% (P = 0.115). The OS rates were similar between the LDLT and DDLT recipients, with 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of 81.8%, 49.5%, and 43.0% vs 69.5%, 43.0%, and 38.3%, respectively (P = 0.30). The outcomes of HCC according to the Milan criteria after LDLT and DDLT were not significantly different (for LDLT: 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS: 94.7%, 78.7%, and 78.7% vs 89.2%, 77.5%, and 74.5%, P = 0.50; for DDLT: 86.1%, 68.8%, and 68.8% vs 80.5%, 62.2%, and 59.8% P = 0.53). CONCLUSION: The outcomes of LDLT for HCC are not worse compared to the outcomes of DDLT. LDLT does not increase tumor recurrence of HCC compared to DDLT. (C) 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.

Risks faced by donors of right lobe for living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: Because of the shortage of deceased donors with livers fit for transplantation, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is becoming an attractive alternative. Attention should be paid to the donors, especially to those of the right lobe. In this study, we evaluated the risks faced by donors of the right lobe for adult-to-adult LDLT. METHODS: The perioperative data from 105 consecutive living donors of the right lobe performed in West China Hospital from January 2002 to December 2007 were retrospectively studied. Preoperative evaluation included CT, MRCP, and intraoperative cholangiography, showing liver volume, hepatic vasculature and the biliary system. The standard liver volume (SLV) and the ratio of left lobe volume to SLV were calculated. The right lobe grafts were obtained by transecting the liver on the right side of the middle hepatic vein without inflow vascular occlusion, using an ultrasonic dissector. After operation the donors were monitored in the Intensive Care Unit for about three days. Each donor was followed up for at least 6 months. RESULTS: There was no donor mortality. Major complications occurred in 14 donors (13.3%), of whom 3 received conservative treatment, 8 required invasive paracentesis, and 3 required further surgery. All donors were recovered well and resumed their previous occupations. CONCLUSIONS: Donors of the right lobe face low risks. The preoperative evaluation, especially evaluation of the volume of the remnant liver, should be exact. During the operation, the patency of the remnant hepatic vasculature and bile duct must be preserved, and the extent of injury to the remnant liver should be limited as much as possible. The detection and treatment of postoperative complications should be diligently performed.

Management of the middle hepatic vein and its tributaries in right lobe living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: Left liver graft from a small donor will not meet the metabolic demands of a larger adult recipient. To overcome the problem of graft size insufficiency, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using the right lobe has become a standard method for adult patients. As the drainage of the median sector (segments V, VIII and IV) is mainly by the middle hepatic vein (MHV), the issue of whether the MHV should or should not be taken with the graft or whether the MHV tributaries (V5, V8) should be reconstructed in the recipient remains to be settled. DATA SOURCES: An English-language literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (1985-2006) on right lobe living donor liver transplantation, middle hepatic vein, vein graft, hepatic venoplasty and other related subjects. RESULTS: Some institutions had proposed their policy for the management of the MHV and its tributaries. Dominancy of the hepatic vein, graft-to-recipient weight ratio, and remnant liver volume as well as the donor-to-recipient body weight ratio, the volume of the donor's right lobe to the recipient's standard liver volume and the size of MHV tributaries are the major elements for the criteria of inclusion of the MHV, while for the policy of MHV tributaries reconstruction, the proportion of congestive area and the diameter of the tributaries are the critical elements. Optimal vein grafts such as recipient's portal vein and hepatic venoplasty technique have been used to obviate hepatic congestion and venous drainage disturbance. CONCLUSIONS: Taking right liver grafts with the MHV trunk (extended right lobe grafts) or performing the MHV tributaries reconstruction in modified right lobe grafts, according to the criteria proposed by the institutions with rich experience, can solve the congestion problem of the right paramedian sector and help to improve the outcomes of the patients. The additional use of optimal vein grafts and hepatic venoplasty also can guarantee excellent venous drainage.

Vascular complications after adult living donor liver transplantation:Evaluation with ultrasonography

Living donor liver transplantation(LDLT) has beenwidely used to treat end-stage liver disease with improvement in surgical technology and the application of new immunosuppressants. Vascular complications after liver transplantation remain a major threat to the survival of recipients. LDLT recipients are more likely to develop vascular complications because of their complex vascular reconstruction and the slender vessels. Early diagnosis and treatment are critical for the survival of graft and recipients. As a non-invasive, cost-effective and non-radioactive method with bedside availability, conventional gray-scale and Doppler ultrasonography play important roles in identifying vascular complications in the early postoperative period and during the follow-up. Recently, with the detailed vascular tracing and perfusion visualization, contrastenhanced ultrasound(CEUS) has significantly improved the diagnosis of postoperative vascular complications. This review focuses on the role of conventional grayscale ultrasound, Doppler ultrasound and CEUS for early diagnosis of vascular complications after adult LDLT.

A comparison of desensitization methods: Rituximab with/without plasmapheresis in ABO-incompatible living donor liver transplantation

Background: Plasmapheresis is a desensitization method used prior to ABO-incompatible(ABO-I) living donor liver transplantation. However, studies on its usefulness in the rituximab era are lacking.Methods: Fifty-six adult patients underwent ABO-I living donor liver transplantation between January2012 and October 2015. A single dose of rituximab(300 mg/m~2) was administered 2 weeks before surgery with plasmapheresis in all patients until February 2014(RP group, n = 26). Patients were administered rituximab only, without plasmapheresis between March 2014 and October 2015(RO group, n = 30).Results: The 6-, 12-and 18-month overall survival rates were 92.3%, 80.8% and 76.9% in the RP group and 96.6%, 85.4% and 85.4% in the RO group, respectively(P = 0.574). When the initial isoagglutinin titers < 16, neither group showed a rebound rise of isoagglutinin titers. For patients with initial isoagglutinin titers ≥ 16, the rebound rise of isoagglutinin titers was more prominent in the RP group. There was no difference in time-dependent changes in B cell subpopulations and ABO-I-related complications.Conclusions: Sufficient desensitization for ABO-I living donor liver transplantation can be achieved using rituximab alone. This desensitization strategy does not affect the isoagglutinin titers, ABO-I-related complications and patient survival.

Efficacy of middle hepatic vein reconstruction in adult right-lobe living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: Congestion of the right anterior segment may lead to graft dysfunction in right-lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) without a middle hepatic vein (MHV) trunk. Selective reconstruction of MHV tributaries with the interposition of vascular grafts has been introduced to overcome this problem. However, there is still no consensus on the definite criteria of MHV reconstruction. METHODS: LDLT patients were reviewed to evaluate the effects of MHV reconstruction. From March 2005 to September 2008 in our transplantation center, 120 consecutive LDLTs were performed using a right-lobe graft without a MHV. Excluding 11 patients, among the remainder, 73 (67%) had reconstructed MHV tributaries, and the others 36 (33%) did not. The values of liver functional index and liver graft regeneration ratio were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There was a prolonged period of liver functional recovery in patients with small-for-size grafts and a graft-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) <1.0%, and without MHV reconstruction. The ratio of liver regeneration 1 month postoperatively in reconstruction cases was 81%, versus 78% in patients without reconstruction (P=0.352), but among small-for-size grafts, there was a significant difference between the two groups (95% vs. 80%). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that reconstruction of MHV tributaries is not necessary in all patients, but is beneficial for patients with GRWR <1.0%. (Hepatobiliary Pancrent Dis Int 2010; 9: 135-138)