Middle hepatic vein reconstruction in adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation improves recipient survival

Background: The efficacy and necessity of middle hepatic vein(MHV) reconstruction in adult-to-adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation(LDLT) remain controversial. The present study aimed to evaluate the survival beneficiary of MHV reconstructions in LDLT. Methods: We compared the clinical outcomes of liver recipients with MHV reconstruction( n = 101) and without MHV reconstruction( n = 43) who underwent LDLT using right lobe grafts at our institution from January 2006 to May 2017. Results: The overall survival(OS) rate of recipients with MHV reconstruction was significantly higher than that of those without MHV reconstruction in liver transplantation( P = 0.022; 5-yr OS: 76.2% vs 58.1%). The survival of two segments(segments 5 and 8) hepatic vein reconstruction was better than that of the only one segment(segment 5 or segment 8) hepatic vein reconstruction( P = 0.034; 5-yr OS: 83.6% vs 67.4%). The survival of using two straight vascular reconstructions was better than that using Y-shaped vascular reconstruction in liver transplantation with two segments hepatic vein reconstruction( P = 0.020; 5-yr OS: 100% vs 75.0%). The multivariate analysis demonstrated that MHV tributary reconstructions were an independent beneficiary prognostic factor for OS(hazard ratio = 0.519, 95% CI: 0.282–0.954, P = 0.035). Biliary complications were significantly increased in recipients with MHV reconstruction(28.7% vs 11.6%, P = 0.027). Conclusions: MHV reconstruction ensured excellent outflow drainage and favored recipient outcome. The MHV tributaries(segments 5 and 8) should be reconstructed as much as possible to enlarge the hepatic vein anastomosis and reduce congestion.

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.

Outcome of patients undergoing right lobe living donor liver transplantation with small-for-size grafts

AIM:To investigate the outcome of living donor liver transplantation(LDLT)recipients transplanted with small-for-size grafts(SFSGs).METHODS:Between November 2001 and December2010,196 patients underwent LDLT with right lobe liver grafts at our center.Recipients were divided into 2 treatment groups:group A with an actuarial graft-to-recipient weight ratio(aGRWR)<0.8%(n=45)and group B with an aGRWR≥0.8%(n=151).We evaluated serum liver function markers within 4 wk after transplantation.We also retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of these patients for potential effects related to the recipients,the donors and the transplantation procedures based upon a review of their medical records.RESULTS:Small-for-size syndrome(SFSS)developed in 7 of 45 patients(15.56%)in group A and 9 of 151patients(5.96%)in group B(P=0.080).The levels of alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase in group A were higher than those in group B during early period after transplantation,albeit not significantly.The cumulative 1-,3-and 5-year liver graft survival rates were 82.22%,71.11%and 71.11%for group A and 81.46%,76.82%,and 75.50%for group B patients,respectively(P=0.623).However,univariate analysis of risk factors associated with graft survival in group A demonstrated that the occurrence of SFSS after LDLT was the only significant risk factor affecting graft survival(P<0.001).Furthermore,multivariate analysis of our data did not identify any additional significant risk factors accounting for poor graft survival.CONCLUSION:Our study suggests that LDLT recipients with an aGRWR<0.8%may have liver graft outcomes comparable to those who received larger size grafts.Further studies are required to ascertain the safety of using SFSGs.

Measures for increasing the safety of donors in living donor liver transplantation using right lobe grafts

BACKGROUND: The safety of donors in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) should be the primary consideration. The aim of this study was to report our experience in increasing the safety of donors in LDLTs using right lobe grafts. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 37 living donors of right lobe grafts from January 2002 to March 2006. The measures for increasing the safety of donors in LDLT included carefully selected donors, preoperative evaluation by ultrasonography, angiography and computed tomography; and necessary intraoperative cholangiography and ultrasonography. Right lobe grafts were obtained using an ultrasonic dissector without inflow vascular occlusion on the right side of the middle hepatic vein. The standard liver volume and the ratio of left lobe volume to standard liver volume were calculated. RESULTS: There was no donor mortality in our group. Postoperative complications only included bile leakage (I donor), biliary stricture (1) and portal vein thrombosis (1). All donors recovered well and resumed their previous occupations. In recipients, complications included acute rejection (2 patients), hepatic artery thrombosis (1), bile leakage (1), intestinal bleeding (1), left subphrenic abscess (1) and pulmonary infection (1). The mortality rate of recipients was 5.4% (2/37); one recipient with pulmonary infection died from multiple organ failure and another from occurrence of primary disease. CONCLUSIONS: The first consideration in adult-to-adult LDLT is the safety of donors. The donation of a right lobe graft is safe for adults if the remnant hepatic vasculature and bile duct are ensured, and the volume-of the remnant liver exceeds 35% of the total liver volume.

Major complications of adult right lobe living liver donors

BACKGROUND：The right lobe of the liver is generally preferred for living donor liver transplantation in adult patients with end-stage liver disease.It is important to know the preoperative factors relating to the major postoperative complications.We therefore evaluated the possible risk factors for predicting postoperative complications in right lobe liver donors.METHODS：Data from 378 donors who had undergone right lobe hepatectomy at our center were evaluated retrospectively. The factors we evaluated induded donor age, gender, body mass index （BMI）, remnant liver volume, operation time, history of previous abdominal surgery, inclusion of the middle hepatic vein and variations in the portal and bile systems. RESUEI＇S： Of the 378 donors, 219 were male and 159 female. None of the donors died, but 124 （32.8%） donors experienced complications including major complications （Clavien scores III and IV） in 27 （7.1%）. Univariate analysis showed that complica- tions were significantly associated with male gender and higher BMI （P〈0.05）, but not with donor age, remnant liver volume, operation time, graft with middle hepatic vein, variations in the portal and bile systems and previous abdominal surgery （P〉0.05）. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that major complications were significantly associated with male gender （P=0.005） and higher BMI （P=0.029）. Moreover, the Chi- square test showed that there were significant relationships between major complications and male gender （P=0.010,Z2=6.614, df=l） and BMI 〉25 kg/m2 （P=-0.031, Z2=8.562, df-1）. Of the 96 male donors with BMI 〉25 kg/m2, 14 （14.6%） with major complications had significantly smaller mean remnant liver volume than those （82, 85.4%） without major complications （32.50%± 4.45% vs 34.63%±3.11%, P=0.029）.CONCLUSION： Male donors with BMI 〉25 kg/m2 and a remnant liver volume 〈32.50% had a significantly increased risk for major complications.

Analysis of surgical and perioperative complications in seventy-five right hepatectomies for living donor liver transplantation

AIM: To present an analysis of the surgical and perioperative complications in a series of seventy- five right hepatectomies for living-donation (RHLD) performed in our center. METHODS: From January 2002 to September 2007, we performed 75 RHLD, defined as removal of a portion of the liver corresponding to Couinaud segments 5-8, in order to obtain a graft for adult to adult living-related liver transplantation (ALRLT). Surgical complications were stratified according to the most recent version of the Clavien classification of postoperative surgical complications. The perioperative period was defined as within 90 d of surgery. RESULTS: No living donor mortality was present in this series, no donor operation was aborted and no donors received any blood transfusion. Twenty- three (30.6%) living donors presented one or more episodes of complication in the perioperative period. Seven patients (9.33%) out of 75 developed biliary complications, which were the most common complications in our series.CONCLUSION: The need to define, categorize and record complications when healthy individuals, such as living donors, undergo a major surgical procedure, such as a right hepatectomy, reflects the need for prompt and detailed reports of complications arising in this particular category of patient. Perioperative complications and post resection liver regeneration are not influenced by anatomic variations or patient demographic.

Is right lobe liver graft without main right hepatic vein suitable for living donor liver transplantation?

BACKGROUND Since the first living donor liver transplantation(LDLT)was performed by Raia and colleagues in December 1988,LDLT has become the gold standard treatment in countries where cadaveric organ donation is not sufficient.Adequate hepatic venous outflow reconstruction in LDLT is essential to prevent graft congestion and its complications including graft loss.However,this can be complex and technically demanding especially in the presence of complex variations and congenital anomalies in the graft hepatic veins.CASE SUMMARY Herein,we aimed to present two cases who underwent successful right lobe LDLT using a right lobe liver graft with rudimentary or congenital absence of the right hepatic vein and describe the utility of a common large opening drainage model in such complex cases.CONCLUSION Thanks to this venous reconstruction model,none of the patients developed postoperative complications related to venous drainage.Our experience with venous drainage reconstruction models shows that congenital variations in the hepatic venous structure of living liver donors are not absolute contraindications for LDLT.

Survival outcomes of right-lobe living donor liver transplantation for patients with high Model for End-stage Liver Disease scores

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists over whether living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) should be offered to patients with high Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. This study tried to determine whether a high MELD score would result in inferior outcomes of right-lobe LDLT. METHODS: Among 411 consecutive patients who received right-lobe LDLT at our center, 143 were included in this study. The patients were divided into two groups according to their MELD scores: a high-score group (MELD score ≥25; n=75) and a low-score group (MELD score 【25; n=68). Their demographic data and perioperative conditions were compared. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify risk factors affecting patient survival. RESULTS: In the high-score group, more patients required preoperative intensive care unit admission (49.3% vs 2.9%; P【0.001), mechanical ventilation (21.3% vs 0%; P【0.001), or hemodialysis (13.3% vs 0%; P=0.005); the waiting time before LDLT was shorter (4 vs 66 days; P【0.001); more blood was transfused during operation (7 vs 2 units; P【0.001); patients stayed longer in the intensive care unit (6 vs 3 days; P【0.001) and hospital (21 vs 15 days; P=0.015) after transplantation;more patients developed early postoperative complications (69.3% vs 50.0%; P=0.018); and values of postoperative peak blood parameters were higher. However, the two groups had comparable hospital mortality. Graft survival and patient overall survival at one year (94.7% vs 95.6%; 95.9% vs 96.9%), three years (91.9% vs 92.6%; 93.2% vs 95.3%), and five years (90.2% vs 90.2%; 93.2% vs 95.3%) were also similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although the high-score group had signifi-cantly more early postoperative complications, the two groups had comparable hospital mortality and similar satisfactory rates of graft survival and patient overall survival. Therefore, a high MELD score should not be a contraindication to right-lobe LDLT if donor risk and recipient benefit are taken into full account.

Outcomes of right-lobe and left-lobe living-donor liver transplantations using small-for-size grafts

AIM To analyze the outcomes of living-donor liver transplantation(LDLT) using left-lobe(LL) or right-lobe(RL) small-for-size(SFS) grafts.METHODS Prospectively collected data of adult patients who underwent LDLT at our hospital in the period from January 2003 to December 2013 were reviewed. The patients were divided into the RL-LDLT group and the LL-LDLT group. The two groups were compared in terms of short-and long-term outcomes, including incidence of postoperative complication, graft function, graft survival, and patient survival. A SFS graft was defined as a graft with a ratio of graft weight(GW) to recipient standard liver volume(RSLV)(GW/RSLV) of < 50%. The Urata formula was used to estimate RSLV.RESULTS Totally 218 patients were included for analysis, with 199 patients in the RL-LDLT group and 19 patients in the LL-LDLT group. The two groups were similar in terms of age(median, 53 years in the RL-LDLT group and 52 years in the LL-LDLT group, P = 0.997) but had significantly different ratios of men to women(165:34 in the RL-LDLT group and 8:11 in the LL-LDLT group, P < 0.0001). The two groups were also significantly different in GW(P < 0.0001), GW/RSLV(P < 0.0001), and graft cold ischemic time(P = 0.007). When it comes to postoperative complication, the groups were comparable(P = 0.105). Five patients died in hospital,4(2%) in the RL-LDLT group and 1(5.3%) in the LLLDLT group(P = 0.918). There were 38 graft losses, 33(16.6%) in the RL-LDLT group and 5(26.3%) in the LL-LDLT group(P = 0.452). The 5-year graft survival rate was significantly better in the RL-LDLT group(95.2% vs 89.5%, P = 0.049). The two groups had similar 5-year patient survival rates(RL-LDLT: 86.8%, LL-LDLT: 89.5%, P = 0.476).CONCLUSION The use of SFS graft in LDLT requires careful tailormade surgical planning and meticulous operation. LLLDLT can be a good alternative to RL-LDLT with similar recipient outcomes but a lower donor risk. Further research into different patient conditions is needed in order to validate the use of LL graft.

Outcomes of side-to-side conversion hepaticojejunostomy for biliary anastomotic stricture after right-liver living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND:Conversion hepaticojejunostomy is considered the salvage intervention for biliary anastomotic stricture,a common complication of right-liver living donor liver transplantation with duct-to-duct anastomosis,after failed endoscopic treatment.The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of side-to-side hepaticojejunostomy with those of endto-side hepaticojejunostomy.METHODS:Prospectively collected data of 402 adult patients who had undergone right-liver living donor liver transplantation with duct-to-duct anastomosis were reviewed.Diagnosis of biliary anastomotic stricture was made based on clinical,biochemical,histological and radiological results.Endoscopic treatment was the first-line treatment of biliary anastomotic stricture.RESULTS:Interventional radiological or endoscopic treatment failed to correct the biliary anastomotic stricture in 13 patients,so they underwent conversion hepaticojejunostomy.Ten of them received end-to-side hepaticojejunostomy and three received side-to-side hepaticojejunostomy.In the end-to-side group,two patients sustained hepatic artery injury requiring repeated microvascular anastomosis,two developed restenosis requiring further percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and balloon dilatation,and two required revision hepaticojejunostomy.In the side-to-side group,one patient developed re-stenosis requiring further endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and balloon dilatation.No re-operation was needed in this group.Otherwise,outcomes in the two groups were similar in terms of liver function and graft survival.CONCLUSIONS:Despite the similar outcomes,side-to-side hepaticojejunostomy may be a better option for bile duct reconstruction after failed interventional radiological or endoscopic treatment because it can decrease the chance of hepatic artery injury and allows future endoscopic treatment if re-stricture develops.However,more large-scale studies are warranted to validate the results.

Modified techniques for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: Because of critical organ shortage, transplant professionals have utilized living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in recent years. We summarized our experience in adult-to-adult LDLT with grafts of right liver lobe by a modified technique. METHODS: From January 2002 to August 2005, 24 adult patients underwent living donor liver transplantation with grafts of the right liver lobe at West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China. Twenty-two patients underwent modi-Bed procedures designed to improve the reconstruction of the right hepatic vein and the tributaries of the middle hepatic vein by interposing a great saphenous vein ( GSV) graft and the anastomosis of the hepatic arteries and bile ducts. RESULTS: No severe complications and death occurred in all donors. In the first 2 patients, (patients 1 and 2), operative procedure was not modified. One patient suffered from 'small-for-size syndrome' and the other died of sepsis with progressive deterioration of graft function. In the rest 22 patients (patients 3 to 24), however, the procedure of venous reconstruction was modified, and better results were obtained. Complications occurred in 7 recipients including acute rejection (2 patients), hepatic artery thrombosis (1), bile leakage (1), intestinal bleeding (1), left sub-phrenic abscess (1), and pulmonary infection (1). One patient with pulmonary infection died of multiple organ failure (MOF). The 22 patients underwent direct anastomosis of the right hepatic vein to the inferior vena cava (IVC), 9 direct anastomosis plus the reconstruction of the right inferior hepatic vein, and 10 direct anastomosis plus the reconstruction of the tributaries of the middle hepatic vein by in-terpos-ing a GSV graft to provide sufficient venous outflow. Trifurcation of the portal vein was met in 3 patients. Venoplasty or separate anastomosis was performed. The ratio of graft to recipient body weight ranged from 0.72% to 1.17%. Among these patients, 19 had the ratio <1.0% and 4 <0.8%, and the ratio of graft weight to recipient standard liver volume was between 31.86% and 62.48%. Among these patients, 10 had the ratio <50% and 2 <40%. No 'small-for-size syndrome' occurred in the 22 recipients who were subjected to modified procedures. CONCLUSIONS: With the modified surgical techniques for the reconstruction of the hepatic vein to obtain an adequate outflow and provide a sufficient functioning liver mass, living donor liver graft in adults using the right lobe can be safe to prevent the 'small-for-size syndrome'.

Pushing the frontiers of living donor right hepatectomy

Living donor right hepatectomy(LDRH)is currently the most common donor surgery in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation although the morbidity and mortality reported in living donors still contradicts the Hippocratic tenet of"do no harm".Achieving low complication rates in LDRH remains a matter of major concern.Living donor surgery is performed worldwide as an established solution to the donor shortage.The aim of this study was to assess the current status of LDRH and comment on the future of the procedure;assessment was made from the stand point of optimizing the donor selection criteria and reducing morbidity based on both the authors’8-year institutional experience and a literature review.New possibilities have been explored regarding selection criteria.The safety of living donors with unfavorable conditions,such as low remnant liver volume,fatty change,or old age,should also be considered.Abdominal incisions have become shorter,even without laparoscopic assistance;upper midline laparotomy is the primary incision used in more than 400 consecutive LDRHs in the authors’institution.Various surgical techniques based on preoperative imaging technology of vascular and biliary anomalies have decreased the anatomicalbarriers in LDRH.Operative time has been reduced,with low blood loss.Laparoscopic or robotic LDRH has been tried in only a few selected donors.The LDRHspecific,long-term outcomes remain to be addressed.The follow-up duration of these studies should be long enough to address possible late complications.Donor safety,which is the highest priority,is ensured by three factors:preoperative selection,intraoperative surgical technique,and postoperative management.These three focus areas should be continuously refined,with the ultimate goal of zero morbidity.

Simplifying living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation is a complex surgical operation. Treatment policies and operative techniques evolved in the last two decades. DATA SOURCES: Our center's experience in living donor liver transplantation was reviewed in conjunction with relevant publications in the literature. RESULTS: The surgical techniques and perioperative surgical therapeutics could be modified towards simplicity. Examples include regular inclusion of the middle hepatic vein without compromising the venous outflow of the donor's remnant left liver. This provides excellent venous outflow, which is crucial for a small-for-size graft. Immunosuppression and hepatitis B suppression are steroid free and hepatitis B immunoglobulin free respectively. CONCLUSION: The most practical way to achieve high graft and recipient survival rates with an acceptably low donor risk is through design of a protocol that simplifies the surgery and postoperative management.

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 (MHV), 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 (MELD) 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 MHV, 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 mo), among 50 adult recipients, complications occurred in 13 (26%) cases and 4 (8%) died postoperatively within 3 mo. Their 1-year actualsurvival rate was 92%. CONCLUSION: When preoperative CT volumetry shows volume of remnant liver is more than 35%, 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.

Donor ductal anomaly is not a contraindication to right liver lobe donation

Background:Data of living-donor liver transplantation(LDLT)suggested that donor ductal anomaly may contribute to postoperative biliary complications in recipients and in donors.This retrospective study aimed to determine if the occurrence of postoperative biliary stricture in donors or recipients in rightlobe LDLT(RLDLT)is related to donor biliary anatomy type.Methods:We analyzed our RLDLT recipients’clinical data and those of their graft donors.The recipients were divided into 2 groups:with and without postoperative biliary stricture.The 2 groups were compared.The primary endpoints were donor biliary anatomy type and postoperative biliary complication incidence;the secondary endpoints were 1-,3-and 5-year graft and patient survival rates.Results:Totally 127 patients were included in the study;25(19.7%)of them developed biliary anastomotic stricture.In these 25 patients,16 had type A biliary anatomy,3 had type B,2 had type C,3 had type D,and 1 had type E.In the 127 donors,96(75.6%)had type A biliary anatomy,13(10.2%)had type B,6(4.7%)had type C,10(7.9%)had type D,and 2(1.6%)had type E.Biliary stricture was seen in 2 donors,who had type A biliary anatomy.None of the recipients or donors developed bile leakage.No association between the occurrence of postoperative biliary stricture and donor biliary anatomy type was found(P=0.527).Conclusions:The incidence of biliary stricture in donors or recipients after RLDLT was not related to donor biliary anatomy type.As postoperative complications were similar in whatever type of donor bile duct anatomy,donor ductal anomaly should not be considered a contraindication to donation of right liver lobe.

Samaritan donor interchange in living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: In order to overcome ABO blood group incompatibility, paired donor interchange has been practised in living donor liver transplantation. Liver transplantations using grafts donated by Samaritan living donors have been performed in Europe, North America, South Korea, and Hong Kong. Such practice is clearly on strong biological grounds although social and psychological implications could be far-reaching. Local experience has been satisfactory but is still limited. As few centers have this arrangement, its safety and viability are still being assessed under a clinical trial setting. METHODS: Here we report a donor interchange involving an ABO-compatible pair with a universal donor and an ABOincompatible pair with a universal recipient. This matching was not only a variation but also an extension of the donor interchange scheme. RESULTS: The four operations(two donor hepatectomies and two recipient operations) were successful. All the two donors and the two recipients recovered well. Such donor interchange further supports the altruistic principle of organ donation in contrast to exchange for a gain. CONCLUSIONS: Samaritan donor interchange certainly taxes further the ethical challenge of donor interchange. Although this practice has obvious biological advantages, such advantages have to be weighed against the potential increase in potential psychological risks to the subjects in the interchange. Further ethical and clinical evaluations of local and overseas experiences of donor interchange should guide future clinical practice in utilizing this potential organ source for transplantation.

Living donor liver transplantation for an adult patient with situs inversus totalis

This recipient with situs inversus totalis(SIT) was a 60-year-old female who had hepatitis B-related endstage liver disease.Preoperative donor evaluation showed that the right posterior section satisfied graft volume and was space-fitting in the recipient hepatic fossa when it was rotated 180 degrees.The operation and postoperative course progressed satisfactorily.Three weeks after living donor liver transplantation(LDLT),the graft function was disturbed by compression of bottom-placed right hepatic vein.This was treated with a vascular stent and subsequently the graft function was normalized.The present case shows that LDLT for patients with SIT using a right posterior section graft is feasible.

For People's Right to Safety Of Lives and Health——On development of health-related human rights in China

Medical and health work constitutes the prerequisite to protection of the people's right to safety of lives and health. Over the past decades, the Chinese Government has spared no effort in this regard and, as a result, the Chinese people's health has significantly improved. In the nationwide fight against the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) epidemic in the first half of 2003, the Government placed the health of the Chinese people and the safety of their lives above everything else. With a huge input of human, financial and material resources, the country won a decisive victory over the epidemic. Following is the full text of an interview by Human Rights with Gao Qiang, executive vice-minister of the Ministry of Health, on China's medical and health work and how it is related to protection of human rights.