Search

Currently, liver transplantation (LT) is an accepted method of treatment of end-stage liver disease, metabolic diseases with their primary defect in the liver and unresectable primary liver tumors. Surgical techniques in LT have evolved considerably over the past 40 yr. The developments have led to a safer procedure for the recipient reflected by continuously improving survival figures after LT. Also the new techniques offer the possibility of tailoring the operation to the needs and condition of the recipient as in partial grafting or in different revascularization techniques, or in techniques of biliary reconstructions. In addition, the new techniques such as split LT, domino transplantation and living donor LT have brought about an increase in the available grafts. In this review the evolution of surgical techniques in LT over the past 40 yr and their contribution to the current results are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between November 1982 and March 2006, 67 children with body weight ≤10 kg had a primary liver transplantation from deceased donors in our unit. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcome in terms of patient and graft survival and to search for factors affecting this outcome. Overall, one-, three-, five-, and 10-yr primary patient and graft survival rates were 73%, 71%, 66%, 63% and 59%, 56%, 53%, 48%, respectively. Twenty-four of 67 (36%) children died and in the remaining 22 (33%), the first grafts failed and they were retransplanted. Cox regression analysis revealed that a need for retransplantation and urgent transplantation were important predictors for patient survival (p = 0.04 and p = 0.001, respectively). To assess whether the need for retransplantation can be influenced, all study variables were compared between surviving grafts and failed grafts. Cox regression analysis showed that only donor/recipient (D/R) weight ratio proved to be independent predictor for graft survival (p = 0.004). After comparison of graft survival with the long rank test according to different D/R weight ratios (3.0–7.0), the cut-off point for significantly different graft survival approached 4.0. The one-, three-, five-, and 10-yr graft survival for technical variant grafts with a D/R weight ratio <4.0 was 85%, 68%, 68%, and 68% compared with a D/R weight ratio >4.0 was 44%, 38%, 38%, and 30%, respectively (p = 0.02). In summary, patient survival in children with body weight ≤10 kg is determined by urgent transplantation and the need for retransplantation. Graft loss and retransplantation in small children can be prevented by adequate size matching of donor and recipient whereby a D/R weight ratio <4.0 seems to offer the favorable outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No consensus exists regarding the optimal reconstruction of the cavo-caval anastomosis in piggyback orthotopic liver transplantation (PB-LT). The aim of this study was to analyze our experience with end-to-side (ES) cavo-cavostomy. Outcome parameters were patient and graft survival and surgical complications. During the period 1995–2002 146 full-size PB-LT in 137 adult patients were performed with ES cavo-cavostomy without the routine use of temporary portocaval shunt (TPCS). In 12 patients (8%) this technique was used for implantation of second or third grafts. Veno-venous bypass was not used in any case and TPCS was performed only in eight patients (6%). One-, three- and five-yr patient and graft survival were 84%, 79% and 75%, and 81%, 74% and 69%, respectively. The median number of intraoperative transfusion of packed red blood cells (RBC) was 2.0 (range 0–33) and 30% of the patients (n = 43) did not require any RBC transfusion. Surgical complications of various types were observed after 49 LT (34%) and none of the complications was specifically related to the technique of ES cavo-cavostomy. Our experience indicates that PB-LT with ES cavo-cavostomy is a safe procedure, can safely be performed without the routine use of a TPCS, has a very low risk of venous outflow obstruction and can also be used effectively during retransplantations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Miyamoto S, Polak WG, Geuken E, Peeters PMJG, de Jong KP, Porte RJ, van den Berg AP, Hendriks HG, Slooff MJH. Liver transplantation with preservation of the inferior vena cava. A comparison of conventional and piggyback techniques in adults.Clin Transplant 2004 DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2004.00278.x© Blackwell Munksgaard, 2004The aim of this study is to analyse a single centre's experience with two techniques of liver transplantation (OLT), conventional (CON-OLT) and piggyback (PB-ES), and to compare outcome in terms of survival, morbidity, mortality and post-operative liver function as well as operative characteristics. A consecutive series (1994–2000) of 167 adult primary OLT were analysed. Ninety-six patients had CON-OLT and 71 patients had PB-ES. In PB-ES group two revascularization protocols were used. In the first protocol reperfusion of the graft was performed first via the portal vein followed by the arterial anastomosis (PB-seq). In the second protocol the graft was reperfused simultaneously via portal vein and hepatic artery (PB-sim). One-, 3- and 5-yr patient survival in the CON-OLT and PB-ES groups were 90, 83 and 80%, and 83, 78 and 78%, respectively (p = ns). Graft survival at the same time points was 81, 73 and 69%, and 78, 69 and 65%, respectively (p = ns). Apart from the higher number of patients with cholangitis and sepsis in CON-OLT group, morbidity, retransplantation rate and post-operative liver and kidney function were not different between the two groups. The total operation time was not different between both groups (9.4 h in PB-ES vs. 10.0 h in CON-OLT), but in PB-ES group cold and warm ischaemia time (CIT and WIT), revascularization time (REVT), functional and anatomic anhepatic phases (FAHP and AAHP) were significantly shorter (8.9 h vs. 10.7 h, 54 min vs. 63 min, 82 min vs. 114 min, 118 min vs. 160 min and 87 min vs. 114 min, respectively, p < 0.05). RBC use in the PB-ES group was lower compared to the CON-OLT group (4.0 min vs. 10.0 units, p < 0.05). Except for WIT and REVT there were no differences in operative characteristics between PB-Sim and PB-Seq groups. The WIT was significantly longer in PB-Sim group compared with PB-Seq group (64 min vs. 50 min, p < 0.05); however REVT was significantly shorter in PB-Sim group (64 min vs. 97 min, p < 0.05). Results of this study show that both techniques are comparable in survival and morbidity; however PB-ES results in shorter AAHP, FAHP, REVT and WIT as well as less RBC use. In the PB-ES group there seems to be no adavantage for any of the revascularization protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]