Search

Background Portal hyperperfusion as a cause of small for size syndrome (SFSS) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains controversial. Portal venous pressure (PVP) is often measured indirectly and may be confounded by central venous pressure (CVP). Methods In 42 adult cirrhotics undergoing elective LDLT, PVP was measured by direct canulation of portal vein and porto systemic gradient (PSG) was obtained after subtracting CVP from PVP. None underwent portal inflow modulation. SFSS was looked in 27 patients after excluding 15 with technical complications. Results Clinical features of SFSS found in 6 patients, 5 with graft recipient weight ratio (GRWR) > 0.8% and PVP < 20 mm of Hg. One with GRWR < 0.8% could truly be labeled as SFSS. Incidence of SFSS was not higher in patients with elevated PVP > 20 mm of Hg (14.3% vs 0%, P = 0.259) or PSG > 13 mm of Hg (33.3% vs 0%, P = 0.111). Intensive care unit (ICU) stay was longer in patients with elevated PVP (14.55 vs 9.13 days, P = 0.007) and PSG (16.8 vs 9.72 days, P = 0.009). There was no difference in graft functions, post-operative complications and mortality in first month post-LDLT. Conclusion Elevated PVP or PSG increased morbidity but neither predicted SFSS nor affected survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with robotic radiosurgery in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with macrovascular invasion (HCC-PVT). Patients with inoperable HCC-PVT, good performance score (PS0-1) and preserved liver function [up to Child-Pugh (CP) B7] were accrued after ethical and scientific committee approval [Clinical trial registry-India (CTRI): 2022/01/050234] for treatment on robotic radiosurgery (M6) and planned with Multiplan (iDMS V2.0). Triple-phase contrast computed tomography (CT) scan was performed for contouring, and gross tumour volume (GTV) included contrast-enhancing mass within main portal vein and adjacent parenchymal disease. Dose prescription was as per risk stratification protocol (22–50 Gy in 5 fractions) while achieving the constraints of mean liver dose <15 Gy, 800 cc liver <8 Gy and the duodenum max of <24 Gy). Response assessment was done at 2 months' follow-up for recanalization. Patient- and treatment-related factors were evaluated for influence in survival function. Between Jan 2017 and May 2022, 318 consecutive HCC with PVT patients were screened and 219 patients were accrued [male 92%, CP score: 5–7 90%, mean age: 63 years (38–85 yrs), Cancer of the Liver Italian Program <3: 84 (40%), 3–6117 (56%), infective aetiology 9.5%, performance status (PS): 0–37%; 1–56%]. Among 209 consecutive patients accrued for SBRT treatment (10 patients were excluded after accrual due to ascites and decompensation), 139 were evaluable for response assessment (>2 mo follow-up). At mean follow-up of 12.21 months (standard deviation: 10.66), 88 (63%) patients expired and 51 (36%) were alive. Eighty-two (59%) patients had recanalization of PVT (response), 57 (41%) patients did not recanalize and 28 (17%) had progressive/metastatic disease prior to response evaluation (<2 months). Mean overall survival (OS) in responders and non-responders were 18.4 [standard error (SE): 2.52] and 9.34 month (SE 0.81), respectively (P < 0.001). Mean survival in patients with PS0, PS1 and PS2 were 17, 11.7 and 9.7 months (P = 0.019), respectively. OS in partial recanalization, bland thrombus and complete recanalization was 12.4, 14.1 and 30.3 months, respectively (P -0.002). Adjuvant sorafenib, Barcelona Clinic Liver Classification stage, gender, age and RT dose did not influence response to treatment. Recanalization rate was higher in good PS patients (P -0.019). OS in patients with response to treatment, in those with no response to treatment, in those who are fit but not accrued and in those who are not suitable were 18.4, 9.34, 5.9 and 2.6 months, respectively (P -<0.001). Thirty-six of 139 patients (24%) had radiation-induced liver disease (RILD) [10 (7.2%) had classic RILD & 26 (19%) had non-classic RILD]. Derangement in CP score (CP score change) by more than 2 was seen in 30 (24%) within 2-month period after robotic radiosurgery. Eighteen (13%) had unplanned admissions, two patients required embolization due to fiducial-related bleeding and 20 (14%) had ascites, of which 9 (6%) patients required abdominocentesis. PVT response or recanalization after SBRT is a statistically significant prognostic factor for survival function in HCC-PVT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplant (LDLT) frequently depend on using the right-lobes of the donor for obtaining adequate graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) of over 0.8% in the recipient. However, left-lobes remain an important option in adults, since the morbidity in the donor is considerably less with left donor hepatectomy when compared with right side liver resection. Further benefits of left-lobes in LDLT include more predictable anatomy of the left hepatic duct and left portal vein, which are usually long and single resulting in easier anastomosis in the recipient. Likewise, left-lobe grafts are easier to implant with an excellent venous outflow through the combined orifice of left and middle hepatic vein, as opposed to the complex hepatic vein reconstruction required in right-lobe grafts. However, left hepatic artery is often multiple unlike the right hepatic artery. The holy grail of left-lobe transplants is avoidance of small for size syndrome (SFSS) in the recipients. The strategies for overcoming SFSS currently depend on circumventing portal hyperperfusion in the graft. Measurement of portal pressure and modulating it if high, by splenic artery ligation, splenectomy, or hemiportocaval shunts are proving successful in avoiding SFSS. The future aim in adult LDLT should be to use the left-lobe as much as possible for the benefit of the donor at the same time avoiding SFSS even at very low GRWR for the benefit of the recipient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute liver failure (ALF) is the leading cause for emergency liver transplantation (LT) all over the world. We looked at the profile of cases who required LT for ALF from a single centre to identify the possible predictors of poor outcomes. During the 10-year period starting from 2007, 320 cases of ALF were treated at our institution, of which 70 (median age 24 years, Male:Female 1:2) underwent LT. Retrospective analyses of these 70 patients were performed. Etiology was identifiable in 73% (n = 51) of cases (yellow phosphorous [YP] poisoning [n = 16], Hepatitis A virus [HAV] [n = 15], Hepatitis B virus [HBV] [n = 5], Hepatitis E virus [HEV] [n = 1], anti-tubercular therapy [ATT] induced [n = 6], acute Wilson's [n = 3], and autoimmune [n = 5]]. Upon meeting King's College Hospital criteria, 69 had live donor LT (61 right lobe grafts, three left lobe grafts, five left lateral segment grafts) and one had deceased donor LT. Among these, there were five auxiliary partial orthotopic grafts and four ABO-incompatible transplants. Overall, 90-day mortality was 35.7% (n = 25), predominantly due to sepsis. Significant risk factors for mortality on multivariate analysis included indeterminate etiology, pre-op renal dysfunction, and Grade IV hepatic encephalopathy (HE). Cumulative 10-year survival of the remaining survivors was 95.6% (n = 45). LT for ALF carries high perioperative mortality (35.7%) in those presenting with indeterminate etiology, pre-op renal dysfunction, and Grade IV HE. Nevertheless, if they survive the perioperative period, long-term survival is excellent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) > 0.8% is perceived as the critical graft size. This lower limit of GRWR (0.8%) has been challenged over the last decade owing to the surgical refinements, especially related to inflow and outflow modulation techniques. Our aim was to compare the recipient outcome in small-for-size (GRWR < 0.8) versus normal-sized grafts (GRWR > 0.8) and to determine the risk factors for mortality when small-for-size grafts (SFSG) were used. Methods Data of 200 transplant recipients and their donors were analyzed over a period of two years. Routine practice of harvesting middle hepatic vein (MHV) or reconstructing anterior sectoral veins into neo-MHV was followed during LDLT. Outcomes were compared in terms of mortality, hospital stay, ICU stay, and occurrence of various complications such as functional small-for-size syndrome (F-SFSS), hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT), early allograft dysfunction (EAD), portal vein thrombosis (PVT), and postoperative sepsis. A multivariate analysis was also done to determine the risk factors for mortality in both the groups. Results Recipient and donor characteristics, intraoperative variables, and demographical data were comparable in both the groups (GRWR < 0.8 and GRWR ≥ 0.8). Postoperative 90-day mortality (15.5% vs. 22.85%), mean ICU stay (10 vs. 10.32 days), and mean hospital stay (21.4 vs. 20.76 days) were statistically similar in the groups. There was no difference in postoperative outcomes such as occurrence of SFSS, HAT, PVT, EAD, or sepsis between the groups. Thrombosis of MHV/reconstructed MHV was a risk factor for mortality in grafts with GRWR < 0.8 but not in those with GRWR > 0.8. Conclusion Graft survival after LDLT using a small-for-size right lobe graft (GRWR < 0.8%) is as good as with normal grafts. However, patency of anterior sectoral outflow by MHV or reconstructed MHV is crucial to maintain graft function when SFSG are used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights from the article: Robotic Donor Hepatectomy: Guts to Change a Winning Team? Complete/pure robotic donor hepatectomies were performed in 13 patients (with pfannensteil incision for graft retrieval) and 10 patients received robotic assisted donor hepatectomies (with sub-costal incision for graft retrieval). Currently, apart from the scar position and scar length, robotic donor Hepatectomy does not show any difference in comparison with open donor Hepatectomy with respect to ICU or hospital stay.

Highlights from the article: Randomized Trial of Polytetrafluoroethylene Graft VS. Native Recipient Portal Vein Graft for Middle Hepatic Vein Reconstruction in Living Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT) The reconstruction of the MHV can be with the portal vein (PV) from the recipient explanted liver, allogenic veins or synthetic grafts. Between PTFE and PV, early graft dysfunction (0 vs 3.2%), small for size syndrome (2.4% vs. 2.6%), the infection rate (34% vs 33%), the hospital stay (20.6 vs 19.6 days), ICU stay (9.24 vs. 9.4 days) and mortality (4.9% vs 15.4%) was comparable.