Search

In living-donor liver transplantation, biliary complications including bile leaks and biliary anastomotic strictures remain significant challenges, with incidences varying across different centers. This multicentric retrospective study (2016-2020) included 3633 adult patients from 18 centers and aimed to identify risk factors for these biliary complications and their impact on patient survival. Incidences of bile leaks and biliary strictures were 11.4% and 20.6%, respectively. Key risk factors for bile leaks included multiple bile duct anastomoses (odds ratio, [OR] 1.8), Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (OR, 1.4), and a history of major abdominal surgery (OR, 1.4). For biliary anastomotic strictures, risk factors were ABO incompatibility (OR, 1.4), blood loss >1 L (OR, 1.4), and previous abdominal surgery (OR, 1.7). Patients experiencing biliary complications had extended hospital stays, increased incidence of major complications, and higher comprehensive complication index scores. The impact on graft survival became evident after accounting for immortal time bias using time-dependent covariate survival analysis. Bile leaks and biliary anastomotic strictures were associated with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.7 and 1.8 for graft survival, respectively. The study underscores the importance of minimizing these risks through careful donor selection and preoperative planning, as biliary complications significantly affect graft survival, despite the availability of effective treatments., (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Transplantation & American Society of Transplant Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) according to various graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR)., Background: The standard GRWR in LDLT is >0.8%. Our center accepted predicted GRWR ≥0.6% in selected patients., Methods: Data from patients who underwent LDLT from 2001 to 2017 were included. Patients were stratified according to actual GRWR (Group 1:GRWR ≤0.6%; Group 2: 0.6%0.8%)., Results: There were 545 LDLT (group 1 = 39; group 2 = 159; group 3 = 347) performed. Pretransplant predicted GRWR showed good correlation to actual GRWR (R2 = 0.834) and these figures differed within a ± 10%margin (P = 0.034) using an equivalence test. There were more left lobe grafts in group 1 (33.3%) than group 2 (10.7%) and 3 (2.9%). Median donor age was <35 years and steatosis >10% was rare.There was no difference in postoperative complication, vascular and biliary complication rate between groups. Over one-fifth (20.5%) of group 1 patients required portal flow modulation (PFM) and was higher than group 2 (3.1%) and group 3 (4%) (P = 0.001). Twenty-six patients developed small-for-size syndrome (SFSS): 5 of 39 (12.8%) in group 1 and 21 of 159 (13.2%) in group 2 and none in group 3 (P < 0.001). There were 2 hospital mortalities; otherwise, the remaining patients [24/26 (92.3%)] survive with a functional liver graft. The 5-year graft survival rates were 85.4% versus 87.8% versus 84.7% for group 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P = 0.718). GRWR did not predict worse survivals in multivariable analysis., Conclusions: Graft size in LDLT can be lowered to 0.6% after careful recipient selection, with low incidence of SFSS and excellent outcomes. Accurate graft weight prediction, donor-recipient matching, meticulous surgical techniques, appropriate use of PFM, and vigilant perioperative care is important to the success of such approach., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) offers advantages over deceased-donor liver transplant (DDLT) of improved intention-to-treat outcomes and management of the shortage of deceased-donor allografts. However, conflicting data still exist on the outcomes of LDLT in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)., Objective: To investigate the potential survival benefit of an LDLT in patients with HCC from the time of waiting list inscription., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study with an intention-to-treat design analyzed the data of patients aged 18 years or older who had an HCC diagnosis and were on a waiting list for a first transplant. Patients from 12 collaborative centers in Europe, Asia, and the US who were on a transplant waiting list between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2017, composed the international cohort. The Toronto cohort comprised patients from 1 transplant center in Toronto, Ontario, Canada who were on a waiting list between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2015. The international cohort centers performed either an LDLT or a DDLT, whereas the Toronto cohort center was selected for its capability to perform both LDLT and DDLT. The benefit of LDLT was tested in the 2 cohorts before and after undergoing an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis. Data were analyzed from February 1 to May 31, 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: Intention-to-treat death was defined as a patient death that occurred for any reason and was calculated from the time of waiting list inscription for liver transplant to the last follow-up date (December 31, 2019). Four multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models for intention-to-treat death were created., Results: A total of 3052 patients were analyzed in the international cohort, of whom 2447 were men (80.2%) and the median (IQR) age at first referral was 58 (53-63) years. The Toronto cohort comprised 906 patients, of whom 743 were men (82.0%) and the median (IQR) age at first referral was 59 (53-63) years. In all the settings, LDLT was an independent protective factor, reducing the risk of overall death by 49% in the pre-IPTW analysis for the international cohort (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.71; P < .001), 33% in the post-IPTW analysis for the international cohort (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53-0.85; P = .001), 43% in the pre-IPTW analysis for the Toronto cohort (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45-0.73; P < .001), and 48% in the post-IPTW analysis for the Toronto cohort (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P < .001). The discriminatory ability of the mathematical models further improved in all of the cases in which LDLT was incorporated., Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that having a potential live donor could decrease the intention-to-treat risk of death in patients with HCC who are on a waiting list for a liver transplant. This benefit is associated with the elimination of the dropout risk and has been reported in centers in which both LDLT and DDLT options are equally available.

Background and Aims: Previous recommendations suggested living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) should not be considered for patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) > 25 and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS)., Approach and Results: Patients who were listed with MELD > 25 from 2008 to 2017 were analyzed with intention-to-treat (ITT) basis retrospectively. Patients who had a potential live donor were analyzed as ITT-LDLT, whereas those who had none belonged to ITT-deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) group. ITT-overall survival (OS) was analyzed from the time of listing. Three hundred twenty-five patients were listed (ITT-LDLT n = 212, ITT-DDLT n = 113). The risk of delist/death was lower in the ITT-LDLT group (43.4% vs. 19.8%, P < 0.001), whereas the transplant rate was higher in the ITT-LDLT group (78.3% vs. 52.2%, P < 0.001). The 5-year ITT-OS was superior in the ITT-LDLT group (72.6% vs. 49.5%, P < 0.001) for patients with MELD > 25 and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (56% vs. 33.8%, P < 0.001). Waitlist mortality was the highest early after listing, and the distinct alteration of slope at survival curve showed that the benefits of ITT-LDLT occurred within the first month after listing. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year patient survival were comparable for patients with MELD > 25 (88% vs. 85.4%, P = 0.279) and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (77% vs. 76.4%, P = 0.701) after LDLT and DDLT, respectively. The LDLT group has a higher rate of renal recovery by 1 month (77.4% vs. 59.1%, P = 0.003) and 3 months (86.1% vs, 74.5%, P = 0.029), whereas the long-term estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was similar between the 2 groups. ITT-LDLT reduced the hazard of mortality (hazard ratio = 0.387-0.552) across all MELD strata., Conclusions: The ITT-LDLT reduced waitlist mortality and allowed an earlier access to transplant. LDLT in patients with high MELD/HRS was feasible, and they had similar perioperative outcomes and better renal recovery, whereas the long-term survival and eGFR were comparable with DDLT. LDLT should be considered for patients with high MELD/HRS, and the application of LDLT should not be restricted with a MELD cutoff., (© 2020 The Authors. Hepatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Background: Small-for-size grafts (SFSGs) in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) could optimize donor postoperative outcomes and also expand the potential donor pool. Evidence on whether SFSGs would affect medium-term and long-term recipient graft survival is lacking., Aim: To evaluate the impact of small-for-size liver grafts on medium-term and long-term graft survival in adult to adult LDLT., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed by searching eligible studies published before January 24, 2019 on PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. The primary outcomes were 3-year and 5-year graft survival. Incidence of small-for-size syndrome and short term mortality were also extracted., Results: This meta-analysis is reported according to the guidelines of the PRISMA 2009 Statement. Seven retrospective observational studies with a total of 1821 LDLT recipients were included in the meta-analysis. SFSG is associated with significantly poorer medium-term graft survival. The pooled odds ratio for 3-year graft survival was 1.58 [95% confidence interval 1.10-2.29, P = 0.014]. On the other hand, pooled results of the studies showed that SFSG had no significant discriminatory effect on 5-year graft survival with an odds ratio of 1.31 (95% confidence interval 0.87-1.97, P = 0.199). Furthermore, incidence of small-for-size syndrome detected in recipients of SFSG ranged from 0-11.4% in the included studies., Conclusion: SFSG is associated with inferior medium-term but not long-term graft survival. Comparable long-term graft survival based on liver graft size shows that smaller grafts could be accepted for LDLT with appropriate flow modulatory measures. Close follow-up for graft function is warranted within 3 years after liver transplantation., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors deny any conflict of interest., (©The Author(s) 2019. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 right-lobe 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., (Copyright © 2019 First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine in China. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous studies comparing outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) showed conflicting results, and most studies measured survival outcomes from the time of liver transplantation (LT)., Method: This retrospective study was aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of HCC patients listed for LT using intention-to-treat (ITT) and propensity score matching (PSM) analyses. Clinicopathological data were retrieved from a prospectively collected database., Results: From 1995 to 2014, 375 HCC patients were listed for LT. ITT-LDLT group had 188 patients, whereas ITT-DDLT group had 187 patients. Twenty-seven patients (14.4%) and 122 patients (65.2%) were delisted from LDLT and DDLT waitlist, respectively. The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were significantly better in ITT-LDLT group than ITT-DDLT group (94.1 vs. 77.5%, 81.4 vs. 48.7% and 75.9 vs. 40.8%). High alphafetoprotein (AFP) and ITT-DDLT treatment arm were independent poor prognostic factors affecting overall survival. LDLT group (n = 161) had more young patients, poorer liver function, higher AFP, more tumors outside Milan/UCSF criteria, when compared with DDLT group (n = 85). After PSM, the 1-, 3- and 5-year overall (95.4 vs. 98.5%, 80.0 vs. 92.3% and 73.4 vs. 84.4%) and recurrence-free (87.7% vs. 90.8%, 76.9% vs. 83.1% and 72.2% vs. 81.5%) survival rates were comparable between the matched LDLT and the matched DDLT group, respectively., Conclusion: Survival benefit of LDLT was observed for HCC patients with ITT analysis. Despite a more advanced tumor stage, overall and recurrence-free survival rates were comparable between LDLT and DDLT using PSM analysis.

Background and Purpose: There is a big controversy over liver retransplantation, the only life-saving treatment for patients with a failing or failed liver graft. This retrospective study tried to determine if living-donor liver retransplantation (re-LDLT) is a justifiable alternative to deceased-donor liver retransplantation (re-DDLT)., Methods: Anonymous data of liver transplant patients from January 2000 to April 2016 were reviewed. Recipients of retransplantation were divided into the re-DDLT and re-LDLT groups. The groups were compared in demographic characteristics, pre-retransplant and intraoperative details, and short- and long-term outcomes. Risk for living donors was examined., Results: Twenty-nine patients had 33 re-DDLTs and 15 patients received re-LDLT. The re-LDLT group had lighter grafts (525 vs. 1295 g, p ≤ 0.001), a smaller ratio of graft weight to recipient standard liver volume (56.98 vs. 107.7%, p ≤ 0.001), and shorter cold ischemia (106 vs. 451 min, p ≤ 0.001). The groups were otherwise comparable. Two patients in the re-DDLT group had Grade-5 complication. The groups were similar in patient survival (p = 0.326) and graft survival (p = 0.102). No living donors died, but three of them developed Grade-1 complications., Conclusion: With the required expertise, re-LDLT can produce results comparable to those of re-DDLT while keeping donor risk at bay. In places where the demand for deceased-donor liver grafts far outstrips supply, re-LDLT can be considered as an alternative to re-DDLT if the expertise is available and if the potential recipient benefits can balance out the potential donor risks.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been increasingly embraced around the world as an important strategy to address the shortage of deceased donor livers. The aim of this guideline, approved by the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS), is to provide a collection of expert opinions, consensus, and best practices surrounding LDLT. Recommendations were developed from an analysis of the National Library of Medicine living donor transplantation indexed literature using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Writing was guided by the ILTS Policy on the Development and Use of Practice Guidelines (www.ilts.org). Intended for use by physicians, these recommendations support specific approaches to the diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive aspects of care of living donor liver transplant recipients.

Background/purpose: Dyslipidemia is common in liver transplant recipients. This retrospective study investigates whether donors play a role., Methods: Prospectively collected data of donors and recipients of deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) were reviewed. Total cholesterol, triglyceride, low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and fasting glucose were compared between groups. HDL ≥1.6 mmol/L at 2 years after transplant was considered the marker of a favorable post-transplant lipid profile in recipients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictive factors for this marker., Results: There were 85 DDLTs and 80 LDLTs. LDLT donors were younger (30 vs. 50 years, p < 0.001) and lighter (58.2 vs. 63.4 kg, p = 0.008) and had a lower body mass index (21.2 vs. 23.7, p < 0.001). The DDLT group had more fatty grafts (p = 0.001) and longer cold (375 vs. 103.5 min, p < 0.001) and warm (50.5 vs. 46 min, p = 0.034) ischemia. LDLT donors had lower fasting glucose (4.85 vs. 7.21 mmol/L, p < 0.001) and triglyceride (0.87 vs. 1.22 mmol/L, p = 0.016) but higher HDL (1.58 vs. 1.39 mmol/L, p = 0.022). LDLT recipients also had higher HDL at 1 year (1.48 vs. 1.28 mmol/L, p = 0.026) and 2 years (1.43 vs. 1.21 mmol/L, p = 0.008). Fourteen (16.5%) DDLT recipients and 27 (33.8%) LDLT recipients had HDL ≥1.6 mmol/L at 2 years. On multivariate analysis, donor HDL ≥1.6 mmol/L (RR 4.311, 95% CI 1.666-11.158, p = 0.003) and recipient body mass index <24 (RR 2.753, 95% CI 1.064-7.127, p = 0.037) were the two independent predictive factors., Conclusion: LDLT recipients had better lipid profiles than DDLT recipients. The feature of high HDL level in donors was transferred to recipients.

Objective: To evaluate if living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) should be offered to patients with Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores ≥35., Background: No data was available to support LDLT of such patients., Methods: Data of 672 consecutive adult liver transplant recipients from 2005 to 2014 at our center were reviewed. Patients with MELD scores ≥35 were divided into the deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) group and the LDLT group and were compared. Univariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors affecting survival., Results: The LDLT group (n = 54) had younger (33 yrs vs 50 yrs, P < 0.001) and lighter (56 Kg vs 65 Kg, P = 0.004) donors, lighter grafts (627.5 g vs 1252.5 g, P < 0.001), lower graft-weight-to-recipient-standard-liver-volume rates (51.28% vs 99.76%, P < 0.001), shorter cold ischemic time (106.5 min vs 389 min, P < 0.001), and longer operation time (681.5 min vs 534 min, P < 0.001). The groups were comparable in postoperative complication, hospital mortality, and graft survival and patient survival at one year (88.9% vs 92.5%; 88.9% vs 94.7%), three years (87.0% vs 86.9%; 87.0% vs 88.8%), and five years (84.8% vs 81.8%; 84.8% vs 83.3%). Univariate analysis did not show inferior survival in LDLT recipients., Conclusions: At centers with experience, the outcomes of LDLT can be comparable with those of DDLT even in patients with MELD scores ≥35. When donor risks and recipient benefits are fully considered and balanced, an MELD score ≥35 should not be a contraindication to LDLT. In Hong Kong, where most waitlisted patients have acute-on-chronic liver failure from hepatitis B, LDLT is a wise alternative to DDLT.

The following guideline represents the position of the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS) on key preoperative, operative, and postoperative aspects surrounding living liver donation. These recommendations were developed from experts in the field from around the world. The authors conducted an analysis of the National Library of Medicine indexed literature on "living donor liver transplantation" [Medline search] using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Writing was guided by the ILTS Policy on the Development and Use of Practice Guidelines (www.ilts.org). ILTS members, and many more nonmembers, were invited to comment. Recommendations have been based on information available at the time of final submission (March 2016). The lack of randomized controlled trials in this field to date is acknowledged and is reflected in the grading of evidence. Intended for use by physicians, these recommendations support specific approaches to the diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive aspects of care.

Background and Aim: Bile leakage is a major complication after right lobe living donor liver transplantation (RLDLT). It can result in significant morbidities and, occasionally, mortalities. Endo-radiology is a non-surgical means that has been used to manage this complication. This study reviews the outcomes of the endo-radiological approach to the management of bile leakage after RLDLT with duct-to-duct anastomosis (DDA) at a high-volume center., Method: A retrospective study was conducted on all adult patients who received RLDLT at our center between January 2001 and December 2013. There were 496 RLDLTs performed during the study period. Only patients who had DDA as the only bile duct reconstruction method were included in the study., Results: Twelve (3.7%) out of the 328 study subjects developed bile leakage after RLDLT. Six out of these 12 patients were successfully treated with the endo-radiological approach without the need for laparotomy. They had endoscopic retrograde cholangiography with stenting followed by percutaneous drainage of biloma. One of the 12 patients died from recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma 37 months after transplantation. The remaining 11 patients are all alive., Conclusion: The endo-radiological approach should be the first-line management for bile leakage for selected patients with DDA as the bile duct reconstruction method., (© 2015 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.)

Our aim was to study the long-term outcomes of living donor liver transplantation using small-for-size (SFS) grafts. From July 2002 to July 2009, 233 patients received a right liver graft with a middle hepatic vein from a living donor in our center. Recipients were stratified according to the graft weight to recipient standard liver volume (GW/SLV) ratio into 4 groups: >50% (n = 89), >40% to 50% (n = 85), >35% to 40% (n = 38), and ≤ 35% (n = 21). They were compared in terms of graft survivals, biliary stricture rates, renal function in terms of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), platelet counts, and graft function in terms of serum bilirubin and international normalized ratio (INR). The 5-year graft survivals for patients with GW/SLV of >50%, >40% to 50%, >35% to 40% and ≤ 35% were 88.8%, 88.2%, 81.5%, and 81.0%, respectively. Transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma affected graft survivals (P = 0.02), but graft size did not (P = 0.66). There were no differences in frequency of biliary stricture (21.3% versus 17.1% versus 21.1% versus 28.6%; P = 0.75). At each year after transplant, their platelet counts (P = 0.12-0.65), eGFR (P = 0.49-0.91), bilirubin (P = 0.14-0.51), and INR (P = 0.20-0.98) remained comparable. SFS grafts with GW/SLV ≤ 35% and >35% to 40% had comparable long-term outcomes with larger liver grafts. Graft size did not affect long-term graft survivals., (© 2015 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Biliary strictures can be categorized according to technical factor as anastomotic or nonanastomotic strictures. Biliary anastomotic stricture is a common complication after living-donor liver transplantation, occasionally causing deaths. The two most commonly used methods for biliary anastomosis are duct-to-duct anastomosis and hepaticojejunostomy. Before presenting a description of the latest techniques of duct-to-duct anastomosis and hepaticojejunostomy, this review first relates the technique of donor right hepatectomy, as most biliary complications suffered by recipients of living-donor liver transplantation originate from donor operations. Three possible causes of biliary anastomotic stricture, namely impaired blood supply, biliary anomaly, and technical flaw, are then discussed. Lastly, the review focuses on the latest management of biliary anastomotic stricture. Treatment modalities include endoscopic retrograde cholangiography with dilatation, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage with dilatation, conversion of duct-to-duct anastomosis to hepaticojejunostomy, and revision hepaticojejunostomy. End-to-side versus side-to-side hepaticojejunostomy is also discussed., (© 2014 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.)

Objectives: There is controversy over whether hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) should be primarily treated with living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) if liver resection (LR) can be effective. This retrospective study was conducted to compare survival outcomes in patients treated with either modality for solitary HCC measuring ≤8 cm in diameter., Methods: Outcomes in patients with solitary HCC primarily treated by LDLT were analysed. Patients with solitary HCC of similar sizes with or without microvascular invasion primarily treated with LR were selected at a ratio of 6 : 1 for comparison., Results: In-hospital mortality amounted to 0% and 1.3% in the LDLT (n = 50) and LR (n = 300) groups, respectively (P = 0.918). Complication rates were 34% and 20% in the LDLT and LR groups, respectively (P = 0.027). Rates of 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year overall survival were 98%, 94%, 89% and 83%, respectively, in the LDLT group and 95%, 85%, 76% and 56%, respectively, in the LR group (P = 0.013). Rates of 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year disease-free survival were 96%, 90%, 87% and 81%, respectively, in the LDLT group and 81%, 64%, 57% and 40%, respectively, in the LR group (P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Living donor liver transplantation surpassed LR in survival outcomes, achieving a 10-year overall survival rate 1.5 times as high and a 10-year disease-free survival rate twice as high as those facilitated by LR. However, it entailed more complications, in addition to the inevitable risks to the donor., (© 2014 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association.)

Background: This study reviews the outcomes of retransplantation using living-donor right-liver grafts., Methods: A retrospective study of liver retransplants performed between 1996 and 2013 was conducted. The retransplants were divided into the DD group (with deceased donors) and the LD group (with living donors). Survival outcomes were analyzed., Results: The DD group contained 23 patients and 27 retransplants using whole-liver grafts and the LD group contained 11 patients and 11 retransplants using right-liver grafts. Vascular and biliary complications were the main indications for retransplantation in both groups. The LD group had significantly younger donors, lighter grafts, shorter cold ischemia and longer operations. The two groups were comparable in age, preoperative liver function, warm ischemia, blood loss, transfusion, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, hospital mortality, complication and graft loss. The 1-year, 3-year and 5-year patient survival rates were 78.3%, 73.7% and 63.8%, respectively, in the DD group. The LD group had the corresponding rates all at 90.9% (P = 0.246). The 1-year, 3-year and 5-year graft survival rates were 74.1%, 65.8% and 61.5%, respectively, in the DD group. The LD group had the corresponding rates all at 90.9% (P = 0.132)., Conclusion: Excellent long-term survival after retransplantation using living-donor right-liver grafts can be achieved., (© 2014 Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.)

Background: At our center, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the main workload supported by a strong, mature service. Deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) is performed but in small volume. This study aimed to review the results of a low-volume DDLT service alongside a strong LDLT service., Methods: Consecutive DDLTs for adults performed from 1991 to 2009 were reviewed. The 1st to the 50th DDLTs were categorized as Era I cases, and the rest were Era II cases. The outcomes of the DDLTs were analyzed and compared with those achieved overseas., Results: Eras I and II consisted of 59 and 183 DDLTs, respectively. All donors were brain-dead and heart-beating with a median age of 49 years (range 7-76 years). Among the 242 DDLTS, 30.2 % were on a high-urgency basis and 15.3 % were for hepatocellular carcinoma. The patients had a median model for end-stage liver disease score of 21 (range 6-40), and most (67.8 %) were hepatitis B virus carriers. Before transplantation, 16.1 % of the patients were in the intensive care unit and 30.2 % were in the hospital. The hospital mortality rate dropped from 13.6 % (8/59) during Era I to 3.8 % (7/183) during Era II (p = 0.012). For Era I, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 84.7, 79.7, and 76.3 %, respectively, which improved to 92.9, 89.0 and 87.2 % for Era II (p = 0.026)., Conclusions: The recipient survival of this series compares favorably with contemporary series. It is shown that a low-volume DDLT service alongside a strong LDLT service can have excellent results.

Background/objective: Donor right hepatectomy (DRH) was developed by master liver surgeons and has been applied in many liver transplant centers as the mainstay for adult living donor liver transplantation. It is a major and complex surgical operation performed on living liver donors for the benefit of liver recipients. The donors deserve the lowest though inevitable morbidity and mortality. In this study, the surgical outcomes of DRH performed by newer surgeons at an established center were studied to assess the transferability of the techniques of this standardized procedure., Methods: We studied 450 consecutive DRHs performed by 11 surgeons. Three surgeons initiated and developed the transplant program and performed the first 200 DRHs (Era I). The role of chief surgeon in the following 250 DRHs (Era II) was gradually taken up by four newer surgeons with close guidance initially., Results: Blood loss and operation time at the end of Era I versus the beginning of Era II were 251 vs. 341 mL and 391 vs. 497 minutes. The learning curve effect in Era I did not occur in Era II. The complication rates of the last 50 cases in Era I and Era II were 16% and 24%, respectively. Era I had one donor death whereas Era II had no donor death., Conclusion: At an established center, DRH can be carried out safely by newer surgeons with good outcomes., (Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: This aim of this study is to determine the risk factors in failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC)., Background: Endoscopic treatment is considered the first-line intervention for biliary anastomotic stricture (BAS) after right-lobe living donor liver transplantation with duct-to-duct anastomosis., Methods: A retrospective study was performed on 287 patients who received right-lobe living donor liver transplantation with duct-to-duct anastomosis. The morphology of BAS was defined according to the shape of the distal side of duct-to-duct anastomosis shown on cholangiogram and was categorized into 3 types: pouched, intermediately pouched, and triangular. All cases of ERC were performed by operating surgeons., Results: Fifty-nine patients (20.6%) had BAS and received ERC and balloon dilatation with or without stenting. The success rate was 73.2%. The median number of sessions needed for successful ERC was 3. In the 15 patients with failed ERC, 4 were successfully treated with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and balloon dilatation and 11 underwent conversion hepaticojejunostomy (6 had external percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage as a temporizing measure). On multivariate analysis, recipient age [odds ratio (OR): 0.922; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.00; P = 0.049], operation time (OR: 1.007; 95% CI: 1.001-1.013; P = 0.025), and morphology of stricture (OR: 6.722; 95% CI: 1.31-34.48; P = 0.022) were independent risk factors associated with failed ERC. The success rates for the 3 types of BAS-pouched, intermediately pouched, and triangular-were 42.9%, 63.6%, and 88.9%, respectively (P = 0.021). Association was found between bile leak and pouched BAS (P = 0.008)., Conclusions: ERC is highly effective in treating BAS. A success rate of 73%, the highest ever reported, has been achieved. Morphology of stricture is associated with outcome of ERC. Radiological or surgical intervention should be considered for patients with pouched BAS after endoscopic treatment fails for the first time.

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 ABO-incompatible 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.

The removal of tumor together with the native liver in living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma is challenged by a very close resection margin if the tumor abuts the inferior vena cava. This is in contrast to typical deceased donor liver transplantation where the entire retrohepatic inferior vena cava is included in total hepatectomy. Here we report a case of deroofing the retrohepatic vena cava in living donor liver transplantation for caudate hepatocellular carcinoma. In order to ensure clear resection margins, the anterior portion of the inferior vena cava was included. The right liver graft was inset into a Dacron vascular graft on the back table and the composite graft was then implanted to the recipient inferior vena cava. Using this technique, we observed the no-touch technique in tumor removal, hence minimizing the chance of positive resection margin as well as the chance of shedding of tumor cells during manipulation in operation.

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 significantly 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.

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 end-to-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 re-stenosis 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.

Background: Hepatic steatosis is a major concern in living donor liver transplantation. Factors affecting hepatic functional status after a donor right hepatectomy (with the middle hepatic vein included in the graft) with a focus on changes owing to steatosis were retrospectively studied., Methods: Donors (n = 325) were categorized into three groups: G0 (no steatosis, n = 178), G1 (< = 10% steatosis, n = 128) and G2 (>10% steatosis, n = 19). Donors with >20% steatosis were excluded. Changes in aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), bilirubin levels and prothrombin time (PT) were assessed. Factors predicting steatosis were also assessed. A liver biopsy was performed on selected donors., Results: The ALT level rose until day 3 in G1 and day 6 in G2 (P < 0.05). The AST level rose until day 7 in G2 (P < 0.05) but stayed unchanged in G1. The bilirubin level was higher only on day 1 in G2 (P < 0.05). By day 30, no significant difference between any groups was noted. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve for body mass index (BMI) on predicting steatosis was 0.75 [confidence interval (CI) = 69-80]. Among donors with a BMI > 23.5 kg/m(2), 75% had steatosis. Five donors had >20% steatosis and were not assessed., Conclusion: Using a liver with up to 20% steatosis in right liver donation, even if the middle hepatic vein is included in the graft, is safe. For Asian donors, a BMI > 23.5 kg/m(2) is a guide in deciding whether to perform a liver biopsy for steatosis., (© 2012 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association.)

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), a right liver graft is larger than a left liver graft and hence leads to better recipient survival. However, in comparison with donor left hepatectomy, donor right hepatectomy carries a higher donor risk. We estimated the expansion of the applicability of left liver living donor liver transplantation (LLDLT) by lowering the graft weight (GW)/standard liver volume (SLV) ratio in increments of 5%. Consecutive LDLT cases were included in this study. The results of computed tomography volumetry provided the graft volume measurements, and the GW was derived from the graft volume with the conversion factor of 1.19 mL/g. We tried to estimate how many more times LLDLT would have been feasible if the GW/SLV requirement had been lowered to 40%, 35%, 30%, or 25%. In all, 361 consecutive donor-recipient pairs underwent LDLT. Right liver living donor liver transplantation (RLDLT) accounted for 95% of the LDLT cases. Most recipients were male (74.2%), and most donors were female (60.4%). The median GW/SLV ratio was 46% (47% for RLDLT and 37% for LLDLT, P < 0.001). Two of the 218 female donors donated the left liver, and 12 of the 93 female recipients received a left liver. In 147 of the 173 cases (85%) when the donor was female and the recipient was male, the GW/SLV ratio did not reach 30%. LLDLT could have been performed more often than 5% of the time if a lower GW/SLV requirement had been adopted. With GW/SLV ratios ≥ 40%, ≥ 35%, ≥ 30%, and ≥ 25%, the proportion of LLDLT cases would have risen from 5% to 5.8%, 12.5%, 29.1%, and 62.3%, respectively. LLDLT could have been performed approximately twice as often with every 5% reduction of the GW/SLV requirement. In conclusion, lowering the graft size requirement could improve the applicability of LLDLT and hence reduce donor risk., (Copyright © 2012 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Background/purpose: Hepaticojejunostomy is a well-accepted method, whereas duct-to-duct anastomosis is gaining popularity for bile duct reconstruction in pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Biliary complications, especially biliary anastomotic stricture (BAS), are not clearly defined. The aim of the present study is to determine the rate of BAS and its associated risk factors., Methods: The study included 78 pediatric patients (<18 years old) who underwent LDLT during the period from end of September 1993 to end of November 2010. The diagnosis of BAS was based on clinical, biochemical, histologic, and radiologic results., Results: All patients received left-side grafts. Thirteen patients (16.7%) developed BAS after LDLT. Among them, 3 patients (23.1%) had duct-to-duct anastomosis during LDLT. The median follow-up period for the BAS group and the non-BAS group was 57.8 and 79.5 months, respectively (P = .683). Ten of the patients with BAS required percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage with or without dilatation for treating the stricture. Multivariable analysis showed that hepatic artery thrombosis and duct-to-duct anastomosis were 2 risk factors associated with BAS., Conclusion: In pediatric LDLT, hepaticojejunostomy is the preferred method for bile duct reconstruction, but more large-scale research needs to be done to reconfirm this result., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This study investigated the outcomes of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for patients with preoperative type 1 hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) and acute hepatic decompensation. Prospectively collected data for 104 patients who had fulminant hepatic failure, acute decompensation of cirrhosis, or an acute flare of chronic hepatitis B were analyzed. Thirty-three patients (31.7%) had HRS (the HRS group), and 71 patients (68.3%) did not (the non-HRS group). The median follow-up period was 60 months. The HRS group had significantly more preoperative intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (84.8% versus 60.6%, P = 0.01), worse preoperative blood test results (creatinine, 248 versus 88 μmol/L, P < 0.001; total bilirubin, 630 versus 555 μmol/L, P = 0.001), more hemodialysis (48.5% versus 0%, P < 0.001), more blood transfusions (9 versus 4 U, P < 0.001), longer postoperative ICU stays (8 versus 4 days, P < 0.001), worse postoperative blood test results (creatinine at 1 year, 108 versus 96 μmol/L, P = 0.006), and poorer overall survival (P < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, only HRS was associated with poorer overall survival (hazard ratio = 8.592, 95% confidence interval = 1.782-41.431, P = 0.007). In conclusion, HRS patients had worse postoperative renal function and overall survival than non-HRS patients. However, their 5-year overall survival rate was still nearly 80%, which is satisfactory. Therefore, LDLT can be considered for patients who have acute hepatic decompensation with or without HRS., (Copyright © 2012 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

An accurate assessment of donor and recipient liver volumes is essential in living donor liver transplantation. Many liver donors are affected by mild to moderate steatosis, and steatotic livers are known to have larger volumes. This study analyzes errors in liver volume estimation by commonly used formulas and the effects of donor steatosis on these errors. Three hundred twenty-five Asian donors who underwent right lobe donor hepatectomy were the subjects of this study. The percentage differences between the liver volumes from computed tomography (CT) and the liver volumes estimated with each formula (ie, the error percentages) were calculated. Five popular formulas were tested. The degrees of steatosis were categorized as follows: no steatosis [n = 178 (54.8%)], ≤ 10% steatosis [n = 128 (39.4%)], and >10% to 20% steatosis [n = 19 (5.8%)]. The median errors ranged from 0.6% (7 mL) to 24.6% (360 mL). The lowest was seen with the locally derived formula. All the formulas showed a significant association between the error percentage and the CT liver volume (P < 0.001). Overestimation was seen with smaller liver volumes, whereas underestimation was seen with larger volumes. The locally derived formula was most accurate when the liver volume was 1001 to 1250 mL. A multivariate analysis showed that the estimation error was dependent on the liver volume (P = 0.001) and the anthropometric measurement that was used in the calculation (P < 0.001) rather than steatosis (P ≥ 0.07). In conclusion, all the formulas have a similar pattern of error that is possibly related to the anthropometric measurement. Clinicians should be aware of this pattern of error and the liver volume with which their formula is most accurate., (Copyright © 2011 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Background: Controversy remains over whether the middle hepatic vein should be included in the liver graft in right liver living donor liver transplantation. Congestion in the anterior sector of a right liver graft can cause graft malfunction, which is especially devastating in the case of a graft with marginal size in relation to recipient body size on top of poor pre-transplant recipient status. The case we report here highlighted the importance of the middle hepatic vein in right liver living donor liver transplantation., Methods: We illustrated the rectification of outflow obstruction of the middle hepatic vein in the anterior sector of right liver graft caused by technical error during transplantation. The rectification was performed with emergency re-routing using an artificial conduit., Result: Congestion in the anterior sector of the graft improved immediately and the patient's postoperative liver function test results improved gradually., Conclusions: The middle hepatic vein is important for effective drainage of the anterior sector of a right liver graft. The re-routing technique described in the report can also be applied to cases in which the middle hepatic vein is injured during hepatectomy requiring immediate reconstruction.

The middle hepatic vein may be included in right liver living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) to optimize hepatic venous outflow. We studied the graft's ability to relieve portal hypertension and accommodate portal hyperperfusion with portal manometry and ultrasonic flowmetry. Surgical outcomes with respect to portal hemodynamometry were also investigated. The ages of the recipients and donors for 46 consecutive LDLT procedures were 50 (range, 16-66 years) and 31 years (range, 18-54 years), respectively. The graft to standard liver volume ratio was 47.4% (range, 32.4%-69.0%). The hospital mortality rate was 4.4% as 2 recipients died from a subarachnoid hemorrhage and sepsis. The portal pressure dropped by 8 mm Hg (range, -7 to 19 mm Hg) from 23 (range, 8-37 mm Hg) to 14 mm Hg (range, 10-26 mm Hg) after graft implantation. The portal inflow positively correlated with the portal pressure before native liver hepatectomy (R(2) = 0.305, P = 0.001) and not with the graft size. The portal inflow increased from 81 mL/minute/100 g (range, 35-210 mL/minute/100 g) before donor right hepatectomy to 318 mL/minute/100 g (range, 102-754 mL/minute/100 g) after graft implantation. The graft portal inflow had a positive linear correlation with the recipient portal pressure before native liver total hepatectomy (R(2) = 0.261, P = 0.001) but not after graft implantation, and it had a negative correlation with the graft to standard liver volume ratio (R(2) = 0.247, P = 0.001). Only 1 of the graft biopsies showed moderate sinusoidal congestion. Twelve recipients had Clavien grade 2+ complications that were not related to the portal inflow and pressure or graft size. Right liver LDLT including the middle hepatic vein effectively lowered the recipient portal pressure by allowing unimpeded venous outflow., (Copyright © 2011 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Duct-to-duct anastomosis (DDA) and hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) are options for biliary reconstruction in patients undergoing adult-to-adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation (ARLDLT), after which biliary anastomotic stricture (BAS) is common as a complication. The risk factors for BAS are not clearly defined. We aimed to determine the rate of post-ARLDLT BAS in our center and its associated factors. In 265 ARLDLT recipients, 55 (20.8%) developed postoperative BAS. The diagnosis was based on clinical, biochemical, histological, and radiological results. The BAS rates were 21.4% (43/201) for recipients undergoing DDA during transplantation, 18.9% (10/53) for recipients undergoing HJ, and 18.2% (2/11) for recipients undergoing both procedures. BAS and non-BAS patients had comparable demographics. The number of graft bile duct openings (P = 0.516) and the size of the graft's smallest bile duct (5 versus 5 mm, P = 0.4) were not significantly different between BAS and non-BAS patients. Univariate analysis showed that the factors associated with postoperative BAS were the recipient warm ischemia time (55 versus 51 minutes, P = 0.026), graft cold ischemia time (120 versus 108 minutes, P = 0.046), stent use (21.8% versus 7.1%, P = 0.001), postoperative acute cellular rejection (29.1% versus 11.0%, P = 0.001), and University of Wisconsin solution use (21.8% versus 7.1%, P = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that the cold ischemia time (odds ratio = 1.012, 95% confidence interval = 1.002-1.023, P = 0.014) and acute rejection (odds ratio = 3.180, 95% confidence interval = 1.606-6.853, P = 0.002) were significant factors. The graft survival rates of BAS and non-BAS patients were comparable. One patient required retransplantation for secondary biliary cirrhosis. In conclusion, BAS remains common after ARLDLT regardless of DDA or HJ. The graft cold ischemia time and postoperative acute cellular rejection are significantly associated with postoperative BAS., (Copyright © 2011 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

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.

The native liver of a familial amyloidotic polyneuropathy recipient who undergoes living donor liver transplantation used as a graft for sequential liver transplantation does not include the inferior vena cava. Implantation of this whole liver graft to a second recipient could be simplified by borrowing the experience from right liver living donor liver transplantation. With careful release of the hepatic vein from its surrounding adventitia mainly by sharp dissections, adequate lengths of these veins could be attained without compromising the native inferior vena cava. Following venoplasty of the right and middle/left hepatic vein stumps, the single cuff of the hepatic veins is anastomosed to the inferior vena cava without interpositional venous graft or patch. Satisfactory venous outflow is reliably achieved because this is the most direct outflow tract.

Objective: We analyzed a single center's experience over a decade of right liver living donor liver transplantation (RLDLT)., Summary Background Data: To define the donor risk and recipient benefit ratio, midterm outcome of this life-saving treatment modality ought to be known., Methods: Consecutive patients from 9 May 1996 were included. Era I comprised the first 50 patients and Era II comprised the remaining 184 patients. Their midterm outcomes were compared with patients receiving deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) of the same period in the same center., Results: With a median follow-up of 48 months, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 93.2%, 85.7%, and 82.4%, respectively and were comparable with those of DDLT (n = 131) (90.1%, 87.7%, and 85.2%) (P = 0.876). Hospital mortality decreased from 16% in Era I to 2.2% in Era II (P = 0.000). Reduced hospital mortality improved the overall survival rates from Era I to Era II (78%, 74%, and 72% vs. 97.3%, 88.7%, and 85.1%, respectively) (P = 0.003). The 5-year survival rate of recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (n = 65) was 65.7%. Starting from Era II, excellent 5-year survival of recipients without HCC was achieved as compared with DDLT in the same period (93.4% vs. 88.2%) (P = 0.493). The 5-year survival rates of recipients with HCC within the Milan criteria of Era II and DDLT in the same period were 72.0% and 100%, respectively (P = 0.091). Multivariate analysis indicated that only Era I (relative risk = 2.606; P = 0.005) and pretransplant HCC (relative risk = 2.729; P = 0.002) adversely affected overall survival., Conclusions: High midterm survivals were achieved by reduction of hospital mortality through accumulation of experience and transplanting recipients with low chance of recurrence of HCC. RLDLT could be considered as a legitimate alternative to DDLT.

Donor workup for adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation is done to ensure that the donor remains physically and psychologically healthy after saving or improving the life of the recipient. Even though two-thirds of the liver transplants in our center were from live donors, this life-saving procedure remains a mere treatment option, given the magnitude of the donor operation with the associated donor risks. Live donor liver transplantation was also adopted for high-urgency situations provided that the donor was suitable and the recipient considered salvageable. Donor workup in this setting had not been reported in the literature. In this cohort of 399 potential donors, 128 (32.1%) ultimately underwent donor surgery. Donors in the high-urgency situation had a lower operation rate of 28.4% (64/225) compared with that of 36.8% (64/174) of donors in the elective situation (P = 0.049). Dropouts from step 1 mainly because of ABO incompatibility, positive hepatitis serology, comorbidities, and voluntary donor withdrawal were 52.6% (210/399). Only 11.6% (22/189) of the potential donors who proceeded to subsequent steps of the workup dropped out (2 were psychologically unsuitable, 10 were anatomically prohibitive). The transplantation rate of potential recipients with 1 or more potential donors was also high. The rates were similar for the high-urgency (55%, 64/116) and the elective (51%, 64/125) situations. In a region with scarcity of deceased donor liver grafts, careful and expeditious initial donor workup minimizes dropouts from subsequent steps and allows timely transplantation in high-urgency situations.

By virtue of size, the right liver graft has become the workhorse of adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation (ALDLT). Although favorable results of left liver ALDLT have also been reported, a head-to-head comparison of these 2 graft types both containing the middle hepatic vein had not been made. In this study, we compared the outcomes of 29 right liver and 16 left liver ALDLTs of comparable graft weight to recipient estimated standard liver volume ratio (GW/ESLV, 36.9% and 36.4%, respectively). All liver grafts contained the middle hepatic vein. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and urgency for transplantation of both groups were similar. Postoperatively, left liver donors had significantly lower international normalized ratios and serum total bilirubin levels and no complications. Although the rate of return of international normalized ratios for recipients of both groups were comparable, left liver recipients had significantly higher serum total bilirubin and serum aminotransferase levels. Intensive care unit stay of the left liver recipients was longer than that of the right liver recipients (8.5 days versus 4 days, P = 0.007). Hospital mortality was 6.9% (2/29) for the right liver group and 18.8% (3/16) for the left liver group (P = 0.330). Safety profile of donor left hepatectomy was higher. However, despite similar GW/ESLV, the more arduous recovery and higher mortality rate of left liver recipients raise the caution of assuming the gram-to-gram equivalence of right and left liver grafts., ((c) 2006 AASLD.)

Objective: To define the current standards of donor right hepatectomy, including the middle hepatic vein for adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation., Summary Background Data: Donor morbidity and mortality are inevitable given the ultra-major nature of the donor operation. Results from a matured center could define the true impact of this donor procedure most accurately., Patients and Methods: From May 9, 1996 to April 13, 2005, 200 consecutive donors underwent donor right hepatectomy at the University of Hong Kong Medical Center. All right liver grafts except one included the middle hepatic vein. Donor characteristics, operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, laboratory results, and complications graded by Clavien's classification divided into four eras (each consecutive 50 cases) were compared., Results: Donor characteristics of the four eras were generally comparable. Operative outcomes improved progressively through the four eras. From era 1 to era 4, operation time decreased from 598 minutes (range, 378-932 minutes) to 391 minutes (range, 304-635 minutes). Blood loss also decreased from 500 mL (200-1600 mL) of era 1 to 251 mL (range, 95-595 mL) of era 4. Overall complication rate was 20.5% (41 of 200). Complications rates from eras 1 to 4 were 34%, 16%, 16%, and 16%, respectively. The most common complications were of grade I (24 of 41, 58.5%). A late donor death occurred in era 4 from the development of a duodenocaval fistula 10 weeks postoperation, giving a donor mortality of 0.5% (1 of 200)., Conclusions: This study validated the estimated morbidity and mortality of donor right hepatectomy of 20% and 0.5%, respectively. The data provide reference for counseling potential donors and setting the standards of donor right hepatectomy in the current era.

Donor right hepatectomy for adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation (ALDLT) is a major surgical operation for the benefit of the recipient. Justification of procedure mandates knowledge of the possible physical and psychological negative effects on the donor. We prospectively and longitudinally quantified donor quality of life using generic and condition-specific questionnaires up to 1 year. The generic questionnaires were the Karnofsky Performance Status scale and the Chinese (Hong Kong) version of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Survey, which measures 8 health concepts: 4 physical components and 4 mental components. Within 1 year, 30 consecutive donors were included. These 11 male and 19 female donors (36.7% and 63.3%, respectively) had a median age of 35 years (range, 21-56 years). There was no donor mortality or major complications. Donor quality-of-life worsening was most significant in the first 3 postoperative months, particularly among the physical components. The physical and mental components returned to the previous levels in 6 to 12 months' time, though the Karnofsky performance scores were slightly lower at 1 year (P = 0.011). Twenty-six (86.7%) donors declared that they would donate again if there were such a need and it were technically possible. It was noticed that older donors were more likely to express unwillingness to donate again. In conclusion, the temporary worsening of donor quality of life substantiates ALDLT as an acceptable treatment modality.

The actual risk of death in hepatic lobe donors for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is unknown because of the lack of a comprehensive database. In the absence of a definitive estimate of the risk of donor death, the medical literature has become replete with anecdotal reports of donor deaths, many of which cannot be substantiated. Because donor death is one of the most important outcomes of LDLT, we performed a comprehensive survey of the medical and lay literature to provide a referenced source of worldwide donor deaths. We reviewed all published articles from the medical literature on LDLT and searched the lay literature for donor deaths from 1989 to February 2006. We classified each death as "definitely," "possibly," or "unlikely" related to donor surgery. We identified 19 donor deaths (and one additional donor in a chronic vegetative state). Thirteen deaths and the vegetative donor were "definitely," 2 were "possibly," and 4 were "unlikely" related to donor surgery. The estimated rate of donor death "definitely" related to donor surgery is 0.15%. The rate of donor death which is "definitely" or "possibly" related to the donor surgery is 0.20%. This analysis provides a source document of all identifiable living liver donor deaths, provides a better estimate of donor death rate, and may provide an impetus for centers with unreported deaths to submit these outcomes to the liver transplantation community.

Objective: To evaluate and compare the operative and survival outcomes of patients who underwent right lobe live donor liver transplantation (RLDLT) and cadaveric whole-graft liver transplant (CWLT) recipients in a single institution., Summary Background Data: Current data suggest that RLDLT has an inferior graft survival outcome when compared with CWLT., Patients and Methods: A prospective study was performed on 180 consecutive adult patients who underwent primary liver transplantation from January 2000 to February 2004. The operative and survival outcomes of RLDLT (n = 124) were compared with those of CWLT (n = 56)., Results: Fifty-five (44%) and 16 (29%) patients were on high-urgency list in the RLDLT group and the CWLT group, respectively (P = 0.045). The preoperative Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores were comparable in both groups. The waiting time for liver transplantation was significantly shorter in the RLDLT group. The graft weight to estimated standard liver weight ratio was significantly lower in the RLDLT group. The postoperative hospital stay and hospital mortality were comparable in the RLDLT group (1.6%) and the CWLT group (5.4%). Thirty-one (25%) patients in the RLDLT group and 3 (5%) patients in the CWLT group developed biliary stricture on follow-up (P = 0.002). At a median follow-up of 27 months, the actuarial graft and patient survival rates were 88% and 90%, respectively, in the RLDLT group, and both were 84% in the CWLT group., Conclusion: RLDLT results in favorable operative outcomes comparable with those of CWLT. However, there is a significantly higher incidence of biliary stricture associated with RLDLT.

The right lobe liver graft has become the workhorse of adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation. Donor right hepatectomy is feasible only because of the immense regenerative ability of the liver. The long-term biological consequences of this very major donor procedure on the donor however are unknown. Twenty-nine donors of this procedure in our centre, all of whom included the middle hepatic vein, were studied. On long-term follow-up at a median of 47.4 months, there was a discernible but statistically insignificant decrease in size of the regenerated left lobe compared to the original whole liver volume. There was paradoxically a trend of incompleteness of regeneration in relation to the original liver volume for those with a larger remnant left lobe. The volume ratio of the regenerated left lobe to the original left lobe before hepatectomy was inversely proportional to the left lobe proportion preoperatively. This strong but inverse linear correlation reflected the good regenerative ability of the remnant left lobe. None of the donors developed thrombocytopenia. Although demonstrable decrease in white cell count, increase in serum alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and creatinine did occur, the changes remained within normal limits and were of yet uncertain clinical significance. In conclusion, donor right hepatectomy including the middle hepatic vein is biologically acceptable to the live donor., (Copyright 2006 AASLD)