Sequential Pancreaticoduodenectomy after Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Cholagiocacinoma

Liver transplantation (LT) for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is often contraindicated due to concomitant occurrence of cholangiocarcinoma (CC). Cases of simultaneous pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with LT have been sporadically reported; however, the applicability of such an invasive procedure to patients with CC has not been validated. We report here a case of sequential PD performed 44 days after a successful living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using a left lobe graft. Although a clear pancreatic juice leakage through the drain persisted for days after surgery, the patient recovered from the complication and was discharged 32 days after the procedure. Currently, 1 year after LDLT, the patient is doing well with no evidence of recurrence. In conclusion, a sequential PD following LDLT is a safe and feasible option to treat CC complicating PSC. Long‐term follow‐up and accumulation of cases are necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of this procedure for this complicated disease.     

Outcomes of Donor Evaluations for Adult-to-Adult Right Hepatic Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation

The purpose of this study is to determine the role of liver biopsy and outcome of patients undergoing donor evaluation for adult-to-adult right hepatic lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Records of patients presenting for a comprehensive donor evaluation between 1997 and February 2005 were reviewed. Liver biopsy was performed only in patients with risk factors for abnormal histology. Two hundred and sixty patients underwent a comprehensive donor evaluation and 116 of 260 (45%) were suitable for donation, 14 of 260 (5.4%) did not complete evaluation and 130 of 260 (50%) were rejected. Four patients underwent unsuccessful hepatectomy surgery due to discovery of intraoperative abnormalities. Between 1997 and 2001, the acceptance rate of donor candidates (63%) was higher than 2002-2005 (36%), p < 0.0001. Sixty-six of the 150 eligible patients (44%) fulfilled criteria for liver biopsy and 28 of 66 (42%) had an abnormal finding. Less than half of the patients undergoing donor evaluation were suitable donors and the donor acceptance rate has declined over time. A large proportion of the patients undergoing liver biopsy have abnormal findings. Our evaluation process failed to identify 4 of 103 who had aborted donor surgeries.     

Comparative Analysis of Outcomes in Living and Deceased Donor Liver Transplants for Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

Introduction  Primary sclerosing cholangitits (PSC) is a progressive fibrosing cholangiopathy eventually leading to end-stage liver disease (ESLD). While literature for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for PSC abounds, only a few reports describe live donor liver transplant (LDLT) in the setting of PSC. We present a single-center experience on survival outcomes and disease recurrence for LDLT and DDLT for ESLD secondary to PSC. Aim  The aim of this study was to analyze survival outcomes and disease recurrence for LDLT and DDLT for ESLD secondary to PSC. Patients and Methods  A retrospective review of 58 primary liver transplants for PSC-associated ESLD, performed between May 1995 and January 2007, was done. Patients were divided into two groups based on donor status. Group 1 (n = 14) patients received grafts from living donors, while group 2 (n = 44) patients received grafts from deceased donors. An analysis of survival outcomes and disease recurrence was performed. Recurrence was confirmed based on radiological and histological criteria. Results  Recurrence of PSC was observed in four patients in LDLT group and seven in DDLT group. Retransplantation was required in one patient in LDLT group and nine patients in DDLT group. One patient (7%) among LDLT and six patients (14%) among DDLT died. The difference in patient and graft survival was not statistically significant between the two groups (patient survival, p = 0.60; graft survival, p = 0.24). Conclusion  This study demonstrates equivalent survival outcomes between LDLT and DDLT for PSC; however, the rate of recurrence may be higher in patients undergoing LDLT.     

成人间双供体活体肝脏移植成功2例报告

目的供肝短缺是影响肝脏移植发展的主要因素之一，活体供肝是解决这一矛盾的重要措施，供者提供足够的肝脏是影响活体肝脏移植的重要因素。方法施行成人间双供体活体肝移植2例，1例由受者的两位姐姐分别提供左半肝作为供肝，另1例由受者母亲提供右半肝，由无心跳供者提供左半肝(采用劈裂方式，其另一部分肝脏同时为另一成人受者实施肝脏移植)作为供肝。结果术后供、受者肝功能均恢复良好。结论成人问双供肝活体肝脏移植可以为受者提供更大重量的肝脏，又可减少供者提供较多肝脏所带来的风险；双供肝一受者肝脏移植手术操作复杂。     

Intraoperative ‘No Go’ Donor Hepatectomies in Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Donor safety is the paramount concern of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Although LDLT is employed worldwide, there is little data on rates and causes of ‘no go’ hepatectomies—patients brought to the operating room for possible donor hepatectomy whose procedure was aborted. We performed a single‐center, retrospective review of all patients brought to the operating room for donor hepatectomy between October 2000 and November 2008. Of 257 right lobe donors, the donor operation was aborted in 12 cases (4.7%). The main reasons for stopping the operation were aberrant ductal or vascular anatomy (seven cases), unsuitable liver quality (three cases) or unexpected intraoperative events (two cases). Over the median period of follow‐up of 23 months, there were no long‐term complications of patients with aborted donor procedures. This report focuses exclusively on an important issue: the frequency and causes of no go decisions at a single large volume North American LDLT center. The rate of no go donor hepatectomies should be as low as possible without compromising donor safety—however, even with rigorous preoperative evaluation the rate of donor abortions will be significant. The default surgical position should always be to abort the donor operation if there is an unexpected finding that places the donor at increased risk.     

Resource Utilization of Living Donor Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation Is Similar at an Experienced Transplant Center

Although living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been shown to decrease waiting-list mortality, little is known of its financial impact relative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). We performed a retrospective cohort study of the comprehensive resource utilization, using financial charges as a surrogate measure—from the pretransplant through the posttransplant periods—of 489 adult liver transplants (LDLT n = 86; DDLT n = 403) between January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2006, at a single center with substantial experience in LDLT. Baseline characteristics differed between LDLT versus DDLT with regards to age at transplantation (p = 0.02), male gender (p < 0.01), percentage Caucasians (p < 0.01) and transplant model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (p < 0.01). In univariate analysis, there was a trend toward decreased total transplant charges with LDLT (p = 0.06), despite increased surgical charges associated with LDLT (p < 0.01). After adjustment for the covariates that were associated with financial charges, there was no significant difference in total transplant charges (p = 0.82). MELD score at transplant was the strongest driver of resource utilization. We conclude that at an experienced transplant center, LDLT imposes a similar overall financial burden than DDLT, despite the increased complexity of living donor surgery and the addition of the costs of the living donor. We speculate that LDLT optimizes transplantation by transplanting healthier and younger recipients.     

Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) begun in response to deceased donor organ shortage and waiting list mortality, grew rapidly after its first general application in the United States in 1998. There are significant risks to the living donor, including the risk of death and substantial morbidity, and two highly publicized donor deaths have led to decreased LDLT since 2001. Significant improvements in outcomes have been seen over recent years that have not been reported in single center studies; however, LDLT still comprises less than 5% of adult liver transplants, significantly less than in kidney transplantation where living donors now comprise the majority. The ethics, optimal utility and application of LDLT remain to be defined. In addition, studies to date have focused on post-transplant outcomes and not included the potential impact of LDLT on waiting time mortality. Future analyses should include appropriate control or comparison groups that capture the effect of LDLT on overall mortality from the time of listing. Further growth of LDLT will depend on defining the optimal recipient and donor characteristics for this procedure as well as broader acceptance and experience in the public and in transplant centers.     

Donor Hemosiderosis Does Not Affect Liver Function and Regeneration in the Setting of Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) demands a careful assessment of abnormal findings discovered during the evaluation process to determine if there will be any potential risks to the donor or recipient. Varying degrees of elevated hepatic iron levels are not uncommonly seen in otherwise healthy individuals. We questioned whether mild expression of hemosiderin deposition presents a safety concern when considering outcomes of living donation for both the donor and the recipient. We report on three LDLT patients who were found to have low‐ to moderate‐grade hemosiderin deposition on liver biopsy. All other aspects of their evaluation proved satisfactory, and the decision was made to proceed with donation. There were no significant complications in the donors, and all demonstrated complete normalization of liver function postoperatively, with appropriate parenchymal regeneration. The recipients also had unremarkable postoperative recovery. We conclude that these individuals can be considered as potential donors after careful evaluation.     

Efficacy of Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Patients With Methylmalonic Acidemia

Application of liver transplantation to methylmalonic acidemia (MMAemia) is controversial because MMAemia is caused by a systemic defect of methylmalonyl-CoA mutase. The clinical courses of seven pediatric patients with MMAemia undergoing living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) were reviewed. Serum and urinary methylmalonic acid (MMA) levels were found to be significantly decreased after LDLT, whereas serum and urinary MMA levels did not return to normal in any patient. One patient died of sepsis 44 days after LDLT. The other six patients are currently doing well. All patients had preoperative history of acute metabolic decompensation and/or metabolic stroke. However, no episode of acute metabolic decompensation or metabolic stroke was observed postoperatively in any surviving patients. In the preoperative period, all patients showed lethargy and cognitive deficit, both of which were eradicated after LDLT in all surviving patients. Preoperatively, all patients were subjected to dietary protein intake restriction and tube feeding, and were administered several metabolism-correcting medications. The metabolism-correcting medications being administered remained mostly unchanged after LDLT, whereas protein restriction was liberalized and tube feeding became unnecessary in all surviving patients. In addition, physical and neurodevelopmental growth delay remained in all surviving patients during the observation period, which ranged from 4 to 21 months with a median of 10.5 months.     

Incidence and Severity of Acute Cellular Rejection in Recipients Undergoing Adult Living Donor or Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation‡

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) may have better immunological outcomes compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence of acute cellular rejection (ACR) after LDLT and DDLT. Data from the adult‐to‐adult living donor liver transplantation (A2ALL) retrospective cohort study on 593 liver transplants done between May 1998 and March 2004 were studied (380 LDLT; 213 DDLT). Median LDLT and DDLT follow‐up was 778 and 713 days, respectively. Rates of clinically treated and biopsy‐proven ACR were compared. There were 174 (46%) LDLT and 80 (38%) DDLT recipients with ≥1 clinically treated episodes of ACR, whereas 103 (27%) LDLT and 58 (27%) DDLT recipients had ≥1 biopsy‐proven ACR episode. A higher proportion of LDLT recipients had clinically treated ACR (p = 0.052), but this difference was largely attributable to one center. There were similar proportions of biopsy‐proven rejection (p = 0.97) and graft loss due to rejection (p = 0.16). Longer cold ischemia time was associated with a higher rate of ACR in both groups despite much shorter median cold ischemia time in LDLT. These data do not show an immunological advantage for LDLT, and therefore do not support the application of unique posttransplant immunosuppression protocols for LDLT recipients.     

Risk Factors for Recurrence of Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis after Living Donor Liver Transplantation in Japanese Registry

The outcomes of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in a large series have not been reported. We aimed to determine long‐term patient and graft survival, risk factors for PSC recurrence, and the significance of recurrence after LDLT in a Japanese registry. Questionnaires concerning patient characteristics, treatments, and clinical courses were used. Data of 114 patients undergoing primary LDLT for PSC from July 1996 to December 2008 in 29 institutions were evaluated. For strict diagnoses of recurrence, patients with hepatic artery thrombosis (n = 8), ABO‐blood‐type‐incompatible transplantation (n = 8), and established ductopenic rejection (n = 2) were excluded and 96 patients were analyzed for risk factors. Recurrence was diagnosed in 26 patients (27%) at 8 to 79 months after transplantation. Patient, graft, and recurrence‐free survivals were 78, 74 and 57% at 5 years after LDLT, respectively. The graft loss rate was 69 versus 23% in patients with versus without recurrence, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that high MELD scores, first‐degree‐relative donors, postoperative CMV infection, and early biliary anastomotic complications were significant risk factors for recurrence. PSC recurrence was a significant risk factor of graft loss but not patient death. PSC recurrence was frequent and had significant impacts on outcomes after LDLT.     

Auxiliary Partial Orthotopic Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Kyoto University Experience

Auxiliary partial orthotopic liver transplantation (APOLT) was initially indicated as a potentially reversible fulminant hepatic failure and non-cirrhotic metabolic liver disease to compensate for enzyme deficiency without complete removal of the native liver. We expand our indication of APOLT for small-for-size grafts to support the function of implanted grafts during the early post-operative period, and for ABO-incompatibility to sustain a patient's life if the patient has a graft failure. We retrospectively reviewed 31 patients undergoing APOLT from living donor. The indication of APOLT was fulminant hepatic failure in 6, non-cirrhotic metabolic liver disease in 6, small-for-size grafts in 13 and ABO-incompatible cases in 6. The cumulative survival rate for APOLT at 1 and 5 years was 57.9% and 50.6%, and 78.8% and 73.8% for standard LDLT. None of the patients who underwent transplantation with APOLT for fulminant hepatic failure had long-term patient survival. The incidence of acute cellular rejection was higher in APOLT (58.1%) than standard LDLT (35.0%). Biliary complication was higher and the need for retransplantation was greater in APOLT than standard LDLT (p < 0.01). The results suggest that the indications of APOLT should be reconsidered in view of the risk for complications and retransplantation.     

Live Donor Liver Transplantation: A Valid Alternative for Critically Ill Patients Suffering From Acute Liver Failure

We report the outcome of live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for patients suffering from acute liver failure (ALF). From 2006 to 2013, all patients with ALF who received a LDLT (n = 7) at our institution were compared to all ALF patients receiving a deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT = 26). Groups were comparable regarding pretransplant ICU stay (DDLT: 1 [0–7] vs. LDLT: 1 days [0–10]; p = 0.38), mechanical ventilation support (DDLT: 69% vs. LDLT: 57%; p = 0.66), inotropic drug requirement (DDLT: 27% vs. LDLT: 43%; p = 0.64) and dialysis (DDLT: 2 vs. LDLT: 0 patients; p = 1). Median evaluation time for live donors was 24 h (18–72 h). LDLT versus DDLT had similar incidence of overall postoperative complications (31% vs. 43%; p = 0.66). No difference was detected between LDLT and DDLT patients regarding 1‐ (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%), 3‐ (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%), and 5‐ (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%) year graft and patient survival (p = 0.63). No severe donor complication (Dindo–Clavien ≥3 b) occurred after live liver donation. ALF is a severe disease with high mortality on liver transplant waiting lists worldwide. Therefore, LDLT is an attractive option since live donor work‐up can be expedited and liver transplantation can be performed within 24 h with excellent short‐ and long‐term outcomes.     

The Risk of End‐Stage Renal Disease Among Living Donor Liver Transplant Recipients in the United States

Since initiation of model for end‐stage liver disease (MELD)‐based allocation for liver transplantation, the risk of posttransplant end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) has increased. Recent US data have demonstrated comparable, if not superior survival, among recipients of living donor liver transplants (LDLT) when compared to deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) recipients. However, little is known about the incidence of ESRD post‐LDLT. We analyzed linked Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) and US Renal Data System (USRDS) data of first‐time liver‐alone transplant recipients from February 27, 2002 to March 1, 2011, and restricted the cohort to recipients with a laboratory MELD score ≤25 not on dialysis prior to transplantation, in order to evaluate the incidence of ESRD post‐LDLT, and to compare the incidence among LDLT versus DDLT recipients. There were 28 707 DDLT and 1917 LDLT recipients included in the analyses. The 1‐, 3‐ and 5‐year unadjusted risk of ESRD was 1.7%, 2.9% and 3.4% in LDLT recipients, compared with 1.5%, 3.0% and 4.8% in DDLT recipients (p > 0.05), respectively. In multivariable competing risk Cox regression models, there was no association between receiving an LDLT and risk of ESRD (sub‐hazard ratio: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.77–1.26, p = 0.92). In conclusion, the incidence of ESRD post‐LDLT in the United States is low, and there are no significant differences among LDLT and DDLT recipients with MELD scores ≤25 at transplantation.     

活体肝移植治疗布加综合征并下腔静脉狭窄

目的 报道笔者利用尸体下腔静脉（IVC）替代受体肝后IVC施行成人间活体肝移植（LDLT）治疗布加综合征（BCS）并IVC狭窄的经验。方法 1例35岁男性BCS并肝后IVC狭窄的患者，曾接受内科治疗，并于9个月前经放射介入置入金属扩张器，但症状无缓解。最终患者被施行了成人间LDLT，术中采用了尸体IVC替代受体肝后IVC进行重建。结果 患者术后过程平稳，效果满意。结论 笔者认为采用LDLT及利用尸肝IVC重建受者肝后IVC治疗BCS并肝后IVC狭窄的术式可推荐作为一种新的术式。     

Living Donor Liver Transplantation Using Dual Grafts from Two Donors: A Feasible Option to Overcome Small‐for‐Size Graft Problems?

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) between adults inevitably implies two potential risks associated with a small-for-size graft for the recipient and small remnant liver for the donor. To overcome these problems, LDLT using dual grafts from two independent donors can be a solution, in which sufficient graft volume can be obtained while preserving donor safety. We present a case of LDLT that was managed successfully by using right and left lobe dual grafts from two donors. The recipient was a large-size male with hepatitis C cirrhosis complicated by multiple hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs). The first donor donated a right lobe graft and the second donor donated a left lobe plus caudate lobe graft with the middle hepatic vein. Graft function was excellent throughout the course without evidence of small-for-size syndrome. In conclusion, LDLT using dual grafts can be justified in a selected case to avoid small-for-size graft problems without increasing independent donor risks.     

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Neonates Using Segment 2 Monosubsegment Graft

The prognosis of liver transplantation for neonates with fulminant hepatic failure (FHF) continues to be extremely poor, especially in patients whose body weight is less than 3 kg. To address this problem, we have developed a safe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) modality for neonates. We performed LDLTs with segment 2 monosubsegment (S2) grafts for three neonatal FHF. The recipient age and body weight at LDLT were 13–27 days, 2.59–2.84 kg, respectively. S2 or reduced S2 grafts (93–98 g) obtained from their fathers were implanted using temporary portacaval shunt. The recipient portal vein was reconstructed at a more distal site, such as the umbilical portion, to have the graft liver move freely during hepatic artery (HA) reconstruction. The recipient operation time and bleeding were 11 h 58 min–15 h 27 min and 200–395 mL, respectively. The graft‐to‐recipient weight ratio was 3.3–3.8% and primary abdominal wall closure was possible in all cases. Although hepatic artery thrombosis occurred in one case, all cases survived with normal growth. Emergency LDLT with S2 grafts weighing less than 100 g can save neonates with FHF whose body weight is less than 3 kg. This LDLT modality using S2 grafts could become a new option for neonates and very small infants requiring LT.     

Living Donor Liver Transplantation with Left Liver Graft

Small-for-size syndrome in LDLT is associated with graft exposure to excessive portal perfusion. Prevention of graft overperfusion in LDLT can be achieved through intraoperative modulation of portal graft inflow. We report a successful LDLT utilising the left lobe with a GV/SLV of only 20%. A 43 year-old patient underwent to LDLT at our institution. During the anhepatic phase a porto-systemic shunt utilizing an interposition vein graft anastomosed between the right portal branch and the right hepatic vein was performed. After graft reperfusion splenectomy was also performed. Portal vein pressure, portal vein flow and hepatic artery flow were recorded. A decrease of portal vein pressure and flow was achieved, and the shunt was left in place. The recipient post-operative course was characterized by good graft function. Small-for-size syndrome by graft overperfusion can be successfully prevented by utilizing inflow modulation of the transplanted graft. This strategy can permit the use of left lobe in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation.     

Whole-Liver Graft Without the Retrohepatic Inferior Vena Cava for Sequential (Domino) Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Grafts used in Domino liver transplantation (LT) obtained from living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for familial amyloid polyneuropathy (FAP) patients have been mainly used as reduced grafts. Because of small-for-size problems seen in LDLT, using whole liver grafts could improve post-LT outcome. Eight consecutive Domino LDLT using whole livers without retrohepatic inferior vena cava (IVC) from FAP patients were retrospectively analyzed. The graft weight/recipient's body weight ratio (GWRW) in the domino recipients ranged from 1.28% to 2.4% (mean: 1.52). Multiple vascular reconstructions in the whole-liver domino LT resulted in longer than usual warm ischemia time (mean: 64 min); however immediate post-operative recovery of hepatic function was uneventful. At 8-40 months after the transplant, all the FAP patients are well and all of the domino recipients are alive. Domino LT using a whole FAP liver from a LDLT for a FAP patient presents satisfactory results, even though the transplant procedure is technically complicated.     

活体肝移植小肝综合征的研究进展

目的 探讨在活体肝移植中小肝综合征发生的原因、预防及治疗方法.方法 复习国内、外近几年活体肝移植术后有关小肝综合征的相关报道.结果 供体年龄、脂肪肝程度、受体术前疾病状态(MELD评分)、术后高门静脉灌注、流出道不畅及移植物大小和质量对活体肝移植术后小肝综合征的发生起着重要作用,术前选择最佳的供体,术中的脾脏切除或脾动脉结扎或对门静脉限流,保证流出道的绝对通畅,术后及早发现并积极治疗能显著减少小肝综合征的发生.结论 小肝综合征的危险因素是可以预测的,积极的应对措施可以用于小肝综合征的预防与治疗.