Utilization of elderly donors in living donor liver transplantation: when more is less?

An accepted definition of donor exclusion criteria has not been established for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The use of elderly donors to expand the living donor pool raises ethical concerns about donor safety. The aims of this study were (1) the comparison of the postoperative outcomes of living liver donors by age (≥ 50 versus < 50 years) and (2) the evaluation of the impact of the extent of right hepatectomy on donor outcomes. The study group included 150 donors who underwent donor right hepatectomy between October 2004 and April 2009. Extended criteria surgery (ECS) was defined as right hepatectomy with middle hepatic vein (MHV) harvesting or right hepatectomy resulting in an estimated remnant liver volume (RLV) less than 35%. The primary endpoints were donor outcomes in terms of donor complications graded according to the Clavien classification. Group 1 consisted of donors who were 50 years old or older (n = 28), and group 2 consisted of donors who were less than 50 years old (n = 122). At least 1 ECS criterion was present in 74% of donors: 57% had 1 criterion, and 17% had 2 criteria. None of the donors had grade 4 complications or died. The overall and major complication rates were similar in the 2 donor age groups [28.6% and 14.3% in group 1 and 32% and 8.2% in group 2 for the overall complication rates (P = 0.8) and the major complication rates (P = 0.2), respectively]. However, there was a significant correlation between the rate of major complications and the type of surgery in donors who were 50 years old or older. In LDLT, extending the limits of surgery comes at the price of more complications in elderly donors. Right hepatectomy with MHV harvesting and any procedure causing an RLV less than 35% should be avoided in living liver donors who are 50 years old or older.

Dayangac M ，Taner CB ，Yaprak O ，Demirbas T ，Balci D ，Duran C ，Yuzer Y ，Tokat Y ... -  《-》

Selection and outcomes of living donors with a remnant volume less than 30% after right hepatectomy.

The evidence for defining a safe minimal remnant volume after living donor hepatectomy is insufficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of living donors with a remnant/total volume ratio (RTVR) < 30% after right hepatectomy according to the following selection criteria: the preservation of the middle hepatic vein (MHV), an age < 50 years, and no or mild fatty changes in healthy adults. All living donors who underwent right hepatectomy preserving the MHV at our institution between January 2005 and September 2011 were divided into 2 groups: group A with an RTVR < 30% and group B with an RTVR ≥ 30%. Perioperative data, complications by the Clavien classification, and outcomes with at least 15.1 months' follow-up were compared. Twenty-eight donors were enrolled in group A, and 260 were enrolled in group B. The estimated liver volume was strongly correlated with the actual graft weight (R(2)  = 0.608, P < 0.001). The calculated donation liver volume and the RTVR were significantly different between the 2 groups (P = 0.03 and P < 0.001, respectively). The peak postoperative aspartate aminotransferase levels, alanine aminotransferase levels, and international normalized ratios did not differ between the 2 groups. The peak total bilirubin level was higher for group A versus group B (P = 0.04). The hospital stay was longer for group A versus group B (P < 0.001). All donors recovered completely, and there were no significant differences in overall complications between the 2 groups. In conclusion, right hepatectomy preserving the MHV with an RTVR < 30% can be safely indicated for carefully selected living donors less than 50 years old with no or mild fatty changes.

Kim SH ，Kim YK ，Lee SD ，Park SJ ... -  《-》

Outcome of donors with a remnant liver volume of less than 35% after right hepatectomy.

To overcome the barrier of size match, right lobe graft has been widely used in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We assessed donor outcome, with a focus on remnant liver volume (RLV) after right hepatectomy based on the experiences of 2 LDLT centers, as a means of guiding the establishment of safe RLV limits for donor right hepatectomy. Between January 2002 and December 2003, a consecutive 146 liver donors who underwent right hepatectomy with at least 12 months of follow-up were enrolled in this study. Donors were grouped into 2 groups according to RLV: group 1 (n = 74), <35% (range, 26.9-34.9) and group 2 (n = 72), > or = 35% (35.0-46.8). No donors died or suffered a life-threatening complication. Mean peak serum postoperative aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (IU/L) levels were 219.5 +/- 79.9 and 231.5 +/- 83.3 in group 1 and 210.3 +/- 81.6 and 225.8 +/- 93.0 in group 2 (P = 0.497 and 0.699), respectively. Mean peak serum total bilirubin (TB) (mg/dL) level in group 1 (3.4 +/- 1.6) was higher than in group 2 (2.8 +/- 1.4; P = 0.023). Overall 23 (15.8%) major morbidities, 10 in group 1 (13.5%) and 13 in group 2 (18.1%), occurred according to Clavien's system (P = 0.939). These included bleeding (n = 3 in group 1 and n = 6 in group 2; P = 0.282), ileus (n = 3 and 1; P = 0.324), biliary leakage (n = 4 and 4; P = 0.968), and pneumonia (n = 0 and 2; P = 0.149). Minor morbidities were also comparable in the 2 groups. In conclusion, the outcome of donors with an RLV of <35% was not different from that of donors with an RLV of > or = 35%, with the exception of transient cholestasis. Therefore, a remnant RLV of <35% does not appear to be a contraindication for right liver procurement in living donors.

Cho JY ，Suh KS ，Kwon CH ，Yi NJ ，Lee HH ，Park JW ，Lee KW ，Joh JW ，Lee SK ，Lee KU ... -  《LIVER TRANSPLANTATION》

Safety of donor right hepatectomy without abdominal drainage: a prospective evaluation in 100 consecutive liver donors.

Liu CL ，Fan ST ，Lo CM ，Chan SC ，Yong BH ，Wong J ... -  《LIVER TRANSPLANTATION》

Use of middle hepatic vein in right lobe living donor liver transplantation.

Dayangac M ，Taner CB ，Balci D ，Memi I ，Yaprak O ，Akin B ，Duran C ，Killi R ，Ayanoglu O ，Yuzer Y ，Tokat Y ... -  《-》