Graft selection strategy in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: When both hemiliver grafts meet volumetric criteria.

To ensure donor safety in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), the left and caudate lobe (LL) is the preferred graft choice. However, patient prognosis may still be poor even if graft volume (GV) selection criteria are met. Our aim was to evaluate the effects of right lobe (RL) donation when the LL graft selection criteria are met. Consecutive donors (n = 135) with preoperative LL graft volumetric GV/standard liver volume (SLV) of ≥35% and RL remnant of ≥35% were retrospectively studied. Patients were divided into 2 groups: LL graft and RL graft. Recipient's body surface area (BSA), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and the donor's age were higher in the RL group. The donor's BSA and preoperative volumetric GV/SLV of the LL graft were smaller in the RL group. The predicted score (calculated using data for graft size, donor age, MELD score, and the presence of portosystemic shunt, which correlated well with graft function and with 6-month graft survival) of the RL group, was significantly lower if the LL graft were used, but using the actual RL graft improved the score equal to that of the LL group. Six-month and 12-month graft survival rates did not differ between the 2 groups. In patients with a poor prognosis, a larger RL graft improved the predicted score and survival was equal to that of patients who received LL grafts. In conclusion, graft selection by GV, donor age, and recipient MELD score improves outcomes in LDLT. Liver Transplantation 22 914-922 2016 AASLD.

Kurihara T ，Yoshizumi T ，Yoshida Y ，Ikegami T ，Itoh S ，Harimoto N ，Ninomiya M ，Uchiyama H ，Okabe H ，Kimura K ，Kawanaka H ，Shirabe K ，Maehara Y ... -  《-》

Left lobe living donor liver transplantation in adults: What is the safety limit?

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) is the most significant cause of graft loss after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), especially after left lobe (LL) LDLT in adults. The safety limit of applying LL-LDLT in adults without severe SFSS with a high rate of lethality needs to be determined. A total of 207 LL-LDLTs in adults since September 2005 were evaluated to analyze the risk factors for severe SFSS, defined as a serum total bilirubin concentration of ≥20.0 mg/dL after LDLT. Although there were no significant differences in cumulative graft survival after LDLT between medium grafts (graft volume [GV] to standard liver volume [SLV] ratio ≥ 40.0%), small grafts (35.0% ≤ GV/SLV < 40.0%), and extra small grafts (GV/SLV < 35.0%), patients with severe SFSS showed a significantly lower 5-year graft survival rate than those without (42.9% versus 94.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis for severe SFSS after LL-LDLT showed that donor age of ≥48 years (P = 0.01), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of ≥ 19 (P < 0.01), and end portal venous pressure of ≥19 mm Hg (P = 0.04) were the significant and independent factors for severe SFSS after LL-LDLT. Within such high-risk subgroups of patients with a donor age of ≥48 years or MELD score of ≥ 19 before LDLT, operative blood loss volume of ≥8.0 L was a risk factor for severe SFSS. LL-LDLT in adults could be indicated and provide acceptable outcomes for the combinations of donors aged < 48 years and recipients with a MELD score of <19. Smaller grafts might yield acceptable outcomes in appropriately selected donor-recipient combinations. Liver Transplantation 22 1666-1675 2016 AASLD.

Ikegami T ，Yoshizumi T ，Sakata K ，Uchiyama H ，Harimoto N ，Harada N ，Itoh S ，Nagatsu A ，Soejima Y ，Maehara Y ... -  《-》

Living donor liver transplantation with dual grafts -- a case report.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) exposes to risks both the donor, due to a potential small residual liver volume, and the recipient, who faces the risk of small-for-size graft syndrome. In order to overcome these drawbacks, liver grafts from two different donors can be used. This paper presents a case of dual graft LDLT using a right hemiliver and a left lateral section from related donors. A 14-year old female diagnosed with chronic hepatic failure due to Wilson's disease with Model-for-End- Stage-Liver-Disease score of 25, underwent a dual graft LDLT, receiving a right hemiliver with a reconstructed middle hepatic vein from her sister, and a left lateral section from her mother. None of the grafts complied with a satisfactory graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR), if they would have been independently transplanted. The combined GRWR was 1.10. The donors and the recipient have been followed-up for over 1 year. The donors had no postoperative complications. The donors and the recipient were discharged 8 and 19 days after surgery, respectively. After 12-month follow-up, both donors and the recipient were alive, with normal graft function. Dual graft LDLT can be a feasible solution to overcome the risk of small-for-size graft syndrome. BSA = body surface area, GRWR = graft-to-recipient weight ratio, GV SLV = recipient standard liver volume, HA = hepatic artery, HD = hepatic duct, HV = hepatic vein, LDLT = Living donor liver transplantation, LL = left lobe, LLS = left lateral section, MELD = Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, POD = postoperative day, PV = portal vein, RL = right lobe, SFS = small-for-size graft, SLV = standard liver volume, WD = Wilson's disease.

Botea F ，Braşoveanu V ，Constantinescu A ，Ionescu M ，Matei E ，Popescu I ... -  《Chirurgia》

Outcomes of right-lobe and left-lobe living-donor liver transplantations using small-for-size grafts.

She WH ，Chok KS ，Fung JY ，Chan AC ，Lo CM ... -  《-》

Impact of Graft Type in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Remnant Liver Regeneration and Outcome in Donors.

Liver regeneration and donor safety in right-lobe (RL) and left-lobe (LL) grafts are essential for donors in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Our aim was to compare the liver regeneration rate and postoperative outcome between different donor graft types in LDLT. A total of 95 donors were divided into 2 groups: RL (n = 42) and LL (n = 53). The remnant liver of LL donors were subdivided into 3 subgroups according to the different hepatic venous drainage pattern that dominates from right hepatic vein (dominant RHV; n = 34), middle hepatic vein (dominant MHV; n = 10), and include MHV for left lateral segment (LLS) graft (n = 9). The demographic data, postoperative laboratory data, complications, remnant liver volume (RLV), and remnant liver regeneration rate (RLRR) 6 months after surgery were compared. The postoperative total bilirubin (TB), prothrombin time (PT), and intensive care unit (ICU) stays of the LL group were lower than the RL group (P < .05). The LL group has no significant better regeneration rate 6 months after surgery than the RL group. However, dominant RHV and LLS groups have significantly better RLRR than the RL group (89.2% vs 86% and 95.1% vs 86%, respectively, P < .05), but no significance in the dominant MHV group. In conclusion, different hepatic venous drainage patterns of remnant liver grafts may affect the regeneration rate in LL LDLT, especially with dominant RHV donors, may have more comparable outcomes with that of RL, and should be a favorable option during donor selection.

Tsang LL ，Tung YC ，Hsu HW ，Ou HY ，Yu CY ，Huang TL ，Chen CL ，Cheng YF ... -  《-》