BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: The expanding applicability of liver transplantation as treatment for end-stage liver disease has fostered a disproportionate increase in liver transplant candidates in the face of an unchanging pool of donor organs. This has resulted in disparities in pretransplant waiting times and deaths. The splitting of a liver allograft allows for the transplantation of 2 recipients, usually an adult and a child, thus providing a means to expand the cadaveric donor pool. METHODS: The authors present their results on the performance of an ex vivo (back table) split and in situ (in a hemodynamically stable cadaveric donor) split to evaluate safety, applicability, and effectiveness. Between November 1989 through April 1998, 54 split-liver transplant recipient operations were performed (24 pediatric and 30 adult). Thirty donors were procured: the ex vivo splitting yielded 25 grafts from 13 donors (donor age, 24.6+/-11 years), and the in-situ technique yielded 29 grafts from 17 donors (mean donor age of 25.5+/-10.4 years). Five donors involved interinstitutional sharing for which the left side of the graft was kept at the host hospital and the right side grafts were utilized at our center. RESULTS: Overall 1-year patient survival was 85%, with a graft survival of 72%. Patient survival was similar with ex vivo (74%) as compared with the in situ splitting group (96%; P = .06), as was graft survival in ex vivo (61 %) versus in situ (81%) splitting (P = .15). The pediatric population benefited most from the in situ technique, with a 1-year patient survival rate of 100% with the in situ technique versus the ex vivo technique survival rate of 64% at 1 year (P = .02). The 1-year graft survival comparing these 2 techniques was 83% for the in situ group versus 45% for the ex vivo group. Analysis of the program evolution of split-liver transplantation suggested a time-dependent learning curve, which was applicable to surgical splitting technique, implantation, and recipient selection. CONCLUSIONS: The principle of splitting livers from cadaveric donors is fundamentally sound and technically feasible. The authors' outcomes analysis using 2 different procurement techniques suggests that the in situ technique is clinically efficacious, can be used alternatively with the ex vivo technique, and is comparable to whole-liver allograft transplantation.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: The expanding applicability of liver transplantation as treatment for end-stage liver disease has fostered a disproportionate increase in liver transplant candidates in the face of an unchanging pool of donor organs. This has resulted in disparities in pretransplant waiting times and deaths. The splitting of a liver allograft allows for the transplantation of 2 recipients, usually an adult and a child, thus providing a means to expand the cadaveric donor pool. METHODS: The authors present their results on the performance of an ex vivo (back table) split and in situ (in a hemodynamically stable cadaveric donor) split to evaluate safety, applicability, and effectiveness. Between November 1989 through April 1998, 54 split-liver transplant recipient operations were performed (24 pediatric and 30 adult). Thirty donors were procured: the ex vivo splitting yielded 25 grafts from 13 donors (donor age, 24.6+/-11 years), and the in-situ technique yielded 29 grafts from 17 donors (mean donor age of 25.5+/-10.4 years). Five donors involved interinstitutional sharing for which the left side of the graft was kept at the host hospital and the right side grafts were utilized at our center. RESULTS: Overall 1-year patient survival was 85%, with a graft survival of 72%. Patient survival was similar with ex vivo (74%) as compared with the in situ splitting group (96%; P = .06), as was graft survival in ex vivo (61 %) versus in situ (81%) splitting (P = .15). The pediatric population benefited most from the in situ technique, with a 1-year patient survival rate of 100% with the in situ technique versus the ex vivo technique survival rate of 64% at 1 year (P = .02). The 1-year graft survival comparing these 2 techniques was 83% for the in situ group versus 45% for the ex vivo group. Analysis of the program evolution of split-liver transplantation suggested a time-dependent learning curve, which was applicable to surgical splitting technique, implantation, and recipient selection. CONCLUSIONS: The principle of splitting livers from cadaveric donors is fundamentally sound and technically feasible. The authors' outcomes analysis using 2 different procurement techniques suggests that the in situ technique is clinically efficacious, can be used alternatively with the ex vivo technique, and is comparable to whole-liver allograft transplantation.
Authors: Dieter C Broering; Christian Wilms; Christian Lenk; Jan Schulte am Esch; Silke Schönherr; Lars Mueller; Jong-Sun Kim; Knut Helmke; Martin Burdelski; Xavier Rogiers Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: D C Broering; L Mueller; R Ganschow; J S Kim; E G Achilles; H Schäfer; M Gundlach; L Fischer; M Sterneck; C Hillert; K Helmke; J R Izbicki; M Burdelski; X Rogiers Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 12.969