INTRODUCTION: The results of orthotopic liver transplantation in patients with end-stage liver disease continue to improve. Refinements in surgical techniques represent an important part of this improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With the advent of split-liver and living-donor liver transplantation, inferior vena cava (IVC) preservation transitioned from being a potential option to being mandatory for many cases. Preserving the IVC can be a demanding technical maneuver in many liver transplants and several different approaches have been developed. When utilizing IVC preservation, there are several options for implantation of the graft. The piggyback technique, when feasible, is considered safe and provides hemodynamic stability for the recipient. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In some cases it may be difficult to perform the piggyback technique if intense inflammatory adhesions and severe significant collateral circulation exist between the IVC and the posterior segments of the liver. In these cases, the retro-hepatic dissection can be carried out with a different approach: the infrahepatic vena cava and the confluence of the three hepatic veins can be cross-clamped en-bloc without dissection. CONCLUSION: This technique broadens the transplant surgeons' armamentarium and can be used in the setting of a very difficult retro-hepatic dissection. It is safe, and allows a shorter anhepatic phase with caval preservation.
INTRODUCTION: The results of orthotopic liver transplantation in patients with end-stage liver disease continue to improve. Refinements in surgical techniques represent an important part of this improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With the advent of split-liver and living-donor liver transplantation, inferior vena cava (IVC) preservation transitioned from being a potential option to being mandatory for many cases. Preserving the IVC can be a demanding technical maneuver in many liver transplants and several different approaches have been developed. When utilizing IVC preservation, there are several options for implantation of the graft. The piggyback technique, when feasible, is considered safe and provides hemodynamic stability for the recipient. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In some cases it may be difficult to perform the piggyback technique if intense inflammatory adhesions and severe significant collateral circulation exist between the IVC and the posterior segments of the liver. In these cases, the retro-hepatic dissection can be carried out with a different approach: the infrahepatic vena cava and the confluence of the three hepatic veins can be cross-clamped en-bloc without dissection. CONCLUSION: This technique broadens the transplant surgeons' armamentarium and can be used in the setting of a very difficult retro-hepatic dissection. It is safe, and allows a shorter anhepatic phase with caval preservation.
Authors: U J Hesse; F Berrevoet; R Troisi; P Pattyn; E Mortier; J Decruyenaere; B de Hemptinne Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: T E Starzl; C G Groth; L Brettschneider; I Penn; V A Fulginiti; J B Moon; H Blanchard; A J Martin; K A Porter Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1968-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: M Hosein Shokouh-Amiri; A Osama Gaber; W A Bagous; H P Grewal; D K Hathaway; S R Vera; R J Stratta; T N Bagous; T Kizilisik Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: E Jovine; A Mazziotti; G L Grazi; G Ercolani; M Masetti; M Morganti; F Pierangeli; B Begliomini; P G Mazzetti; R Rossi; R Paladini; A Cavallari Journal: Transpl Int Date: 1997 Impact factor: 3.782
Authors: B W Shaw; D J Martin; J M Marquez; Y G Kang; A C Bugbee; S Iwatsuki; B P Griffith; R L Hardesty; H T Bahnson; T E Starzl Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1984-10 Impact factor: 12.969