BACKGROUND: In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) > 0.8% is perceived as the critical graft size. This lower limit of GRWR (0.8%) has been challenged over the last decade owing to the surgical refinements, especially related to inflow and outflow modulation techniques. Our aim was to compare the recipient outcome in small-for-size (GRWR < 0.8) versus normal-sized grafts (GRWR > 0.8) and to determine the risk factors for mortality when small-for-size grafts (SFSG) were used. METHODS: Data of 200 transplant recipients and their donors were analyzed over a period of two years. Routine practice of harvesting middle hepatic vein (MHV) or reconstructing anterior sectoral veins into neo-MHV was followed during LDLT. Outcomes were compared in terms of mortality, hospital stay, ICU stay, and occurrence of various complications such as functional small-for-size syndrome (F-SFSS), hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT), early allograft dysfunction (EAD), portal vein thrombosis (PVT), and postoperative sepsis. A multivariate analysis was also done to determine the risk factors for mortality in both the groups. RESULTS: Recipient and donor characteristics, intraoperative variables, and demographical data were comparable in both the groups (GRWR < 0.8 and GRWR ≥ 0.8). Postoperative 90-day mortality (15.5% vs. 22.85%), mean ICU stay (10 vs. 10.32 days), and mean hospital stay (21.4 vs. 20.76 days) were statistically similar in the groups. There was no difference in postoperative outcomes such as occurrence of SFSS, HAT, PVT, EAD, or sepsis between the groups. Thrombosis of MHV/reconstructed MHV was a risk factor for mortality in grafts with GRWR < 0.8 but not in those with GRWR > 0.8. CONCLUSION: Graft survival after LDLT using a small-for-size right lobe graft (GRWR < 0.8%) is as good as with normal grafts. However, patency of anterior sectoral outflow by MHV or reconstructed MHV is crucial to maintain graft function when SFSG are used.
BACKGROUND: In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) > 0.8% is perceived as the critical graft size. This lower limit of GRWR (0.8%) has been challenged over the last decade owing to the surgical refinements, especially related to inflow and outflow modulation techniques. Our aim was to compare the recipient outcome in small-for-size (GRWR < 0.8) versus normal-sized grafts (GRWR > 0.8) and to determine the risk factors for mortality when small-for-size grafts (SFSG) were used. METHODS: Data of 200 transplant recipients and their donors were analyzed over a period of two years. Routine practice of harvesting middle hepatic vein (MHV) or reconstructing anterior sectoral veins into neo-MHV was followed during LDLT. Outcomes were compared in terms of mortality, hospital stay, ICU stay, and occurrence of various complications such as functional small-for-size syndrome (F-SFSS), hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT), early allograft dysfunction (EAD), portal vein thrombosis (PVT), and postoperative sepsis. A multivariate analysis was also done to determine the risk factors for mortality in both the groups. RESULTS: Recipient and donor characteristics, intraoperative variables, and demographical data were comparable in both the groups (GRWR < 0.8 and GRWR ≥ 0.8). Postoperative 90-day mortality (15.5% vs. 22.85%), mean ICU stay (10 vs. 10.32 days), and mean hospital stay (21.4 vs. 20.76 days) were statistically similar in the groups. There was no difference in postoperative outcomes such as occurrence of SFSS, HAT, PVT, EAD, or sepsis between the groups. Thrombosis of MHV/reconstructed MHV was a risk factor for mortality in grafts with GRWR < 0.8 but not in those with GRWR > 0.8. CONCLUSION: Graft survival after LDLT using a small-for-size right lobe graft (GRWR < 0.8%) is as good as with normal grafts. However, patency of anterior sectoral outflow by MHV or reconstructed MHV is crucial to maintain graft function when SFSG are used.
Entities:
Keywords:
AALDLT, adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation; CLD, chronic liver disease; DDLT, deceased donor liver transplantation; EAD, early allograft dysfunction; GRWR, graft-to-recipient weight ratio; HAT, hepatic artery thrombosis; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; ICU, intensive care unit; LDLT, living donor liver transplantation; MHV, middle hepatic vein; PHTN, portal hypertension; PNF, primary nonfunction; PVT, portal vein thrombosis; SFSG, small-for-size graft; SFSS, small-for-size syndrome; cirrhosis; small for size grafts; small for size syndrome; transplantation
Authors: Kim M Olthoff; Laura Kulik; Benjamin Samstein; Mary Kaminski; Michael Abecassis; Jean Emond; Abraham Shaked; Jason D Christie Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: T Kiuchi; M Kasahara; K Uryuhara; Y Inomata; S Uemoto; K Asonuma; H Egawa; S Fujita; M Hayashi; K Tanaka Journal: Transplantation Date: 1999-01-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: John P Duffy; Andrew Vardanian; Elizabeth Benjamin; Melissa Watson; Douglas G Farmer; Rafik M Ghobrial; Gerald Lipshutz; Hasan Yersiz; David S K Lu; Charles Lassman; Myron J Tong; Jonathan R Hiatt; Ronald W Busuttil Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Markus Selzner; Arash Kashfi; Mark S Cattral; Nazia Selzner; Paul D Greig; Les Lilly; Ian D McGilvray; George Therapondos; Lesley E Adcock; Anand Ghanekar; Gary A Levy; Eberhard L Renner; David R Grant Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: H Kokai; Y Sato; S Yamamoto; H Oya; H Nakatsuka; T Watanabe; K Takizawa; K Hatakeyama Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Maitane I Orue-Echebarria; Javier Vaquero; Cristina J Lisbona; Pablo Lozano; Miguel A Steiner; Álvaro Morales; José Á López-Baena; Juan Laso; Inmaculada Hernández; Luis Olmedilla; José L García Sabrido; Isabel Peligros; Emma Sola; Carlos Carballal; Elena Vara; J M Asencio Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 3.452