| Literature DB >> 35770102 |
Jung-Man Namgoong1, Shin Hwang1, Dae-Yeon Kim1, Tae-Yong Ha1, Gi-Won Song1, Dong-Hwan Jung1, Gil-Chun Park1, Kyung Mo Kim2, Seak Hee Oh2.
Abstract
Background: We investigated the incidence and outcomes of pediatric deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) using whole liver grafts in a high-volume liver transplantation (LT) center.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescent; Deceased donor liver transplantation; Donor age; Infant; Pediatric donor
Year: 2020 PMID: 35770102 PMCID: PMC9186848 DOI: 10.4285/kjt.20.0036
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Transplant ISSN: 2671-8790
Fig. 1Illustration of the modified piggyback technique to make a large cavocaval anastomosis. After clamping of the suprahepatic and retrohepatic inferior vena cava (IVC), the orifices of the right, middle, and left hepatic vein trunks are opened altogether to make a large single orifice. A 4–5-cm-long longitudinal incision is made at the ventral surface of the retrohepatic IVC to enlarge the anastomotic vein orifice. A 4-cm-long longitudinal incision is also made at the dorsal surface of the graft IVC. These triangular-shaped orifices at the recipient and graft IVCs are well matched, thus being tolerant to extrinsic compression.
Fig. 2Illustration of the side-to-side unification technique used for portal vein (PV) reconstruction. A deep longitudinal incision is made at the 6 o’clock direction of the graft PV and the 12 o’clock direction of the recipient PV. Running sutures are used to unify these two PVs. This technique creates an enlarged conduit from the superior mesenteric vein-splenic vein confluence to the hilar PV confluence.
Fig. 3Scatter plots showing the age distribution of recipients and donors. Distribution of all the 34 recipients (A) and younger subgroups with recipient age ≤6 years (B). A dotted line denotes correlation.
Comparison of recipient and donor profiles
| Variable | Pediatric-to-pediatric transplantation | Adult-to-pediatric transplantation | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients | 22 | 12 | - |
| Recipient sex (male:female) | 8:14 | 8:4 | 0.09 |
| Recipient age (yr) | 4.2±4.4 | 13.8±2.1 | <0.001 |
| Primary disease | NA | ||
| Biliary atresia | 12 | 1 | |
| Acute liver failure | 0 | 4 | |
| Wilson disease | 0 | 4 | |
| Metabolic disease | 3 | 0 | |
| Congenital portal vein agenesis | 3 | 0 | |
| Retransplantation | 2 | 2 | |
| Others | 2 | 1 | |
| Recipient ABO blood group | NA | ||
| A | 8 | 4 | |
| B | 2 | 2 | |
| O | 6 | 5 | |
| AB | 6 | 1 | |
| Preoperative laboratory finding | |||
| Total bilirubin (mg/dL) | 11.3±11.1 | 20.6±13.6 | 0.05 |
| Albumin (g/dL) | 2.9±0.6 | 3.1±0.7 | 0.51 |
| Serum creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.34±0.21 | 0.83±0.46 | <0.001 |
| Prothrombin time (INR) | 1.24±0.34 | 2.77±1.22 | <0.001 |
| PELD/MELD score | 10.5±7.3 | 27.0±8.6 | <0.001 |
| Donor sex (male:female) | 14:8 | 6:6 | 0.44 |
| Donor age (yr) | 3.4±3.9 | 42.3±10.1 | <0.001 |
| Graft weight (g) | 576.1±315.2 | 1,222.3±492.9 | <0.001 |
| Graft-recipient weight ratio | 3.69±1.66 | 2.68±0.91 | 0.03 |
| Ischemic time | |||
| Cold | 297.8±262.6 | 286.1±131.9 | 0.88 |
| Warm | 46.2±9.2 | 45.7±11.7 | 0.84 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
NA, not available; INR, international normalization ratio; PELD, pediatric end-stage liver disease; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease.
Fig. 4A scatter plot showing body weight distribution of recipients and donors. The red dotted line denotes correlation. Two green dotted lines indicate the range of donor body weight matching according to the Korean Network for Organ Sharing (KONOS) regulations. All cases except for one were located within the eligible range of recipient-donor weight matching.
Fig. 5A scatter plot showing the distribution of the recipient’s body and whole liver graft’s weight. The red dotted line denotes correlation.
Fig. 6Scatter plot showing the distribution of the recipient’s body and graft-recipient weight ratio (GRWR). The red dotted line denotes correlation. The green dotted line indicates the theoretical upper limit of GRWR according to the recipient’s body weight.
Fig. 7Kaplan-Meier analysis of the overall patient survival outcomes following whole liver transplantation in pediatric recipients.
| HIGHLIGHTS |
|---|
|
The study was a retrospective single-center analysis of whole liver transplantation in 34 pediatric recipients. Considering the reciprocal trades of liver organs among pediatric and adult donors and recipients, it is necessary to establish a policy for pediatric donor liver grafts to pediatric recipients on a priority basis. |