BACKGROUND: Hepatic vein outflow is discussed in liver transplantation after preservation of recipient retrohepatic vena cava. The aim of this study was to compare two methods of suparahepatic caval anastomosis. METHODS: From January 1993 to January 1995, 81 patients received 88 liver transplants because of liver cirrhosis (n = 70), acute liver failure (n = 7), elective retransplantation after hepatic artery thrombosis (n = 2), giant hemangioma (n = 1), and combined liver-small bowel transplantation (n = 1). Seven patients underwent urgent retransplantation, 12 had preoperative transjugular intrahepatic portocaval stent, and 11 had portal vein thrombosis. Five patients required extracorporeal venous shunt. A total of 82 liver transplantations had preservation of RHVC, and 70 patients received temporary end-to-side portacaval shunt. Suprahepatic caval anastomosis was carried out in 52 patients (group 1) between the graft suprahepatic vena cava and the ostia of recipient left and median hepatic veins. Thirty patients (group 2) had associated 3 cm vertical cavotomy with partial clamping of RHVC. In the fourth postoperative month 20 patients from each group had pressure and gradient measurement made among the hepatic veins, right atria, and the RHVC. RESULTS: Mean pressure gradient between hepatic veins and right atria was 0.75 +/- 0.49 mm Hg in group 1 and 2.06 +/- 0.85 mm Hg in group 2. Between the RHVC and the right atria it was 0.63 +/- 0.5 mm Hg in group 1 and 2.22 +/- 1.29 mm Hg in group 2. A pressure gradient higher than 3 mm Hg was considered hemodynamically significant. This pressure gradient was found between the hepatic veins and right atria in 10% of patients in group 1 and 40% of patients in group 2 (p = 0.03) and between the RHVC and right atria in 15% of patients in group 1 and 30% of patients in group 2 (p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Preservation of the recipient RHVC with recipient caval anastomosis at the ostia of the median and left hepatic veins is a reliable technique without any hepatic venous outflow alteration. Associated cavotomy is not necessary.
BACKGROUND: Hepatic vein outflow is discussed in liver transplantation after preservation of recipient retrohepatic vena cava. The aim of this study was to compare two methods of suparahepatic caval anastomosis. METHODS: From January 1993 to January 1995, 81 patients received 88 liver transplants because of liver cirrhosis (n = 70), acute liver failure (n = 7), elective retransplantation after hepatic artery thrombosis (n = 2), giant hemangioma (n = 1), and combined liver-small bowel transplantation (n = 1). Seven patients underwent urgent retransplantation, 12 had preoperative transjugular intrahepatic portocaval stent, and 11 had portal vein thrombosis. Five patients required extracorporeal venous shunt. A total of 82 liver transplantations had preservation of RHVC, and 70 patients received temporary end-to-side portacaval shunt. Suprahepatic caval anastomosis was carried out in 52 patients (group 1) between the graft suprahepatic vena cava and the ostia of recipient left and median hepatic veins. Thirty patients (group 2) had associated 3 cm vertical cavotomy with partial clamping of RHVC. In the fourth postoperative month 20 patients from each group had pressure and gradient measurement made among the hepatic veins, right atria, and the RHVC. RESULTS: Mean pressure gradient between hepatic veins and right atria was 0.75 +/- 0.49 mm Hg in group 1 and 2.06 +/- 0.85 mm Hg in group 2. Between the RHVC and the right atria it was 0.63 +/- 0.5 mm Hg in group 1 and 2.22 +/- 1.29 mm Hg in group 2. A pressure gradient higher than 3 mm Hg was considered hemodynamically significant. This pressure gradient was found between the hepatic veins and right atria in 10% of patients in group 1 and 40% of patients in group 2 (p = 0.03) and between the RHVC and right atria in 15% of patients in group 1 and 30% of patients in group 2 (p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Preservation of the recipient RHVC with recipient caval anastomosis at the ostia of the median and left hepatic veins is a reliable technique without any hepatic venous outflow alteration. Associated cavotomy is not necessary.
Authors: Carlo Ferro; Enzo Andorno; Andrea Guastavino; Umberto G Rossi; Sara Seitun; Giulio Bovio; Umberto Valente Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2013-12-20 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Ammar Sarwar; Edward Ahn; Ian Brennan; Olga R Brook; Salomao Faintuch; Raza Malik; Khalid Khwaja; Muneeb Ahmed Journal: World J Hepatol Date: 2015-07-18
Authors: Seigo Nishida; Noboru Nakamura; Anil Vaidya; David M Levi; Tomoaki Kato; Jose R Nery; Juan R Madariaga; Enrique Molina; Phillip Ruiz; Anthony Gyamfi; Andreas G Tzakis Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2006 Impact factor: 3.647