No abstract

Despite advances in the practice of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), the optimum surgical approach with respect to the middle hepatic vein (MHV) in right lobe LDLT remains undefined. We designed a randomized trial to compare the early postoperative outcomes in recipients and donors between extended right lobe grafts (ERGs; transection plane was maintained to the left of MHV and division of MHV performed beyond the segment VIII vein) and modified right lobe grafts (MRGs; transection plane was maintained to the right of MHV; the segment V and VIII drainage was reconstructed using a conduit of recipient portal vein). Eligible patients (n = 86) were prospectively randomized into the ERG arm (n = 43) and the MRG arm (n = 43) at the beginning of donor hepatectomy. The primary endpoint considered in this equivalence trial was patency of the MHV or the reconstructed "neo-MHV" in the recipient. The secondary endpoints included biochemical parameters, postoperative complications, mortality in recipients as well as donors and volume regeneration of remnant liver in donors, measured at 2 months. The patency of the MHV was comparable in the ERG and MRG arms (90.7% versus 81.4%; difference, 9.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.8 to 24.4; z score, 1.245; P = 0.21). Volume regeneration of the remnant liver in donors was significantly better in the MRG arm (111.3% versus 87.3%; mean difference, 24%; 95% CI, 14.6-33.3; P < 0.001). The remaining secondary endpoints in donors and recipients were similar between the 2 arms. To conclude, MRG with reconstructed neo-MHV has comparable patency to native MHV in ERG and confers equivalent graft outflow in the recipient. Furthermore, it allows better remnant liver regeneration in the donor at 2 months. Liver Transplantation 24 888-896 2018 AASLD.

The role of prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) infusion in improving early graft function has not been well defined, especially in the scenario of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We designed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the role of perioperative PGE1 infusion in LDLT. Patients in the study arm received PGE1 (alprostadil) at the rate of 0.25 μg/kg/hour, starting at 1 hour after portal venous reperfusion, and continued for 96 hours. The primary endpoint was early allograft dysfunction (EAD). We analyzed multiple secondary endpoints including postoperative liver function and renal function parameters, acute kidney injury (AKI), hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT), postoperative bleeding, overall mortality, and posttransplant hospital stay. The incidence of EAD was lower in the PGE1 arm, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (22.4% versus 36%; P = 0.21). Among the secondary endpoints, the incidence of AKI was significantly lower in the PGE1 arm (8.2% versus 28%; P = 0.02), as were the peak and mean postoperative creatinine levels. The need for renal replacement therapy was similar between the 2 groups. Among the postoperative graft function parameters, postoperative alanine aminotransferase level was significantly lower in the PGE1 arm (P = 0.04), whereas the remaining parameters including serum bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, and international normalized ratio were similar between the 2 arms. There was no difference in the incidence of HAT and postoperative bleeding, in-hospital mortality, and posttransplant hospital stay between the 2 arms. Perioperative PGE1 infusion reduces the incidence of posttransplant renal dysfunction in patients undergoing LDLT. Liver Transplantation 22 1067-1074 2016 AASLD.

Background: Robotic right donor hepatectomy (RDH) has been reported from experienced centers with reduced morbidity when compared to open RDH. However, outcomes in donors with large grafts/complex biliovascular anatomy are unknown.Methods: Out of 170 robotic RDH, 100 had one or more of the following: graft weight ≥800 g, type 2/3 portal vein, >1 bile duct or hepatic artery and inferior hepatic veins >5 mm requiring reconstruction (extended criteria donors [ExRDH]), while the remaining 70 had standard anatomy (SRDH). After propensity score matching, 66 ExRDH were compared with 66 SRDH. Additionally, all robotic RDH performed were analyzed in three temporal phases (60, 60, and 50).Results: Peak AST and ALT were higher amongst donors and recipients in the ExRDH arm compared to SRDH. Other intraoperative parameters and postoperative complications were similar between the two groups. During the last phase, donors demonstrated reduction in duration of surgery, postoperative complications, and hospital stay while recipients showed decreased blood loss and hospital stay. Conclusion:Robotic right hepatectomy performed in donors with extended criteria have similar perioperative outcomes as standard donors. However, a significant learning curve needs to be traversed. Further studies are required before safely recommending robotic RDH for all donors.

No abstract

No abstract

Robotic right live donor hepatectomy (r‐LDRH) has been reported with reduced morbidity compared to open donor right hepatectomy (o‐LDRH) in few recent series. Nevertheless, its routine use is debated. We present a large series comparing pure r‐LDRH with o‐LDRH. Consecutive r‐LDRH performed from June 2018 to June 2020 (n = 102) were compared with consecutive donors undergoing o‐LDRH (n = 152) from February 2016 to February 2018, a period when r‐LDRH was not available at this center. Propensity score matched (PSM) analysis of 89 case‐control pairs was additionally performed. Primary endpoints were length of high dependency unit (HDU) and hospital stay and Clavien‐Dindo graded complications among donors. Although r‐LDRH took longer to perform (540 vs. 462 min, P < .001), the postoperative peak transaminases levels (P < .001), the length of HDU (3 vs. 4 days, P < .001), and hospital stay (8 vs. 9 days, P < .001) were lower in in donors undergoing r‐LDRH. Clavien‐Dindo graded complications were similar (16.67% in r‐LDRH and 13.16% in o‐LDRH). The rates of early allograft dysfunction (1.6% vs. 3.3%), bile leak (14.7% vs. 10.7%), and 1‐year mortality (13.7% vs. 11.8%) were comparable between r‐LDRH and o‐LDRH recipients. PSM analysis yielded similar results between the groups. These data support the safety and feasibility of r‐LDRH in select donors.

Background In adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), venous drainage of the anterior sector is usually reconstructed on the bench to form a neo-middle hepatic vein (MHV). Reconstruction of the MHV for drainage of the anterior sector is crucial for optimal graft function. The conduits used for reconstruction include cryopreserved allografts, synthetic grafts, or the recipient portal vein. However, the ideal choice remains a matter of debate. This study compares the efficacy of the native recipient portal vein (RPV) with PTFE grafts for reconstruction of the neo-MHV. Methods Patients in this equivalence-controlled, parallel-group trial were randomized to either RPV (62 patients) or PTFE (60 patients) for use in the reconstruction of the neo-MHV. Primary endpoint was neo-MHV patency at 14 days and 90 days. Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality and post-transplant parameters as scored by predefined scoring systems. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of neo-MHV thrombosis at 14 days (RPV 6.5 per cent versus PTFE 10 per cent; P = 0.701) and 90 days (RPV 14.5 per cent versus PTFE 18.3 per cent; P = 0.745) between the two groups. Irrespective of the type of graft used for reconstruction, 90-day all-cause and sepsis-specific mortality was significantly higher among patients who developed neo-MHV thrombosis. Neo-MHV thrombosis and sepsis were identified as risk factors for mortality on Cox proportional hazards analysis. No harms or unintended side effects were observed in either group. Conclusion In adult LDLT using modified right lobe graft, use of either PTFE or RPV for neo-MHV reconstruction resulted in similar early patency rates. Irrespective of the type of conduit used for reconstruction, neo-MHV thrombosis is a significant risk factor for mortality. Registration number CTRI/2018/11/016315 (www.ctri.nic.in).