Background We present a retrospective analysis of our experience with pediatric liver transplantation (LT), focusing on the long‐term outcome of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) for post‐transplant biliary strictures. Methods Fifty‐three PTBDs were performed for 41 pediatric recipients with biliary strictures. The median ages at LT and PTBD were 1.4 and 4.4 years, respectively. The median observation period was 10.6 years. Results Post‐transplant biliary strictures comprised anastomotic stricture (AS) in 28 cases, nonanastomotic stricture (NAS) in 12, anastomotic obstruction (AO) in 8, and nonanastomotic obstruction (NAO) in 5. The success rate of PTBD was 90.6%, and the 15‐year primary patency rate of PTBD was 52.6%. The recurrence rate of biliary strictures after PTBD was 18.8% (9/48), and among the four NAS cases with recurrence, two underwent re‐LT. The biliary obstruction rate was 27.1% (13/48). Among the eight cases with AO, five underwent the rendezvous method and three underwent surgical re‐anastomosis. Among the five cases with NAO, one underwent re‐LT. The recipient survival rate of PTBD treatment was 100%. Conclusions The graft prognosis of AS by PTBD treatment is good and AO is curable by the rendezvous method and surgical re‐anastomosis. However, the graft prognosis of NAS and NAO is poor.
There are few long-term outcome reports for interventional radiology (IVR) treatments for vascular and biliary complications following pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Herein, we presented our institution's experience and investigated the efficacy and issues of long-term outcome with IVR treatments. Between May 2001 and September 2016, 279 pediatric LDLTs were performed. The median age at LDLT was 1.4 years old, and the median observation period was 8.2 years. All the biliary reconstructions at LDLT were hepaticojejunostomy. The IVR treatments were selected as endovascular, radiological, or endoscopic interventions. Post-transplant hepatic vein, portal vein, hepatic artery, and biliary complications were present in 7.9%, 14.0%, 5.4%, and 18.3%, respectively. IVR treatment was the first treatment option in 81.8%, 94.9%, 46.7%, and 94.1%, respectively. The recurrence and cure rates following IVR treatment were 42.1%, 21.1%, 44.4%, and 34.0% and 84.2%, 97.4%, 100%, and 88.0%, respectively. The graft survival rates in patients with and without post-transplant vascular and biliary complications were 94.4% and 90.6%, respectively (P = 0.522). The IVR treatments for vascular and biliary complications following pediatric LDLT are the first choice option. Although the recurrence following IVR treatment is a major problem and it is necessary to carefully perform long-term follow-up, IVR treatments have good treatment outcomes.
Background. We present retrospective analysis of our 15-year experience with pediatric living donor liver transplantation, focusing on the risk factors, treatments, and long-term prognosis for posttransplant biliary complications (BCs). Methods. Between May 2001 and December 2017, 290 living donor liver transplantations were performed. The median age was 1.4 years old. The median observation period was 8.4 years. Biliary strictures were classified as anastomotic stricture (AS) or non-AS (NAS). Results. Overall incidence of biliary complications was 18.6%, including AS in 46 cases, NAS in 6, and other classifications in 2. The mean period to diagnosis of the AS was 641 ± 810 postoperative days. The multivariate analysis showed that hepaticojejunostomy without external stent was an independent risk factor for AS (P = 0.011). The first treatments for AS were percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in 25 cases, double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in 19, and surgical reanastomosis in 2. The success and recurrence rates of PTBD treatments were 90.9% and 22.7%, respectively. The success and recurrence rates of endoscopic interventions under DBE were 93.6% and 75.3%, respectively. The 15-year graft survival rates in patients with and without AS were 95.7% and 89.1%, respectively (P = 0.255), but 2 patients with cholangitis due to multiple NAS underwent retransplantation. Conclusions. Posttransplant AS can be prevented by hepaticojejunostomy using external stent, and the long-term prognosis is good with early treatments using DBE or PTBD. However, the prognosis of multiple NAS is poor.
Early relaparotomy of adult recipients after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is significantly associated with poor prognosis. However, there are few reports focusing on pediatric recipients after LDLT. The aim of this study is to clarify the causes and outcomes of early relaparotomy after pediatric LDLT. A total of 265 pediatric recipients (272 LDLTs) transplanted from May 2001 to October 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Early relaparotomy was defined as surgical intervention performed within 3 months after LDLT. Early relaparotomy was performed 49 times for 33 recipients (12.5%). The recipient and graft survival rates in the early relaparotomy group were significantly lower than those in the nonearly relaparotomy group, respectively (75.0% and 63.6% versus 96.6% and 95.8%; both P < 0.001). Left lateral segment grafts were used significantly more frequently in the nonrelaparotomy group (P = 0.01). According to the multivariate analysis, the preoperative Pediatric End‐Stage Liver Disease (PELD)/Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of the early relaparotomy group was significantly higher than that of the nonearly relaparotomy group (13.7 versus 6.3; P = 0.04). According to the receiver operating characteristic curve, the preoperative PELD/MELD score cutoff point was 17.2. Early relaparotomy due to infectious causes led to significantly poorer graft survival than that due to noninfectious causes (P = 0.04). In conclusion, the recipient and graft survival rates of the early relaparotomy group were significantly lower than those of the nonearly relaparotomy group. A high preoperative PELD/MELD score was a risk factor for early relaparotomy. In particular, early relaparotomy due to infection showed a poor prognosis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.