Motivations and outcomes of compatible living donor-recipient pairs in paired exchange.

Increasing numbers of compatible pairs are choosing to enter paired exchange programs, but motivations, outcomes, and system-level effects of participation are not well described. Using a linkage of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and National Kidney Registry, we compared outcomes of traditional (originally incompatible) recipients to originally compatible recipients using the Kaplan-Meier method. We identified 154 compatible pairs. Most pairs sought to improve HLA matching. Compared to the original donor, actual donors were younger (39 vs. 50 years, p < .001), less often female (52% vs. 68%, p < .01), higher BMI (27 vs. 25 kg/m², p = .03), less frequently blood type O (36% vs. 80%, p < .001), and had higher eGFR (99 vs. 94 ml/min/1.73 m², p = .02), with a better LKDPI (median 7 vs. 22, p < .001). We observed no differences in graft failure or mortality. Compatible pairs made 280 additional transplants possible, many in highly sensitized recipients with long wait times. Compatible pair recipients derived several benefits from paired exchange, including better donor quality. Living donor pairs should receive counseling regarding all options available, including kidney paired donation. As more compatible pairs choose to enter exchange programs, consideration should be given to optimizing compatible pair and hard-to-transplant recipient outcomes.

Molecular Insights in Transmission of Cancer From an Organ Donor to Four Transplant Recipients.

Organ donors are systematically screened for infection, whereas screening for malignancy is less rigorous. The true incidence of donor-transmitted malignancies is unknown due to a lack of universal tumor testing in the posttransplant setting. Donor-transmitted malignancy may occur even when not suspected based on donor or recipient factors, including age and time to cancer diagnosis. We describe the detection of a gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma transmitted from a young donor to 4 transplant recipients. Multidimensional histopathologic and genomic profiling showed a CDH1 mutation and MET amplification, consistent with gastric origin. At the time of writing, one patient in this series remains alive and without evidence of cancer after prompt organ explant after cancer was reported in other recipients. Because identification of a donor-derived malignancy changes management, our recommendation is to routinely perform short tandem repeat testing (or a comparable assay) immediately upon diagnosis of cancer in any organ transplant recipient. Routine testing for a donor-origin cancer and centralized reporting of outcomes are necessary to establish a robust evidence base for the future development of clinical practice guidelines.

Bi-organ paired exchange-Sentinel case of a liver-kidney swap.

Organ transplantation is the optimal treatment for patients with end stage liver disease and end stage renal disease. However, due to the imbalance in the demand and supply of deceased organs, most transplant centers worldwide have consciously pursued a strategy for living donation. Paired exchanges were introduced as a means to bypass various biologic incompatibilities (blood- and tissue-typing), while expanding the living donor pool. This shift in paradigm has introduced new ethical concerns that have hitherto been unaddressed, especially with nondirected, altruistic living donors. So far, transplant communities have focused efforts on separate liver- and kidney-paired exchanges, whereas the concept of a transorgan paired exchange has been theorized and could potentially facilitate a greater number of transplants. We describe the performance of the first successful liver-kidney swap.

Fatigue, Pain, and Other Physical Symptoms of Living Liver Donors in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study.

Little is known about living liver donors' perceptions of their physical well-being following the procedure. We collected data on donor fatigue, pain, and other relevant physical outcomes as part of the prospective, multicenter Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study consortium. A total of 271 (91%) of 297 eligible donors were interviewed at least once before donation and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after donation using validated measures when available. Repeated measures regression models were used to identify potential predictors of worse physical outcomes. We found that donors reported more fatigue immediately after surgery that improved by 2 years after donation, but not to predonation levels. A similar pattern was seen across a number of other physical outcomes. Abdominal or back pain and interference from their pain were rated relatively low on average at all study points. However, 21% of donors did report clinically significant pain at some point during postdonation study follow-up. Across multiple outcomes, female donors, donors whose recipients died, donors with longer hospital stays after surgery, and those whose families discouraged donation were at risk for worse physical well-being outcomes. In conclusion, although not readily modifiable, we have identified risk factors that may help identify donors at risk for worse physical outcomes for targeted intervention. Liver Transplantation 00 000-000 2018 AASLD.

De novo thyroid cancer following solid organ transplantation-A 25-year experience at a high-volume institution with a review of the literature.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We investigated the rate, stage, and prognosis of thyroid cancer in patients after solid-organ transplantations, and compared this to the general population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients who developed thyroid cancer after a solid-organ transplantation between January 1988 and December 2013 at a high volume transplant center. Standardized Incidence Ratio's (SIR) were calculated. Additionally, a systematic review of the literature was performed. RESULTS: A total of 10,428 patients underwent solid organ transplantation. Eleven patients (11.4 per 100,000 person-years) developed thyroid cancer: six men and five women with a mean age at diagnosis of thyroid cancer of 58 years. Ten patients underwent surgery and had stage I thyroid cancer. One patient had recurrent disease after a mean follow-up time of 78 months. The SIR varied between 0.75 and 2.3. Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review with a SIR ranging from 2.5 to 35. CONCLUSION: Rate of thyroid cancer is not significantly higher in patients who underwent solid organ transplantation compared to general population. Stage at presentation and prognosis also appear to be similar to that of the general population. Post-transplant screening for thyroid cancer remains debatable; however, when thyroid cancer is discovered, treatment should be similar to that of non-transplant patients. J. Surg. Oncol. 2017;115:105-108. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Long-term quality of life after liver donation in the adult to adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study (A2ALL).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are few long-term studies of the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in living liver donors. This study aimed to characterize donor HRQOL in the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study (A2ALL) up to 11 years post-donation. METHODS: Between 2004 and 2013, HRQOL was assessed at evaluation, at 3 months, and yearly post-donation in prevalent liver donors using the short-form survey (SF-36), which provides a physical (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS). RESULTS: Of the 458 donors enrolled in A2ALL, 374 (82%) had SF-36 data. Mean age at evaluation was 38 (range 18-63), 47% were male, 93% white, and 43% had a bachelor's degree or higher. MCS and PCS means were above the US population at all time points. However, at every time point there were some donors who reported poor scores (>1/2 standard deviation below the age and sex adjusted mean) (PCS: 5.3-26.8%, MCS: 10.0-25.0%). Predictors of poor PCS and MCS scores included recipient's death within the two years prior to the survey and education less than a bachelor's degree; poor PCS scores were also predicted by time since donation, Hispanic ethnicity, and at the 3-month post-donation time point. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, most living donors maintain above average HRQOL up to 11 years prospectively, supporting the notion that living donation does not negatively affect HRQOL. However, targeted support for donors at risk for poor HRQOL may improve overall HRQOL outcomes for living liver donors.

Defining long-term outcomes with living donor liver transplantation in North America.

OBJECTIVES: To compare long-term survival of living donor liver transplant (LDLT) at experienced transplant centers with outcomes of deceased donor liver transplant and identify key variables impacting patient and graft survival. BACKGROUND: The Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study is a prospective multicenter National Institutes of Health study comparing outcomes of LDLT and deceased donor liver transplant and associated risks. METHODS: Mortality and graft failure for 1427 liver recipients (963 LDLT) enrolled in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study who received transplant between January 1, 1998, and January 31, 2014, at 12 North American centers with median follow-up 6.7 years were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox models. RESULTS: Survival probability at 10 years was 70% for LDLT and 64% for deceased donor liver transplant. Unadjusted survival was higher with LDLT (hazard ratio = 0.76, P = 0.02) but attenuated after adjustment (hazard ratio = 0.98, P = 0.90) as LDLT recipients had lower mean model for end-stage liver disease (15.5 vs 20.4) and fewer received transplant from intensive care unit, were inpatient, on dialysis, were ventilated, or with ascites. Posttransplant intensive care unit days were less for LDLT recipients. For all recipients, female sex and primary sclerosing cholangitis were associated with improved survival, whereas dialysis and older recipient/donor age were associated with worse survival. Higher model for end-stage liver disease score was associated with increased graft failure. Era of transplantation and type of donated lobe did not impact survival in LDLT. CONCLUSIONS: LDLT provides significant long-term transplant benefit, resulting in transplantation at a lower model for end-stage liver disease score, decreased death on waitlist, and excellent posttransplant outcomes. Recipient diagnosis, disease severity, renal failure, and ages of recipient and donor should be considered in decision making regarding timing of transplant and donor options.Clinical Trials ID: NCT00096733.

Liver regeneration after living donor transplantation: adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study.

Adult-to-adult living donors and recipients were studied to characterize patterns of liver growth and identify associated factors in a multicenter study. Three hundred and fifty donors and 353 recipients in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) receiving transplants between March 2003 and February 2010 were included. Potential predictors of 3-month liver volume included total and standard liver volumes (TLV and SLV), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (in recipients), the remnant and graft size, remnant-to-donor and graft-to-recipient weight ratios (RDWR and GRWR), remnant/TLV, and graft/SLV. Among donors, 3-month absolute growth was 676 ± 251 g (mean ± SD), and percentage reconstitution was 80% ± 13%. Among recipients, GRWR was 1.3% ± 0.4% (8 < 0.8%). Graft weight was 60% ± 13% of SLV. Three-month absolute growth was 549 ± 267 g, and percentage reconstitution was 93% ± 18%. Predictors of greater 3-month liver volume included larger patient size (donors and recipients), larger graft volume (recipients), and larger TLV (donors). Donors with the smallest remnant/TLV ratios had larger than expected growth but also had higher postoperative bilirubin and international normalized ratio at 7 and 30 days. In a combined donor-recipient analysis, donors had smaller 3-month liver volumes than recipients adjusted for patient size, remnant or graft volume, and TLV or SLV (P = 0.004). Recipient graft failure in the first 90 days was predicted by poor graft function at day 7 (HR = 4.50, P = 0.001) but not by GRWR or graft fraction (P > 0.90 for each). Both donors and recipients had rapid yet incomplete restoration of tissue mass in the first 3 months, and this confirmed previous reports. Recipients achieved a greater percentage of expected total volume. Patient size and recipient graft volume significantly influenced 3-month volumes. Importantly, donor liver volume is a critical predictor of the rate of regeneration, and donor remnant fraction affects postresection function. Liver Transpl 21:79-88, 2015. © 2014 AASLD.

Restricting liver transplant recipients to younger donors does not increase the wait-list time or the dropout rate: the hepatitis C experience.

Older donor age is associated with lower graft and patient survival among all recipients of liver transplantation (LT). Among patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV), donor age is one of the strongest predictors of fibrosis severity and graft loss. We evaluated the implementation of a donor age restriction policy for LT patients with HCV at a single center and the effects that this policy had on wait-list (WL) and post-LT outcomes for HCV and non-HCV patients. This was a cohort study of 2388 WL patients and 1015 LT recipients between March 2002 and January 2013 and reflected 3 different eras of donor age policies. With the donor age restriction, the median donor age was reduced in LT recipients with HCV versus LT recipients without HCV (30 versus 48 years, P < 0.001) without differences in the WL time (10.6 versus 8.0 months, P = 0.23). According to a competing risks regression, those with HCV and those without HCV had lower subhazard ratios (SHRs) of dropout or death on the WL during the donor age restriction era versus the era without donor age restriction [SHR = 0.68 (P < 0.01) and SHR = 0.64 (P = 0.01), respectively]. No differences were seen in early post-LT survival for patients with or without HCV between eras (P = 0.7 and P = 0.88, respectively). In conclusion, we show that donor age restriction for HCV results in a lower donor age for HCV recipients without obvious adverse WL consequences. Although additional studies are needed, our results demonstrate the feasibility of donor age restriction for LT recipients with HCV, and such information may be relevant to programs with limited access to new antiviral therapies for which modifying the risk of severe disease remains of paramount importance.

Ex vivo split-liver transplantation: the true right/left split.

BACKGROUND: Successful left lateral segment (sectionectomy) and right trisegmentectomy (trisectionectomy) split-liver transplantation (SLT) have been achieved. However, there are few reports of the use of true right/left splitting in SLT. METHODS: A single-centre retrospective review of true right/left ex vivo split-liver transplants performed during the period 1993-2010 was conducted. Nine cadaveric liver grafts underwent splitting and the resultant 18 allografts were used in transplants performed at the study centre. RESULTS: In the nine right lobe recipients, 10-year patient and graft survival rates were both 74%. There were no vascular complications, one biliary complication and one re-exploration. In the nine left lobe recipients, 10-year patient and graft survival rates were 78% and 66%, respectively. Postoperative complications included six biliary complications, four of which required surgical revision and all of which occurred within 5 months of transplantation, and two vascular complications, including one early hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) and one late HAT, one of which required retransplantation. Five left lobe recipients required re-exploration, and one patient developed small-for-size syndrome following SLT, which resolved with conservative measures. CONCLUSIONS: True right/left ex vivo SLT remains a viable option for facilitating the expansion of the adult cadaver donor pool and allows for excellent patient and graft survival. Postoperative morbidity remains high, especially in recipients of the left lobe graft, and must be balanced with the benefits to be derived from transplant.

Ureteral avulsion after ureteroscopy treated with renal auto-transplantation.

Ureteral avulsion can be secondary to blunt or penetrating trauma, or can emerge as a surgical complication. Popularization of minimally invasive interventions has significantly decreased ureteral injuries, ranging from 0% to 28% and varying from minor mucosal injury to perforation, and most catastrophically, avulsion. We present a case of complete ureteral avulsion that was not initially appreciated after undergoing ureteroscopy for stone extraction. Eventual recognition of this injury was managed successfully with a subsequent laparoscopically nephrectomy and renal auto-transplantation preserving renal function.

DCD liver transplant in patients with a MELD over 35.

Introduction: Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) makes up well less than 1% of all LTs with a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)≥35 in the United States. We hypothesized DCD-LT yields acceptable ischemia-reperfusion and reasonable outcomes for recipients with MELD≥35. Methods: We analyzed recipients with lab-MELD≥35 at transplant within the UCSF (n=41) and the UNOS (n=375) cohorts using multivariate Cox regression and propensity score matching. Results: In the UCSF cohort, five-year patient survival was 85% for DCD-LTs and 86% for matched-Donation after Brain Death donors-(DBD) LTs (p=0.843). Multivariate analyses showed that younger donor/recipient age and more recent transplants (2011-2021 versus 1999-2010) were associated with better survival. DCD vs. DBD graft use did not significantly impact survival (HR: 1.2, 95%CI 0.6-2.7). The transaminase peak was approximately doubled, indicating suggesting an increased ischemia-reperfusion hit. DCD-LTs had a median post-LT length of stay of 11 days, and 34% (14/41) were on dialysis at discharge versus 12 days and 22% (9/41) for DBD-LTs. 27% (11/41) DCD-LTs versus 12% (5/41) DBD-LTs developed a biliary complication (p=0.095). UNOS cohort analysis confirmed patient survival predictors, but DCD graft emerged as a risk factor (HR: 1.5, 95%CI 1.3-1.9) with five-year patient survival of 65% versus 75% for DBD-LTs (p=0.016). This difference became non-significant in a sub-analysis focusing on MELD 35-36 recipients. Analysis of MELD≥35 DCD recipients showed that donor age of <30yo independently reduced the risk of graft loss by 30% (HR, 95%CI: 0.7 (0.9-0.5), p=0.019). Retransplant status was associated with a doubled risk of adverse event (HR, 95%CI: 2.1 (1.4-3.3), p=0.001). The rejection rates at 1y were similar between DCD- and DBD-LTs, (9.3% (35/375) versus 1,541 (8.7% (1,541/17,677), respectively). Discussion: In highly selected recipient/donor pair, DCD transplantation is feasible and can achieve comparable survival to DBD transplantation. Biliary complications occurred at the expected rates. In the absence of selection, DCD-LTs outcomes remain worse than those of DBD-LTs.

Use of living donor liver transplantation varies with the availability of deceased donor liver transplantation.

The demographics of patients in the United States who undergo living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) versus patients who undergo deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) are interesting with respect to the demographics of the donor service areas (DSAs). We examined adult recipients of primary, non-status 1 liver-only transplants from 2003 to 2009. The likelihood of undergoing LDLT was compared to the likelihood of undergoing DDLT by multivariate logistic regression. We examined the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for undergoing LDLT versus DDLT for patients with the same diagnosis and blood type after we stratified the DSAs into quintiles by the median match Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. LDLT was performed for 1497 of 32,927 liver transplants (4.5%). LDLT decreased in frequency by approximately 30% from 2003 to 2009. In comparison with DDLT recipients, LDLT recipients were younger and had higher albumin levels, lower body mass indices, and lower match MELD scores. Females had increased odds of LDLT in comparison with males (OR = 1.74, P < 0.001). Patients with MELD exception scores were less likely to undergo LDLT (OR = 0.22, P < 0.001). Patients with cholestatic liver disease (adjusted OR = 2.04, P < 0.001) or malignant neoplasms other than hepatocellular carcinoma (adjusted OR = 3.33, P < 0.001) were more likely than patients with hepatitis C virus to undergo LDLT. Other characteristics associated with decreased odds of LDLT were black race (adjusted OR = 0.41, P < 0.001) and government insurance (adjusted OR = 0.51, P < 0.001). LDLT was more frequent in DSAs with high median MELD scores; the adjusted OR for LDLT was 38 for the DSAs in the highest quintile (P < 0.001). In conclusion, there are significant differences associated with race, insurance, sex, MELD exceptions, and DSA MELD scores between patients who undergo LDLT and patients who undergo DDLT. These differences can be hypothesized to be driven in part by the relative availability of LDLT versus DDLT at both the patient level and the DSA level.

Risk factors for liver transplant waitlist dropout in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Loco-regional therapy has been developed to reduce waitlist dropout in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) awaiting liver transplantation. We evaluated the probability of transplantation and waitlist dropout, and analyzed risk factors for waitlist dropout, in 76 patients with HCC from September 2004 to August 2006. Seventy-three (96.1%) patients received one or more preoperative loco-regional treatments and 55 (72.3%) received an orthotopic liver transplantation with a median wait time of seven months (range, 2-26 months). There were 11 dropouts (14.5%) associated with tumor progression or hepatic decompensation (median waiting time; 5.4 months and range, 0.4-13 months). Cumulative probabilities of transplantation at three, six, nine, 12, 15, and 18 months were 5.4%, 35.4%, 67.5%, 78.8%, 80.7%, and 80.7%, respectively and those of waitlist dropout at three, six, nine, 12, 15, and 18 months were 3.9%, 8.7%, 12.8%, 22.9%, 29.3%, and 29.3%, respectively. A laboratory model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score >15 or multiple tumors at the time of UNOS listing were significant risk factors for waitlist dropout (p = 0.006 and 0.026, respectively). Patients with HCC being managed with loco-regional therapy who have a laboratory MELD score >15 or multiple tumors should be considered for earlier access to liver transplantation to prevent waitlist dropout.

Retransplantation After Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Data from the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for primary liver transplantation (LT) may quell concerns about allocating deceased donor organs if the need for retransplantation (re-LT) arises because the primary LT did not draw from the limited organ pool. However, outcomes of re-LT after LDLT are poorly studied. The purpose of this study was to analyze the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study (A2ALL) data to report outcomes of re-LT after LDLT, with a focus on long-term survival after re-LT. METHODS: A retrospective review of A2ALL data collected between 1998 and 2014 was performed. Patients were excluded if they received a deceased donor LT. Demographic data, postoperative outcomes and complications, graft and patient survival, and predictors of re-LT and patient survival were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 1065 patients who underwent LDLT during the study time period, 110 recipients (10.3%) required re-LT. In multivariable analyses, hepatitis C virus, longer length of stay at LDLT, hepatic artery thrombosis, biliary stricture, infection, and disease recurrence were associated with an increased risk of re-LT. Patient survival among re-LT patients was significantly inferior to those who underwent primary transplant only at 1 (86% versus 92%), 5 (64% versus 82%), and 10 years (44% versus 68%). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 10% of A2ALL patients who underwent primary LDLT required re-LT. Compared with patients who underwent primary LT, survival among re-LT recipients was worse at 1, 5, and 10 years after LT, and re-LT was associated with a significantly increased risk of death in multivariable modeling (hazard ratios, 2.29; P < 0.001).

Opioid use prior to liver transplant is associated with increased risk of death after transplant.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are generally discouraged and used sparingly in liver transplant (LT) candidates prior to LT. This study examined the relationship between opioid use at the time of LT and graft and patient survival following transplantation. METHODS: A retrospective single center cohort study of LT recipients from June 2012 to December 2019 was performed. Primary outcomes were graft and patient survival, analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models; primary predictor was active opioid prescription at LT. RESULTS: 751 LT recipients were included; 16% had an opioid prescription at LT. Post-transplant death was significantly greater in opioid users (pvalue<0.001). In a multivariable Cox model examining predictors of death, opioid use remained associated with a significant increase in the risk of death (HR 2.4 CI 1.5-4.0, p < 0.001) even after controlling for other factors. CONCLUSION: Opioid use at LT is associated with a markedly increased risk of death following transplant.

Advantages and Limitations of Clinical Scores for Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation.

Background: Scoring systems have been proposed to select donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors and recipients for liver transplantation (LT). We hypothesized that complex scoring systems derived in large datasets might not predict outcomes locally. Methods: Based on 1-year DCD-LT graft survival predictors in multivariate logistic regression models, we designed, validated, and compared a simple index using the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) cohort (n = 136) and a universal-comprehensive (UC)-DCD score using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) cohort (n = 5,792) to previously published DCD scoring systems. Results: The total warm ischemia time (WIT)-index included donor WIT (dWIT) and hepatectomy time (dHep). The UC-DCD score included dWIT, dHep, recipient on mechanical ventilation, transjugular-intrahepatic-portosystemic-shunt, cause of liver disease, model for end-stage liver disease, body mass index, donor/recipient age, and cold ischemia time. In the UNOS cohort, the UC-score outperformed all previously published scores in predicting DCD-LT graft survival (AUC: 0.635 vs. ≤0.562). In the UCSF cohort, the total WIT index successfully stratified survival and biliary complications, whereas other scores did not. Conclusion: DCD risk scores generated in large cohorts provide general guidance for safe recipient/donor selection, but they must be tailored based on non-/partially-modifiable local circumstances to expand DCD utilization.

Outcomes of surgical repair of bile leaks and strictures after adult-to-adult living donor liver transplant.

UNLABELLED: We sought to determine factors that predict the successful surgical repair of biliary complications after adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT). METHODS: Records of 82 consecutive ALDLT right lobe recipients were reviewed. Operations were performed on 19 recipients for biliary complications. Post-operative biliary complications were analyzed. Fisher's exact test was used to identify variables that correlated with successful surgical repair. RESULTS: A total of 29 recipients had biliary complications, of which 19 had a surgical repair. The five recipients, operated on for a stricture without history of leaks, did not develop further complications. However, nine of 14 with a history of a leak developed further complications after surgical repair (p-value = 0.044). All five who presented with a biliary complication more than 100 d after transplant had successful surgical repair; however, nine out of 13 who presented within 57 d had additional complications after repair. CONCLUSIONS: Operations for strictures after ALDLT are more successful than operations for leaks. Recipients with isolated biliary strictures after ALDLT can be managed surgically; however, recipients with history of a leak often require additional interventions after surgical repair.