Influence of surgical technique in donor hepatectomy on immediate and short-term living donor outcomes - A systematic review of the literature, meta-analysis, and expert panel recommendations.

BACKGROUND: There are currently no guidelines pertaining to ERAS pathways in living donor hepatectomy. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify whether surgical technique influences immediate and short-term outcomes after living liver donation surgery. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel (CRD42021260707). Endpoints were mortality, overall complications, serious complications, bile eaks, pulmonary complications, estimated blood loss and length of stay. RESULTS: Of the 2410 screened articles, 21 articles were included for final analysis; three observational, 13 retrospective cohort, four prospective cohort studies, and one randomized trial. Overall complications were higher with right versus left hepatectomy (26.8% vs. 20.8%; OR 1.4, P = .010). Donors after left hepatectomy had shorter length of stay (MD 1.4 days) compared to right hepatectomy. There was no difference in outcomes after right donor hepatectomy with versus without middle hepatic vein. We had limited data on the influence of incision type and minimally invasive approaches on living donor outcomes, and no data on the effect of operative time on donor outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Left donor hepatectomy should be preferred over right hepatectomy, as it is related to improved donor short-term outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Right donor hepatectomy with or without MHV has equivalent outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong); no preference is recommended, decision should be based on program's experience and expertise. No difference in outcomes was observed related to incision type, minimally invasive vs. open (QOE; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Weak); no preference can be recommended.

Longitudinal profiling of plasma and urine metabolites during liver regeneration in living liver donors.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of metabolic processes affected by major hepatectomy (MHx), and the metabolic pathways involved in liver regeneration and recovery of function, is limited and mainly derived from animal models. Assessment of restoration of hepatic function is essential in human living liver donors (LD). METHODS: We used a targeted metabolomic approach to longitudinally quantify changes in plasma and urine biomarkers from healthy LD. The biomarkers were analyzed before MHx and at scheduled intervals up to 12 months thereafter. RESULTS: Marked changes were found in the concentration of 15 primary and secondary plasma bile acids. Most significant changes occurred 2 days after MHx and persisted for up to 3 months. In addition, there were significant changes in acylcarnitine, phospholipid, and amino acid metabolism. The sum of aromatic amino acids and the Fischer ratio, both metabolic markers of liver damage, and the symmetrically demethylated arginine to arginine ratio, a marker of kidney function, were affected. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive longitudinal study investigating metabolic processes during recovery of liver function after MHx in LD. It provides further evidence of full restoration of metabolic processes 3 months after MHx and supports future investigation to understand how metabolic changes affect donors' hepatic function.

Optimal surgical workup to ensure safe recovery of the donor after living liver donation - A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The essential premise of living donor liver transplantation is the assurance that the donors will have a complication-free perioperative course and a prompt recovery. Selection of appropriate donors is the first step to support this premise and is based on tests that constitute the donor workup. The exclusion of liver pathologies and assessment of liver anatomy and volume in the donor candidate are the most important elements in the selection of the appropriate candidate. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is evidence to define an optimal donor surgical workup that would improve short-term outcomes of the donor after living liver donation. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central. METHODS: Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. RESULTS: Although a liver biopsy remains the only method to exactly determine the percentage and type of steatosis and to detect other liver pathologies, its routine use is not supported. Both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) appear to be adequate for quantifying liver volume; the preference for one or the other is often based on center expertise. MRI is clearly a better technique to assess biliary anatomy, although aberrant biliary anatomy may not be clearly detected. MRI is also more accurate than CT in determining low grades of steatosis. CT angiography is the imaging test of choice to assess the vascular anatomy. There is no evidence of the need for catheter angiography in the modern evaluation of a living liver donor. CONCLUSIONS: A donor liver biopsy is indicated if abnormalities are present in serological or imaging tests. Both MRI and CT imaging appear to be adequate methodologies. The routine use of catheter angiography is not supported in view of the adequacy of CT angiography in delineating liver vascular anatomy. No imaging modality available to quantify liver volume is superior to another. Biliary anatomy is better defined with MRI, although poor definition can be expected, particularly for abnormal ducts.

Potential association between public medical insurance, waitlist mortality, and utilization of living donor liver transplantation: An analysis of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) and subsequent Medicaid expansion has increased utilization of public health insurance. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) increases access to transplant and is associated with improved survival but consistently represents < 5% of LT in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: National registry data were analyzed to evaluate the impact of insurance payor on waitlist mortality and LDLT rates at LDLT centers since implementation of the ACA. RESULTS: Public insurance [Medicare RR 1.18 (1.13-1.22) P < .001, Medicaid RR 1.22 (1.18-1.27) P < .001], Latino ethnicity (P < .001), and lower education level (P = .02) were associated with increased waitlist mortality at LDLT centers. LDLT recipients were more likely to have private insurance (70.4% vs. 59.4% DDLT, P < .001), be Caucasian (92.1% vs. 83% DDLT, P < .001), and have post-secondary education (66.8% vs. 54.1% DDLT, P < .001). Despite 78% of LDLT centers being located in states with Medicaid expansion, there was no change in LDLT utilization among recipients with Medicaid (P = .196) or Medicare (P = .273). CONCLUSION: Despite Medicaid expansion, registry data suggests that patients with public medical insurance may experience higher waitlist mortality and underutilize LDLT at centers offering LDLT. It is possible that Medicaid expansion has not increased access to LDLT.

Long-Term Financial, Psychosocial, and Overall Health-Related Quality of Life After Living Liver Donation.

BACKGROUND: To assess the impact of living liver donation (LD) in a diverse and aging population up to 20 y after donation, particularly with regard to medical, financial, psychosocial, and overall health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: Patients undergoing LD between 1999 and 2009 were recruited to respond to the Short-Form 36 and a novel Donor Quality of Life Survey at two time points (2010 and 2018). RESULTS: Sixty-eight living liver donors (LLDs) completed validated surveys, with a mean follow-up of 11.5 ± 5.1 y. Per Donor Quality of Life Survey data, physical activity or strength was not impacted by LD in most patients. All respondents returned to school or employment, and 82.4% reported that LD had no impact on school or work performance. LD did not impact health insurability in 95.6% of donors, and only one patient experienced difficulty obtaining life insurance. Overall, 97.1% of respondents did not regret LD. Short-Form 36 survey-measured outcomes were similar between LLDs and the general U.S. POPULATION: LLDs who responded in both 2010 and 2018 were followed for an overall average of 15.4 ± 2.4 y and HRQOL outcomes in these donors also remained statistically equivalent to U.S. population norms. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the longest postdonation follow-up and offers unique insight related to HRQOL in a highly diverse patient population. Although LLDs continue to maintain excellent HRQOL outcomes up to 20 y after donation, continued lifetime follow-up is required to accurately provide young, healthy potential donors with an accurate description of the risks that they may incur on aging.

Global experience and perspective on anonymous nondirected live donation in living donor liver transplantation.

Anonymous nondirected living liver donation (ANLLD), sometimes referred to as "altruistic" donation, occurs when a biologically unrelated person comes forward to donate a portion of his/her liver to a transplant candidate who is unknown to the donor. Here, we explore the current status of ANLLD with special consideration of published reports; US experience; impact on donor psychosocial outcomes; barriers to donation; and current global trends with respect to ethical considerations. Between 1998 and 2019, 105 anonymous nondirected living liver donor (ND-LLD) transplants have been documented in the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Sixteen donors (15%) were reported to experience a postoperative complication. Currently, 89 donors remain alive (85%), 16 (15%) have unknown status, and none are confirmed deceased. Although there are only a handful of case series, these data suggest that ANLLD is a feasible option. While there are no liver-specific data, studies involving anonymous nondirected kidney donors suggest that anonymous donation does not adversely impact psychosocial outcomes in donors or recipients. There are substantial financial burdens and ethical considerations related to ANLLD. Further studies are required to assess donor demographics, psychosocial motivations, long-term health-related quality of life, and financial impact of ANLLD.

Donor outcomes in anonymous live liver donation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Death rates on liver transplant waiting lists range from 5%-25%. Herein, we report a unique experience with 50 anonymous individuals who volunteered to address this gap by offering to donate part of their liver to a recipient with whom they had no biological connection or prior relationship, so called anonymous live liver donation (A-LLD). METHODS: Candidates were screened to confirm excellent physical, mental, social, and financial health. Demographics and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Qualitative interviews after donation examined motivation and experiences. Validated self-reported questionnaires assessed personality traits and psychological impact. RESULTS: A total of 50 A-LLD liver transplants were performed between 2005 and 2017. Most donors had a university education, a middle-class income, and a history of prior altruism. Half were women. Median age was 38.5 years (range 20-59). Thirty-three (70%) learned about this opportunity through public or social media. Saving a life, helping others, generativity, and reciprocity for past generosity were motivators. Social, financial, healthcare, and legal support in Canada were identified as facilitators. A-LLD identified most with the personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness. The median hospital stay was 6 days. One donor experienced a Dindo-Clavien Grade 3 complication that completely resolved. One-year recipient survival was 91% in 22 adults and 97% in 28 children. No A-LLD reported regretting their decision. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first and only report of the characteristics, motivations and facilitators of A-LLD in a large cohort. With rigorous protocols, outcomes are excellent. A-LLD has significant potential to reduce the gap between transplant organ demand and availability. LAY SUMMARY: We report a unique experience with 50 living donors who volunteered to donate to a recipient with whom they had no biological connection or prior relationship (anonymous living donors). This report is the first to discuss motivations, strategies and facilitators that may mitigate physical, social and ethical risk factors in this patient population. With rigorous protocols, anonymous liver donation and recipient outcomes are excellent; with appropriate clinical expertise and system facilitators in place, our experience suggests that other centers may consider the procedure for its significant potential to reduce the gap between transplant organ demand and availability.

First right lobe living-donor hepatectomy after sleeve gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Obesity presents one of the leading causes of many chronic liver disorders and injuries. Nowadays, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) demonstrates a challenging issue for the global health system. NASH can progress to life-threatening conditions such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular or cholangio carcinoma. Currently, NASH cirrhosis is a major indication for liver transplant (LT). CASE PRESENTATION: We present the case of a 37 year-old male who has lost 74 kg after undergoing successful laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) four years ago. Recently, he underwent right hepatectomy in the course of living-donor liver transplantation for his sick father in our clinic. Before the SG was conducted four years ago, his weight was at 157 kg and his Body Mass Index (BMI) at 49 kg/m2. At that time, Ultrasound examination showed severe fatty liver changes and intraoperative inspection of the liver was consistent with that observation. At the time of surgery, he weighed 83 kg and his BMI was at 27 kg/m2. An effective weight reduction after bariatric surgery might protect NASH patients from further deterioration of their medical condition. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, we report the first successful case of a right lobe living-donor hepatectomy in a patient who previously underwent successful laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).

[Hospital-based multicenter study in Spain, Mexico and Cuba on attitudes to living liver donation]. / Estudio multicéntrico hospitalario en España, México y Cuba de actitud hacia la donación de vivo hepática.

INTRODUCTION: Given the lack of a sufficient number of livers available for transplantation, living liver donation (LLD) is being developed in the Spanish-speaking world. To do this, it is essential that health workers in hospitals are in favor of such donation, given that they are a key component in this treatment and that their attitudes influence public opinion. OBJECTIVE: To analyze attitude toward LLD among hospital personnel from healthcare centers in Spain and Latin America. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Ten hospitals were selected from the «International Donor Collaborative Project¼: 3 from Spain, 5 from Mexico and 2 from Cuba. Random sampling stratified by type of service and job category was used. Attitudes to LLD were evaluated through a validated questionnaire on psychosocial aspects. The questionnaire was anonymous and self-administered. Statistical tests consisted of Student's T test, the chi-square test and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 2,618 employees surveyed, 85% (n=2,231) were in favor of related LLD; of these, 31% (n=804) were in favor of unrelated LLD. No association was found between the country of the interviewed, personal-social variables or work-related variables. The following factors were associated with a favorable attitude toward related LLD donation: having had personal experience of donation and transplantation (P<.001); being in favor of deceased donation (P<.001); believing that one might need a possible transplant (P<.001); being in favor of living kidney donation (P<.001); being willing to accept a liver from a living donor (P<.001); having discussed the matter of donation and transplantation within the family (P<.001) and with one's partner (P<.001); carrying out pro-social type activities (P<.001); being Catholic (P=.040); believing that one's religion is in favor of donation and transplantation (P<.001); and not being concerned about the possible mutilation of the body after donation (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital personnel from Spain and Latin America had a favorable attitude toward LLD, which was associated with factors directly and indirectly related to donation and transplantation, family and religious factors, and attitudes toward the body.

Impact of repeat testing of living kidney donors within 14 days of the transplant procedure: a multicenter retrospective survey.

BACKGROUND: A transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) from a live kidney donor prompted recommendations by the New York State Department of Health and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that all live donors undergo additional screening for HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) within 7-14 days of the donation procedure. There are concerns that re-screening will result in delays and cancelled transplants. METHODS: We surveyed live-donor transplant centers in New York State to assess their screening protocols and outcomes. Nine live-donor programs (kidney and liver centers) responded. RESULTS: All but 1 program has a formal repeat screening policy. Overall, no cancellations occurred, but 2 centers experienced transplantation delays, generally as the result of technician and laboratory procedural mistakes necessitating repeat phlebotomy. Testing is typically coordinated with pre-surgical visits, additional laboratory tests, and physical examinations. In the initial evaluation, serology was most frequently used (all 9 centers), with few centers utilizing nucleic acid testing (NAT) (HIV NAT, 1; HBV NAT, 2; HCV NAT, 2). Repeat testing modalities varied: HIV antibody (5, 55%), HIV NAT (8, 88%), hepatitis B surface antigen (5, 55%), hepatitis B surface antibody (2, 22%), hepatitis B core antibody (3, 33%), HBV NAT (3, 33%), HCV antibody (3, 33%), and HCV NAT (5, 55%). CONCLUSION: Most respondents have policies to re-test living donors within 14 days of the transplant procedures. Rarely, centers encountered repeat testing-associated delays, but no cancellations occurred.

[Living related liver transplantation]. / Lebertransplantation durch Lebendspende.

Liver transplantation has become established as a standard procedure in the treatment of end-stage liver diseases. Despite intense efforts by all parties involved up to the amendment of the German Transplantation Act, the lack of suitable donor organs was still one of the limiting factors of this therapeutic procedure. One way out of this problem is to make so-called marginal organs usable, e.g. with the help of machine perfusion or by utilizing living liver donation, which are used in some countries for more than 90% of organ donations. In general, there is no difference in the indications for liver transplantation between a (partial) organ obtained by post-mortem or living donation. Before any living donation, a thorough evaluation of the donor is carried out in order to minimize postoperative morbidity as far as possible. Technically the partial liver donation is based on the oncological liver resection, while the partial liver transplantation is a further development of split liver transplantation after post-mortem liver donation. In specialized centers comparable or even better results can nowadays be achieved using living liver donation instead of post-mortem donation.

Acceptance of living liver donation among medical students: A multicenter stratified study from Spain.

AIM: To analyze the attitude of Spanish medical students toward living liver donation (LLD) and to establish which factors have an influence on this attitude. STUDY TYPE: A sociological, interdisciplinary, multicenter and observational study. STUDY POPULATION: Medical students enrolled in Spain (n = 34000) in the university academic year 2010-2011. SAMPLE SIZE: A sample of 9598 students stratified by geographical area and academic year. Instrument used to measure attitude: A validated questionnaire (PCID-DVH RIOS) was self-administered and completed anonymously. Data collection procedure: Randomly selected medical schools. The questionnaire was applied to each academic year at compulsory sessions. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Student´s t test, χ(2) test and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The completion rate was 95.7% (n = 9275). 89% (n = 8258) were in favor of related LLD, and 32% (n = 2937) supported unrelated LLD. The following variables were associated with having a more favorable attitude: (1) age (P = 0.008); (2) sex (P < 0.001); (3) academic year (P < 0.001); (4) geographical area (P = 0.013); (5) believing in the possibility of needing a transplant oneself in the future (P < 0.001); (6) attitude toward deceased donation (P < 0.001); (7) attitude toward living kidney donation (P < 0.001); (8) acceptance of a donated liver segment from a family member if one were needed (P < 0.001); (9) having discussed the subject with one's family (P < 0.001) and friends (P < 0.001); (10) a partner's opinion about the subject (P < 0.001); (11) carrying out activities of an altruistic nature; and (12) fear of the possible mutilation of the body after donation (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Spanish medical students have a favorable attitude toward LLD.

Reclaiming their lives: the decision-making process in living liver donation--an interpretative phenomenological case study analysis of one couple.

OBJECTIVES: Adult-to-adult living liver donation (LLD) is a controversial procedure due to the risk to the healthy donor. The decision to proceed with LLD is an important, yet under-researched area. This study aims to explore the decision-making process of the donor and recipient independently, and within the donor-recipient dyad. DESIGN: A longitudinal, qualitative analysis of the LLD decision from the perspective of a LLD donor-recipient dyad. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with the donor and recipient separately on three occasions: pre LLD, six weeks post and six months post LLD. Transcripts were subject to interpretative phenomenological analysis. RESULTS: During the pre-LLD interviews, a series of intra- and interpersonal negotiations were reported as both the donor and recipient grappled to make a decision about LLD. Following the decision, the focus then centred on the consequences of the decision and making sense of unanticipated outcomes. By six months post LLD, both were able to reflect on adapting to the changes their decision had ultimately caused. CONCLUSIONS: This case study offers a unique insight into the risk assessment and decision-making demands of LLD and the results can help support future LLD candidates.