Large for size in pediatrics liver transplant using left lateral segment grafts: A single center experience.

BACKGROUND: There are still controversies in using the large left lateral segment in pediatrics LT, with the possibility of the problem of LFS grafts, and the use of monosegmental or reduced liver grafts in small infants. This study aimed to evaluate our experience with LFSG in pediatrics LT. METHODS: A cohort retrospective analysis was conducted including pediatric recipients who underwent LT between January 2011 and October 2019. We compared recipients with GRWR ≥ 4% (LFS) vs GRWR < 4% as an average for size grafts. RESULTS: There were 331 pediatric LT, 74 patients with GRWR ≥ 4%, and 257 patients with GRWR < 4%. In the group of LFS grafts, temporary abdominal closure by silicon patch was done in 39 patients (52.7%), 2 patients (2.7%) had postoperative HAT, 3 patients (4.1%) early PVT, 1 patient (1.3%) bile leak, and 3 patients (4.1%) had wound infection, with no significant difference in these complications between the 2 groups. In patients with LFS- grafts, the 1-, 3-, 5-, and 7-year patients survival rates were 94.6%, 91.7%, 91.7%, and 91.7%, respectively, while the survival rates in patients of the other group were 96.1%, 92.6%, 91.9%, and 91.9%, respectively, with no significant difference (p = .85). CONCLUSION: Using LFS graft by left lateral segment in pediatric LT with potential delayed abdominal closure is a safe and feasible option with good outcomes and unnecessary need for graft reduction if performed by an experienced multidisciplinary team.

Robotic Versus Open Right Lobe Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Robotic right lobe donor hepatectomy (RRLDH) is rarely performed, and data concerning its safety and efficacy are lacking. Here we compare our series of RRLDHs with a similar cohort undergoing open right lobe donor hepatectomy (ORLDH) with a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis. Among 263 consecutive adult patients undergoing right lobe living donor hepatectomy from January 2015 until July 2019, 35 RRLDHs were matched to 70 ORLDHs. A 1:2 PSM analysis was performed to make the groups comparable for donor sex, age, and body mass index (BMI) and for recipient sex, age, BMI, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and indication for transplant. Operative time was longer in RRLDHs compared with ORLDHs (504 ± 73.5 versus 331 ± 65.1 minutes; P < 0.001) but significantly decreased with the number of patients (P < 0.001). No conversions occurred. First warm ischemia time was longer and blood loss significantly less in RRLDHs (P = 0.001 and 0.003, respectively). Overall donor complications were similar: 2 (6%) in RRLDHs versus 12 (17%) in ORLDHs (P = 0.13). Biliary leak occurred in 1 (3%) patient receiving a robotic procedure and 2 (3%) patients receiving the conventional approach. Donors undergoing robotic surgery required less patient-controlled analgesia and had a shorter hospital stay compared with the open surgery group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively). No significant differences in graft anatomical data and recipient outcomes were recorded. RRLDH is feasible, safe, and reproducible, with significantly decreased blood loss and a shorter hospital stay compared with the open procedure. The first 35 patients receiving the robotic procedure showed a substantial reduction in operative time, reflecting a rapid shortening of the learning curve.

Is It Justified to Use Liver Grafts From Living Donors for Retransplant? A Single-Center Experience.

OBJECTIVES: Liver retransplant is considered the only hope for patients with irreversible graft failure after primary transplant. In most Western centers, retransplantis done mainly from deceased donors; so far, only few published studies have reported on outcomes of liver retransplant with living donors. In this study, our aim was to analyze the outcomes of living-donor liver retransplant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent liver retransplant between February 2011 and February 2019 were included in the study. Preoperative, operative, and postoperative data were analyzed. Results from 2 patient groups were compared: liver retransplant with living donors and liver retransplant with deceased donors. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients underwent liver retransplant (21 adult and 11 pediatric patients). The most common indications for liver retransplant were hepatic artery thrombosis (28.5%) and primary graft nonfunction (23.8%) in adults and hepatic artery thrombosis (45.5%) and chronic rejection (36.4%) in pediatric patients. Seventeen retransplant patients (53.1%) required early retransplant (within 1 mo), mainly due to hepatic artery thrombosis (52.9%) and primary graft nonfunction (35.3%). Late retransplant was mainly due to chronic rejection (40%) and recurrence of primary disease (26.7%). Seventeen patients (53.1%) underwent living-donor retransplant, and 5 donors underwent robotic right hepatectomy. Graft and patient survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 81.3% for living-donor and 51.4% for deceased-donor liver retransplant recipients (P = .08). On multivariate analyses, we observed significant differences between both groups in pretransplant Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease scores (P = .05), preoperative international normalized ratio (P = .012), and cold ischemia time (P = .046). CONCLUSIONS: The use of living donors for liver retransplant, despite its technical demand, was shown to be a safe and feasible option, especially when there is scarcity of deceased donors.

Effect of Downstaging and Bridging of Hepatocellular Carcinoma on Survival Following Liver Transplant: A Single Center Experience.

OBJECTIVES: Hepatocellular carcinoma is among the leading causes of cancer death. The Milan criteria are the first and most widely used criteria for selecting patients with hepatocellular carcinoma for a good transplant outcome. Studies have shown that patients with hepatocellular carcinoma outside the Milan criteria have good outcomes if they are successfully downstaged before transplant. We report our experience with locoregional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma, either for bridging or for downstaging prior to transplant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic charts and our institutional database for adult patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma between 2001 and 2016. We recorded patient demographics, the type of transplant (living donor or deceased donor), radiologic findings, the type of locoregional intervention, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 642 adult liver transplants were performed during the study period (290 living donor and 352 deceased donor), of which 158 (24.6%) were conducted in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (104 men and 54 women). Hepatocellular carcinoma was associated with hepatitis C in 80 patients (51%), hepatitis B in 44 (28%), and was cryptogenic in 13 (8%). Patients were grouped based on their radiologic staging (within Milan, within and beyond University of California, San Francisco), and subsequently described by whether they received locoregional therapy. Median survival and mortality were noted. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed no statistically significant difference for patients within the Milan criteria, with or without locoregional therapy (P = .5). When patients within the Milan criteria were combined with patients within the University of California, San Francisco criteria, those who were downstaged from outside the latter criteria had similar survival. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that carefully selected patients beyond the Milan criteria and even beyond the University of California, San Francisco criteria can be bridged and downstaged successfully for liver transplant.

Liver transplant in Budd-Chiari syndrome: a single-center experience in Saudi Arabia.

OBJECTIVES: If they do not respond to other treatments, patients with Budd-Chiari syndrome are potential candidates for a liver transplant. Timing for transplant is controversial; however, before other systems deteriorate, early intervention in relatively stable patient may improve the outcome and survival of these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients (2 women and 4 men) had Budd-Chiari syndrome (1.2%) among 475 patients who had undergone a liver transplant at our center between 2001 and 2012. Imaging modalities including duplex ultrasound, abdominal computed tomography angiography, and hematologic evaluation were part of our routine diagnostic work-up. Although we perform mostly living-donor liver transplants, these patients received a liver transplant from a deceased donor, because there was not enough evidence to justify a living-donor liver transplant. We thought that not replacing the caval vein might negatively influence the outcome. Postoperatively, these recipients were started on a heparin infusion and triple therapy immunosuppression; only then was warfarin introduced as long-term anticoagulant. RESULTS: Two patients died, 1 from uncontrollable bleeding and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, and the other died in the intensive care unit after 5 months because of multiorgan failure and sepsis. One patient had portal vein thrombosis 9 months after the liver transplant; the other patient needed a liver retransplant after 5 years owing to liver failure, secondary to chronic rejection. Graft survival rate was 75%, and patient survival rate was 66.6%. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first article from Saudi Arabia to describe the outcome of a liver transplant in this subgroup of patients with Budd-Chiari syndrome. Treatment of Budd-Chiari syndrome follows a therapeutic algorithm that should start with anticoagulation and may end up with liver transplant; however, it should be considered early if other treatments fail.