Lesley Adcock

Living-Donor Right Hepatectomy with or without Inclusion of Middle Hepatic Vein: Comparison of Morbidity and Outcome in 56 Patients

Venous congestion of segments V and VIII is observed frequently in living‐donor right lobe liver transplants without middle hepatic vein (MHV) drainage, and can be a cause of graft dysfunction and failure. Inclusion of the MHV with the graft is controversial, however, because of the perceived potential for increased donor morbidity.

Adult living liver donors have excellent long-term medical outcomes: the University of Toronto liver transplant experience.

Right lobe living donor liver transplantation is an effective treatment for selected individuals with end‐stage liver disease. Although 1 year donor morbidity and mortality have been reported, little is known about outcomes beyond 1 year. Our objective was to analyze the outcomes of the first 202 consecutive donors performed at our center with a minimum follow‐up of 12 months (range 12–96 months). All physical complications were prospectively recorded and categorized according to the modified Clavien classification system. Donors were seen by a dedicated family physician at 2 weeks, 1, 3 and 12 months postoperatively and yearly thereafter. The cohort included 108 males and 94 females (mean age 37.3 ± 11.5 years). Donor survival was 100%. A total of 39.6% of donors experienced a medical complication during the first year after surgery (21 Grade 1, 27 Grade 2, 32 Grade 3). After 1 year, three donors experienced a medical complication (1 Grade 1, 1 Grade 2, 1 Grade 3). All donors returned to predonation employment or studies although four donors (2%) experienced a psychiatric complication. This prospective study suggests that living liver donation can be performed safely without any serious late medical complications and suggests that long‐term follow‐up may contribute to favorable donor outcomes.

Adult Right-Lobe Living Liver Donors: Quality of Life, Attitudes and Predictors of Donor Outcomes

To refine selection criteria for adult living liver donors and improve donor quality of care, risk factors for poor postdonation health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) must be identified. This cross‐sectional study examined donors who underwent a right hepatectomy at the University of Toronto between 2000 and 2007 (n = 143), and investigated predictors of (1) physical and mental health postdonation, as well as (2) willingness to participate in the donor process again. Participants completed a standardized HRQOL measure (SF‐36) and measures of the pre‐ and postdonation process. Donor scores on the SF‐36 physical and mental health indices were equivalent to, or greater than, population norms. Greater predonation concerns, a psychiatric diagnosis and a graduate degree were associated with lower mental health postdonation whereas older donors reported better mental health. The majority of donors (80%) stated they would donate again but those who perceived that their recipient engaged in risky health behaviors were more hesitant. Prospective donors with risk factors for lower postdonation satisfaction and mental health may require more extensive predonation counseling and postdonation psychosocial follow‐up. Risk factors identified in this study should be prospectively evaluated in future research.

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation.

The present review outlines the principles of living donor liver transplantation, donor workup, procedure and outcomes. Living donation offers a solution to the growing gap between the need for liver transplants and the limited availability of deceased donor organs. With a multidisciplinary team focused on donor safety and experienced surgeons capable of performing complex resection/reconstruction procedures, donor morbidity is low and recipient outcomes are comparable with results of deceased donor transplantation.

Living donor hepatectomy: The importance of the residual liver volume

Living liver donation is a successful treatment for patients with end‐stage liver disease. Most adults are provided with a right lobe graft to ensure a generous recipient liver volume. Some centers are re‐exploring the use of smaller left lobe grafts to potentially reduce the donor risk. However, the evidence showing that the donor risk is lower with left lobe donation is inconsistent, and most previous studies have been limited by potential learning curve effects, small sample sizes, or poorly matched comparison groups. To address these deficiencies, we conducted a case‐control study. Forty‐five consecutive patients who underwent left hepatectomy (LH; n = 4) or left lateral segmentectomy (LLS; n = 41) were compared with matched controls who underwent right hepatectomy (RH) or extended right hepatectomy (ERH). The overall complication rates of the 3 groups were similar (31%‐37%). There were no grade 4 or 5 complications. There were more grade 3 complications for the RH patients (13.3%) and the ERH patients (15.6%) versus the LH/LLS patients (2.2%). The extent of the liver resection significantly correlated with the peak international normalized ratio (INR), the days to INR normalization, and the peak bilirubin level. A univariate analysis demonstrated that hepatectomy, the spared volume percentage, and the peak bilirubin level were strongly associated with grade 3 complications. A higher peak bilirubin level, which correlated with a lower residual liver volume, was associated with grade 3 complications in a multivariate analysis (P = 0.005). RH and grade 3 complications were associated with an increased length of stay (>7 days) in a multivariate analysis. In conclusion, this analysis demonstrates a significant correlation between the residual liver volume and liver dysfunction, serious adverse postoperative events, and longer hospital stays. Donor safety should be the first priority of all living liver donor programs. We propose that the surgical procedure removing the smallest amount of the liver required to provide adequate recipient graft function should become the standard of care for living liver donation. Liver Transpl, 2011.

Intraoperative 'No Go' Donor Hepatectomies in Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Donor safety is the paramount concern of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Although LDLT is employed worldwide, there is little data on rates and causes of ‘no go’ hepatectomies—patients brought to the operating room for possible donor hepatectomy whose procedure was aborted. We performed a single‐center, retrospective review of all patients brought to the operating room for donor hepatectomy between October 2000 and November 2008. Of 257 right lobe donors, the donor operation was aborted in 12 cases (4.7%). The main reasons for stopping the operation were aberrant ductal or vascular anatomy (seven cases), unsuitable liver quality (three cases) or unexpected intraoperative events (two cases). Over the median period of follow‐up of 23 months, there were no long‐term complications of patients with aborted donor procedures. This report focuses exclusively on an important issue: the frequency and causes of no go decisions at a single large volume North American LDLT center. The rate of no go donor hepatectomies should be as low as possible without compromising donor safety—however, even with rigorous preoperative evaluation the rate of donor abortions will be significant. The default surgical position should always be to abort the donor operation if there is an unexpected finding that places the donor at increased risk.

Anonymous Living Liver Donation: Donor Profiles and Outcomes

There are no published series of the assessment process, profiles and outcomes of anonymous, directed or nondirected live liver donation. The outcomes of 29 consecutive potential anonymous liver donors at our center were assessed. We used our standard live liver assessment process, augmented with the following additional acceptance criteria: a logical rationale for donation, a history of social altruism, strong social supports and a willingness to maintain confidentiality of patient information. Seventeen potential donors were rejected and 12 donors were ultimately accepted (six male, six female). All donors were strongly motivated by a desire and sense of responsibility to help others. Four donations were directed toward recipients who undertook media appeals. The donor operations included five left lateral segmentectomies and seven right hepatectomies. The overall donor morbidity was 40% with one patient having a transient Clavien level 3 complication (a pneumothorax). All donors are currently well. None expressed regret about their decision to donate, and all volunteered the opinion that donation had improved their lives. The standard live liver donor assessment process plus our additional requirements appears to provide a robust assessment process for the selection of anonymous live liver donors. Acceptance of anonymous donors enlarges the donor liver pool.

Selective use of older adults in right lobe living donor liver transplantation.

Many centers are reluctant to use older donors (>44 years) for adult right‐lobe living donor liver transplantation (RLDLT) due to concerns about possible increased morbidity in donors and poorer outcomes in recipients. Since 2000, 130 adult RLDLTs have been performed at our institution. Recipients were divided into those who received a right lobe graft from a donor ≤age 44 (n = 89, 68%; median age 30) and those who received a liver graft from a donor age >44 (n = 41, 32%; mean age 52). The two donor and recipient populations had similar demographic and operative profiles. With a median follow‐up of 29 months, the severity and number of complications in older donors were similar to those in younger donors. No living donor died. Older donor allografts had initial allograft dysfunction compared to younger donors. Complication rates were similar among recipients in both groups but there was a higher bile duct stricture rate with older donor grafts (27% vs. 12%; p = 0.04). One‐year recipient graft survival was 86% for older donors and 85% for younger donors (p = 0.95). Early experience with the use of selected older adults (>44 years) for RLDLT is encouraging, but may be associated with a higher rate of biliary complications in the recipient.

Financial, vocational, and interpersonal impact of living liver donation

The ability to inform prospective donors of the psychosocial risks of living liver donation is currently limited by the scant empirical literature. The present study was designed to examine donor perceptions of the impact of donation on financial, vocational, and interpersonal life domains and identify demographic and clinical factors related to longer recovery times and greater life interference. A total of 143 donors completed a retrospective questionnaire that included a standardized measure of life interference [Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale (IIRS)] and additional questions regarding the perceived impact of donation. Donor IIRS scores suggested that donors experience a relatively low level of life interference due to donation [1.60 ± 0.72, with a possible range of 1 (“not very much” interference) to 7 (“very much” interference)]. However, approximately 1 in 5 donors reported that donating was a significant financial burden. Logistic regression analysis revealed that donors with a psychiatric diagnosis at or prior to donation took longer to return to their self‐reported predonation level of functioning (odds ratio = 3.78, P = 0.016). Medical complications were unrelated to self‐reported recovery time. Multiple regression analysis revealed 4 independent predictors of greater life interference: less time since donation (b = 0.11, P < 0.001), income lower than CAD

Cosmesis and body image after adult right lobe living liver donation.

100,000 (b = 0.28, P = 0.038), predonation concerns about the donation process (b = 0.24, P = 0.008), and the perception that the recipient is not caring for the new liver (b = 0.12, P = 0.031). In conclusion, life interference due to living liver donation appears to be relatively low. Donors should be made aware of risk factors for greater life disruptions post‐surgery and of the potential financial burden of donation. Liver Transpl 15:1435–1442, 2009.