			Home About us Contact

Donor Hepatectomy (donor + hepatectomy)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Letter to the Editor: Intraoperative No Go Donor Hepatectomy in Living Donor Liver Transplantation

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 9 2010
V. Vij
No abstract is available for this article. [source]

Low Central Venous Pressure with Milrinone During Living Donor Hepatectomy

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 4 2010
H.-G. Ryu
Maintaining a low central venous pressure (CVP) has been frequently used in liver resections to reduce blood loss. However, decreased preload carries potential risks such as hemodynamic instability. We hypothesized that a low CVP with milrinone would provide a better surgical environment and hemodynamic stability during living donor hepatectomy. Thirty-eight healthy adult liver donors were randomized to receive either milrinone (milrinone group, n = 19) or normal saline (control group, n = 19) infusion during liver resection. The surgical field was assessed using a four-point scale. Intraoperative vital signs, blood loss, the use of vasopressors and diuretics and postoperative laboratory data were compared between groups. The milrinone group showed a superior surgical field (p < 0.001) and less blood loss (142 ± 129 mL vs. 378 ± 167 mL, p < 0.001). Vital signs were well maintained in both groups but the milrinone group required smaller amounts of vasopressors and less-frequent diuretics to maintain a low CVP. The milrinone group also showed a more rapid recovery pattern after surgery. Milrinone-induced low CVP improves the surgical field with less blood loss during living donor hepatectomy and also has favorable effects on intraoperative hemodynamics and postoperative recovery. [source]

Laparoscopic-Assisted Right Lobe Donor Hepatectomy

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 10 2006
A.J. Koffron
The major impediment to a wider application of living donor hepatectomy, particularly of the right lobe, is its associated morbidity. The recent interest in a minimally invasive approach to liver surgery has raised the possibility of applying these techniques to living donor right lobectomy. Herein, we report the first case of a laparoscopic, hand-assisted living donor right hepatic lobectomy. We describe the technical aspects of the procedure, and discuss the rationale for considering this option. We propose that the procedure, as described, did not increase the operative risks of the procedure; instead, it decreased potential morbidity. We caution that this procedure should only be considered for select donors, and that only surgical teams familiar with both living donor hepatectomy and laparoscopic liver surgery should entertain this possibility. [source]

Tailoring the Type of Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 7 2005
Norihiro Kokudo
Donor hepatectomies for adult living donor liver transplantations were performed in 200 consecutive donors to harvest a left liver (LL) graft (n = 5), a LL plus caudate lobe (LL + CL) graft (n = 63), a right liver (RL) graft (n = 86), a RL and middle hepatic vein (RL + MHV) graft (n = 28) or a right lateral sector (RLS) graft (n = 18). The graft type was selected so that at least 40% of the recipient's standard liver volume was harvested. No donor deaths occurred, and no significant differences in the morbidity rates among either donors or recipients were observed when the outcomes were stratified according to the graft type. Donors who donated RL exhibited higher values of serum total bilirubin and prothrombin time than those who donated non-RL (LL, LL + CL, RLS) grafts. The time taken for hilar dissection and parenchymal transection increased in the following order: RLS graft, LL graft and RL graft harvesting. In conclusion, non-RL grafting was more time consuming, but the hepatic functional loss in the donors was smaller. Our graft selection criteria were useful for reducing the use of RL grafts with acceptable morbidity in both donors and recipients. [source]

Impaired psychosocial outcome of donors after living donor liver transplantation: a qualitative case study

CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 4 2006
Marc Walter
Abstract:, Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) of the right hepatic lobe has been developing into an established therapy for treating pre-terminal liver diseases. There is little experience available on the psychosocial outcome of living donors. The aim of this first qualitative case study was to investigate the patterns for impaired psychosocial outcome in donors after LDLT. Donor hepatectomies were performed in 30 donors at the Charité Berlin. Six months after surgery, the six of the 30 donors with negative moods and physical complaints in psychometric monitoring were examined. The post-operative interviews were transcribed and analysed using current qualitative research methods. These six donors (20%) reported various unspecific complaints and psychological conflicts. Sadness was expressed about organ rejection and death of the recipient. Anxieties about the recipient and their own health were verbalized. Disappointment and anger refer to the experience that they were not as fully appreciated by the medical system and their social environment as expected. The negative emotions of donors with impaired psychosocial outcome could be related to a decrease in self-esteem in the post-operative course. Adequate medical and psychological treatment opportunities for these donors should be provided. [source]

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

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 3 2010
M. Guba
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. [source]

Tailoring donor hepatectomy per segment 4 venous drainage in right lobe live donor liver transplantation

LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 6 2004
See Ching Chan
Including the middle hepatic vein (MHV) in the right lobe liver graft for adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation provides more functional liver by securing adequate venous drainage. Donor outcome of this procedure in relation to different venous drainage patterns of segment 4 is unknown. Modification of graft harvesting technique by preserving segment 4b hepatic vein (V4b) in theory compensates for unfavorable venous drainage patterns. Consecutive 120 right lobe live donors were included. Computed tomography was studied in detail to assign each donor to one of the three types of the Nakamura classification of venous drainage pattern of segment 4. Type I drainage was mainly via the left hepatic vein (LHV), type II drainage was equally into the MHV and LHV, and type III drainage was predominantly into the MHV. Any distinct umbilical vein was also noted. In the early part of the series, the V4b draining into the MHV was divided to provide a long MHV stump in the graft. In the later part of the series, prominent V4b draining into the MHV was preserved in the donor as far as possible. Donor outcomes were measured by peak values of prothrombin time (PT), serum bilirubin and transaminases levels. There was no donor mortality. Type I donors (n=69) had the best outcome with peak PT of 17.9 sec (range 12.3,23.3 sec). Type II donors (n=44) had peak PT of 18.5 sec (range 15.4,24.4 sec). When V4b was preserved in type II donors (n=19), the peak PT (18.0 sec, range 15.4,20.7 sec) became significantly lower than that of type II donors who had V4b sacrificed (20.3 sec, range 16.2,24.4 sec) (P=0.001). A distinct umbilical vein (n=91, 75.8%) was insignificant for donor outcome measured by peak PT. Multivariate analysis identified that type II donors with V4b sacrificed (n=25), type III donors (n=7), and the first 50 cases had less favorable outcomes. In conclusion, unfavorable venous drainage patterns were one of the independent factors compromising postoperative donor liver function, but was circumvented by preservation of V4b. (Liver Transpl 2004;10:755,762.) [source]

Is the Cost of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Higher Than Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation?

LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 3 2004
Mark W. Russo MD
Background An important long-term consideration for living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the expense compared with cadaveric-liver transplantation. LDLT is a more complex procedure than cadaveric transplantation and the cost of donor evaluation, donor surgery, and postoperative donor care must be included in a cost analysis for LDLT. In this study, we compare the comprehensive cost of LDLT with that of cadaveric-liver transplantation. Methods All costs for medical services provided at our institution were recorded for 24 LDLT and 43 cadaveric recipients with greater than 1 year follow-up transplanted between August 1997 and April 2000. The donor costs include donors evaluated and rejected, donors evaluated and accepted, donor right hepatectomy costs, and donor follow-up costs (365 days postdonation). LDLT and cadaveric recipient costs include medical care 90 days pre-LDLT, recipient transplant costs, and recipient follow-up costs (365 days posttransplant) including retransplantation. Cost is expressed as an arbitrary cost unit (CU) that is a value between $500 to $1,500. Results Total LDLT costs (evaluations of rejected donors + evaluations of accepted donors + donor hepatectomy + donor follow-up care for 1 year + pretransplant recipient care [90 days pretransplant] + recipient transplantation + recipient 1-year posttransplant care)= 162.7 CU. Total mean cadaveric transplant costs (pretransplant recipient care [90 days pretransplant] + recipient transplantation [including organ acquisition cost] + recipient 1-year posttransplant care)=134.5 CU, (P = ns) Conclusions The total comprehensive cost of LDLT is 21% higher than cadaveric transplantation, although this difference is not significant. (Transplantation 2003;75:473,476.) [source]

Hepatectomy of living donors with a left-sided gallbladder and multiple combined anomalies for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 1 2004
Shin Hwang
The left-sided gallbladder is very rare, but it is often accompanied by multiple anomalies of the liver, by which living donor hepatectomy cannot be feasible or becomes difficult. We have experienced 3 donors with a left-sided gallbladder out of 642 living donors. The first case was a male donor showing bifurcating portal anomaly with intrahepatic right portal vein confluence and extremely low bifurcation of the bile ducts. The right lobe was retrieved and implanted to his father. The second case was a male donor revealing trifurcating portal anomaly with separate right posterior portal branch and replacing right posterior hepatic artery. The right posterior segment graft was retrieved and implanted to his uncle. The third case was a male volunteer in whom the anterior portion of the medial segment was fed by an aberrant branch of the right anterior segment glisson. The small left lobe was retrieved and implanted simultaneously with another living donor's left lobe graft in the form of a dual living donor liver transplantation. There was no donor morbidity or recipient complication. Although there is a high possibility of diverse liver anomalies in living donors with a left-sided gallbladder, complete preoperative evaluation and mapping of the multiple anatomical variations may make certain types of living donor hepatectomy feasible. (Liver Transpl 2004;10:141,146.) [source]

Low Central Venous Pressure with Milrinone During Living Donor Hepatectomy

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

Anesthesia-Related Complications in Living Liver Donors: The Experience from One Center and the Reporting of One Death

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 10 2008
S. Ozkardesler
Living donor liver transplantation has become an alternative therapy for patients with end-stage liver disease. Donors are healthy individuals and donor safety is the primary concern. The objective of this study was to evaluate the anesthetic complications and outcomes for our donor cases; we report one death. The charts of the patients who underwent donor hepatectomy from February 1997 to June 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. Right hepatectomy (resection of segments 5,8) was done in 101 donors, left lobectomy (resection of segments 2,3) in 11 donors, and left hepatectomy (resection of segments 2,4) in one donor. Minor anesthetic complications were shoulder pain, pruritus and urinary retention related to epidural morphine, and major morbidity included central venous catheter-induced thrombosis of the brachial and subclavian vein, neuropraxia, foot drop and prolonged postdural puncture headache. One of 113 donors died from pulmonary embolism on the 11th postoperative day. This procedure has some major risks related to anesthesia and surgery. Although careful attention will lower complication rate, we have to keep in mind that the risks of donor surgery will not be completely eliminated. [source]

Laparoscopic-Assisted Right Lobe Donor Hepatectomy

Remnant liver regeneration and spleen volume changes after living liver donation: influence of the middle hepatic vein

CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 6 2006
Tai-Yi Chen
Abstract:, Background and objectives:, Graft harvest with or without the middle hepatic vein (MHV) affects venous return and function of the remaining liver. The aims of this study are to compare the remnant liver volume and spleen changes in the donors of different types of graft harvest and to evaluate the influence of resection with or without the MHV on the remnant liver volume regeneration, spleen volume change and serum total bilirubin. Patients and methods: A total of 165 donors were grouped according to the type of graft harvest: 88 donors underwent left lateral segmentectomy (LLS), 10 donors underwent extend LLS or left lobectomy (LL), and 67 donors underwent right lobectomy (RL). Groups LLS and LL were later combined as group LH (left hepatectomy, n = 98). There were 68 men and 97 women. The mean age was 32.9 ± 8.1 yr. The total liver volume (LV) and spleen volume (S1) before graft harvest, graft weight (GW), regenerated liver volume (LV6m) and spleen volume (S2) six months post-donation were calculated. Results:, There were no significant differences in the regenerated liver volume six months postoperation (LV6m) and recovery ratio (LV6m/LV × 100%) among the different groups, albeit significant smaller LV6m in both groups compared with the initial liver volume was noted. Postoperative spleen volume (S2), average spleen ratio (S2/S1) and spleen change ratio were significantly larger and higher in group RL than in group LH. A significant increase in spleen volume was noted in both groups six months after graft harvest. A significantly higher TB in group RL (4.1 ± 1.7 mg/dL, range: 1.4,8.5 mg/dL) was noted compared with that of group LH (1.6 ± 1.0 mg/dL, range: 0.7,6.2 mg/dL). Conclusion: There was a significant increase in the regenerated remnant liver and splenic volumes six months postoperation in all types of hepatectomy following living donor hepatectomy, and there was no difference in the mean TB levels among donors whether the MHV was included or not in the graft. [source]