When to Re-explore Recipients in LRLT

Table 2: Indications and outcomes for re-explorations.

Haemorrhage

12 patients underwent 13 explorations with 6 mortalities for combined intraluminal and extra luminal abdominal haemorrhage. One patient was re-explored twice for haemorrhagic drains; in both the instances no source of bleeder could be identified. 2 patients had bleeders at the jejunojejunostomy site. They were re-explored JJ anastomosis was undone and haemostasis achieved. One patient recovered well the other suffered HIE (hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy) and was on prolonged ventilation and died of multiorgan sepis after 60 days. Two patients had hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm rupture. One was secondary to bile leak. He presented with bleed through the external wound. CT angiography revealed pseudoaneurysm [16-20]. He was taken up for angioplasty but he had massive haemorrhage and haemodynamic instability leading to emergency laparotomy and ligation of hepatic artery. He expired. The other patient presented with vague abdominal pain and shock. He was also re-explored and found to have pseudo aneurysm bleed leading to ligation of the bleeder. He also died. One patient had cut surface bleeder which was managed by suture haemostasis and patient recovered well. Two patients had bleeders from the diaphragmatic surface which was managed by suture haemostasis. They recovered well. One patient had bleeders from splenic collaterals which was suture ligated. He later on died from bile leak and sepsis. Four patients had haemorrhagic drains in whom the source was found to be retroperitoneum. Haemostasis was achieved. One patient had HJ site haemorrhage presenting with fall in HB and melena. He was managed by Re-exploration and redo HJ recovered well (Table 3).

Table 3: Source of bleeding.

Infection

Nine patients underwent 14 laparotomies with four mortalities. One patient was re-explored 3 times and another was re-explored 4 times. No source of sepsis could be identified. One was HCV, 3 cryptogenic and 5 ethanolics. All had multi-cloculated intraabdominal collections. In all patients multiple PCDs were tried. They underwent extensive peritoneal lavage and drainage. Four of them died due to fulminant fungal sepsis with mucor grown in the intraoperative cultures.

Operations upon the gastrointestinal tract

There were 7 Re-explorations on 5 patients, mortality occurred in 3 patients. One patient had introperative accidental antrotomy. He was managed by primary repair which leaked on POD5. He was reexplored and managed by Graham’s repair again along with FJ. That again leaked which was managed by re-exploration and lavage and gastrojejunostomy and FJ take down. He continues to have low output gastric fistula. One patient was explored for intra-abdominal sepsis. He had inadvertent bowel perforation. It was picked up in the immediate post-operative period by means of enteric contents in the drain. Immediate re-exploration and ileostomy was done and he recovered well. One patient had enteric contents in the drain [21-26]. She was managed conservatively in view of low output fistula. Since it did not settle she was re-explored and found to have leak at a point beyond jejunostomy. It was repaired primarily. It leaked on POD 10 and the child succumbed to sepsis. One patient presented with vague upper abdominal pain and no flow in the hepatic arteries. He was re-explored and found to have D1 perforation and HAT (Table 4). Perforation was repaired by graham’s patch technique along with hepatic artery revascularisation. He recovered well from the insult but he later developed non anastomotic biliary stricture, sepsis and died. One patient had PNF, he was retransplanted. He had an episode of hypotension in the immediate post-operative period. 3 days later he had an episode of melena. He was re-explored and found to have gangrene of whole of small intestine and part of large intestine. Abdomen was closed without any intervention and he expired.

Table 4: Intestinal sources for re-exploration.

Portal vein thrombosis

PVT Low flow status leading to obstruction or no flow in portal veins secondary to occlusion of the hepatic veins was seen in more patients. Portal vein thrombectomy, portal vein flow augmentation techniques. There were 11 laparotomies with 5 mortalities. 3 patients had isolated portal vein thrombectomy alone. No major shunts could be identified in them. Nor the looping of left renal vein augmented the portal flow. However all four patients had good portal flow post thrombectomy on intraoperative Doppler. These patients had poor graft function in the post op period had prolonged hospitalisation, sepsis, multi-organ failure and death. One patient had poor portal flow on CT and USG. But intraoperative portal flow was good and things settled uneventfully. However she had high ascites for long time which settled with diuretics. Two patients had partial PVT into op had PVT post op. both were HCV positive. Both of them recovered well after Reexploration and left renal vein ligation [26-30]. One patient had portal flow augmentation with LHA which was unsuccessful, 2 patients had cavoportal hemi-transposition of which one died the other is surviving more than 24 months. One had intraoperative portal vein stenting. The patient is doing well (Table 5).

Table 5: Portal vein flow augmentations.

Hepatic vein outflow obstruction

Two patients had documented HVOT on Doppler and CT and failed angiographic revascularisation. They were re-explored and revascularised. One was re-vascularised immediately (24 Hrs) had good graft recovery though died later on because of gram negative septicaemia. The other was re-explored after one week though the thrombectomy was successful and flow was re-established patient succumbed to late graft dysfunction and sepsis

Hepatic arterial exploration

4 patients were re-explored after failed intervention for HAT. One patient had to be eventually retransplanted but died. Two patients survived although recovery was slow. The other one had HAT secondary to duodenal perforation. The graft was well vascularised after re-exploration and thrombectomy but had prolonged hospitalisation and NAS and cholangitis and death (Table 6).

Table 6: Hepatic arterial exploration.

Biliary obstruction

Three patients were re-explored for biliary stricture in the immediate post-operative period. One patient was a case of PSC. He had RYHJ he was in sepsis in the immediate post op period. USG was suggestive of IHBRD. He was re-explored and HJ was revised. He recovered well although after 6 months he had recurrent stricture which is presently being managed by PTBD and stentings. The other two had D-D anastomotic strictures. Both were re-explored and anastomosis revised one patient recovered well, the other succumbed to sepsis (Table 7).

Table 7: Biliary obstruction.

Biliary leak

15 laparotomies were done for bile leaks with mortality of 6 patients. 2 HJ leaks, one caudate duct leak, 2 cut surface leaks, of the 2 HJ leaks one had minor leak which settled with taking extra stitches , the other one had complete disruption and severe peritoneal contamination, the anastomosis was redone but it leaked again. Both the cut surface leaks settled after re-exploration and biliostasis. One caudate duct leak was picked up in the POD 1 and was repaired and bile leak settled though patient expired later on because of portal flow related complications. Of the 10 duct to duct anastomotic leaks 5 deaths. One was converted to HJ which structured later on, with the patient presently on PTBD + dilatations (Table 8).

Table 8: Source of bile leak.

Discussion

Despite its introduction for paediatric patients nearly 20 years ago, the use of living donors for liver transplantation in adults has emerged more slowly. Interest in adult-to-adult LDLT increased as experience with the procedure grew in Japan and Korea, where deceased donor organs were not readily available. The increased use of split livers in the United States and Europe also contributed to the surgical skills needed to successfully perform the LDLT procedure. Unlike living donor kidney transplantation, where advantages of living donor over deceased donor grafts have been demonstrated in both recipient and graft survival, and where the safety of the donor operation has been documented, LDLT is still under a high level of scrutiny [30-33].

Our study was on the demographic profile of the re-explored patients to assess the indications and outcomes. The most important differences in post-transplant morbidity between recipients of LDLT and DDLT were seen in surgical complications. Biliary complications (especially biliary leak), vascular complications and unplanned Reexplorations were observed at higher frequencies in LDLT recipients. Other authors have noted higher biliary and vascular complication rates among LDLT recipients compared to historic DDLT controls. Possible explanations include the greater technical demands of LDLT, inferior quality of the LDLT graft and the caliber of LDLT donor vessels available for anastomosis. Possible explanations for the higher rate of biliary complications after LDLT (and proposed solutions) have been described. One study characterized preoperative and intraoperative findings that were associated with a higher rate of biliary complications. The level of experience with a procedure, especially one as complicated as LDLT, should be considered in analyses of outcomes. The inability to accurately assess the viability of biliary tissue at the time of anastomosis may contribute to this problem.

Many advances in LDLT have occurred over the last decade, but its exact place in the treatment armamentarium for patients with endstage liver disease and liver cancer is still being defined. This study not only provided details on complications of liver transplantation but also defined complications that are more frequent in LDLT. Despite a higher rate of complications among LDLT recipients, complications requiring re-transplantation or leading to death were not significantly higher in LDLT once centres were experienced with the procedure. This finding, in concert with our previous conclusion that choosing LDLT over continuing on the waitlist leads to a survival advantage in experienced centres, underscores the impact of the learning curve on this highly technical procedure. Potential LDLT recipients need to hear about the rates of complications, and this study will help to define those rates. The decision to proceed, however, must be balanced against the possibility of deteriorating or dying while on the waitlist. As the practice of LDLT matures, it will be important to continually reevaluate the morbidity associated with the operation and identify opportunities to improve its outcomes.

Conclusion

Re-exploration rate in our series was 10%. Mortality rate in our series was 50%. Commonest indication was intra-abdominal sepsis. Mortality was high in sepsis group of patients. Overall the reexploration group of patients had high mortality rate compared to the non-re-explored group of patients. Early Re-explorations had better outcomes compared to late explorations. Re-explored patients had high incidence of fungal sepsis hence need to be placed on upgraded antifungals.

References

1. Strong RW (2006) Living-donor liver transplantation: an overview.  J HepatobiliaryPancreatSurg 13: 370-377.
2. Humar A (2003) Donor and recipient outcomes after adult living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl9: S42-S44.
3. Pomposelli JJ, Verbesey J, Simpson MA (2006) Improved survival after live donor adult liver transplantation (LDALT) using right lobe grafts: Program experience and lesson learned. Am J Transplant 6: 589-598.
4. Maluf DG, Stravitz RT, Cotterell AH, Posner MP, Nakatsuka M, et al. (2005) Adult living donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation: a 6-year single center experience.  Am J Transplant 5: 149-156.
5. Ho MC, Wu YM, Hu RH, Ko WJ, Ni YH, et al. (2004) Surgical complications and outcome of living related liver transplantation.  Transplant Proc 36: 2249-2251.
6. Morioka D, Egawa H, Kasahara M, Ito T, Haga H, et al. (2007) Outcomes of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: a single institution's experience with 335 consecutive cases.  Ann Surg 245: 315-325.
7. Liu B, Yan LN, Wang WT, Li B, Zeng Y, et al. (2007) Clinical study on safety of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation in both donors and recipients.  World J Gastroenterol 13: 955-959.
8. Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM (1992) Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy.  Surgery 111: 518-526.
9. Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Mentha G, Borst F, Buhler L, et al. (1992) Recent results of elective open cholecystectomy in a North American and a European center. Comparison of complications and risk factors.  Ann Surg 216: 618-626.
10. Clavien PA, Camargo CA, Croxford R, Langer B, Levy GA, et al. (1994) Definition and classification of negative outcomes in solid organ transplantation. Application in liver transplantation. Ann Surg220: 109-120.
11. Olthoff KM, Merion RM, Ghobrial RM, Abecassis MM, Fair JH, et al. (2005) Outcomes of 385 adult-to-adult living donor liver transplant recipients: a report from the A2ALL Consortium.  Ann Surg 242: 314-323, discussion 323-5.
12. Florman S, Miller CM (2006) Live donor liver transplantation.  Liver Transpl 12: 499-510.
13. Pascher A, Neuhaus P (2005) Bile duct complications after liver transplantation.  TransplInt 18: 627-642.
14. Roodnat JI, van Riemsdijk IC, Mulder PG, Doxiadis I, Claas FH, et al. (2003) The superior results of living-donor renal transplantation are not completely caused by selection or short cold ischemia time: a single-center, multivariate analysis.  Transplantation 75: 2014-2018.
15. Cronin DC 2nd, Millis JM, Siegler M (2001) Transplantation of liver grafts from living donors into adults--too much, too soon.  N Engl J Med 344: 1633-1637.
16. Berg CL, Gillespie BW, Merion RM (2007) Improvement in survival associated with adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. Gastroenterology 133: 1806-1813.
17. Trotter JF,Wachs M, Everson GT, Kam I (2002) Adult-to-adult transplantation of the right hepatic lobe from a living donor.  N Engl J Med 346: 1074-1082.
18. Kasahara M, Egawa H, Takada Y (2006) Biliary reconstruction in right lobe living-donor liver transplantation: Comparison of different techniques in 321 recipients. Ann Surg. 2006; 243: 559–566.
19. Takatsuki M, Eguchi S, Kawashita Y, Kanematsu T (2006) Biliary complications in recipients of living-donor liver transplantation.  J HepatobiliaryPancreatSurg 13: 497-501.
20. Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL, Tso WK, Wong J (2002) Biliary reconstruction and complications of right lobe live donor liver transplantation.  Ann Surg 236: 676-683.
21. Takatsuki M, Chiang YC, Lin TS, Wang CC, Concejero A, et al. (2006) Anatomical and technical aspects of hepatic artery reconstruction in living donor liver transplantation.  Surgery 140: 824-828.
22. Sugawara Y, Sano K, Kaneko J, Akamatsu N, Kishi Y, et al. (2003) Duct-to-duct biliary reconstruction for living donor liver transplantation: experience of 92 cases.  Transplant Proc 35: 2981-2982.
23. Ikegami T, Hashikura Y, Nakazawa Y (2006) Risk factors contributing to hepatic artery thrombosis following living-donor liver transplantation. J HepatobiliaryPancreatSurg 13: 105-109.
24. Giacomoni A, Lauterio A, Slim AO, Vanzulli A, Calcagno A, et al. (2006) Biliary complications after living donor adult liver transplantation.  TransplInt 19: 466-473.
25. Ko GY, Sung KB, Yoon HK, Lee SG (2007) Early posttransplantation portal vein stenosis following living donor liver transplantation: Percuataneoustranshepatic primary stent placement. Liver Transpl. 13: 530-536.
26. Shah SA, Grant DR, McGilvray ID, Greig PD, Selzner M, et al. (2007) Biliary strictures in 130 consecutive right lobe living donor liver transplant recipients: results of a Western center.  Am J Transplant 7: 161-167.
27. Gondolesi G, Varotti G, Florman S (2004) Biliary complications in 96 consecutive right lobe living donor transplant recipients. Transplantation77: 1842-1848.
28. Yeh BM, Coakley FV, Westphalen A (2007) Predicting biliary complications in right lobe liver transplant recipients according to distance between donor's bile duct and corresponding hepatic artery. Radiology 242: 144-151.
29. Liu CL, Chung ML, Chan SC, Fan ST (2004) Safety of duct-to-duct biliary reconstruction in right-lobe live-donor liver transplantation without biliary drainage. Transplantation77: 726-732.
30. Yan L, Li B, Zeng Y (2007) Preliminary experience for reducing biliary complication in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation using right lobe graft. Hepatol Res37: 305-309.
31. Yi NJ, Suh KS, Cho JY, Kwon CH, Lee KU (2005) In adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation hepaticojejunostomy shows a better long-term outcome than duct-to-duct anastomosis. Transplant Int18: 1240-1247.
32. Soejima Y, Taketomi A, Yoshizumi T (2006) Biliary strictures in living donor liver transplantation: Incidence, management, and technical evolution. Liver Transpl12: 979-986.
33. Liu CL, Fan ST (2006) Adult-to-adult live-donor liver transplantation: the current status.  J HepatobiliaryPancreatSurg 13: 110-116.