Combining living and deceased donation for pediatric first isolated liver transplantation: A win-win even in countries with high deceased donor donation rates.

BACKGROUND: Split and living donor liver transplantations are both key surgical strategies for development of pediatric liver transplant programs. Often, however, teams tend to prioritize only one preferentially. METHODS: In the context of a very active national split liver graft allocation program (Italy), retrospective study of 226 consecutive pediatric first isolated liver transplants performed by a single team using organs from both deceased and living donors. Clinical characterisitics and outcome were compared. RESULTS: In the context of a steadily slowly decreasing split graft offer, living donation activity steadily increased. Deceased and living donation accounted for 52.6% and 47.4% of transplantations, respectively. Both strategies were equally used for transplanting patients up to 30 kg of weight, while deceased donors were predominantly used for older recipients. Technical variants represented 86% of all transplants, with 183 conisting of left lateral segment grafts (76 split liver grafts and 107 left grafts from living donors). Outcome of both surgical strategies was similar, with excellent outcomes at early, mid-, and long-term. CONCLUSIONS: Splitting livers of deceased donors and using living donation were complementary and non-competitive strategies for developping pediatric liver transplant activity. Implementing both activities in parallell allowed to maintain stable the number of annual transplant in Italy and allowed to reach superior outcomes. This analysis provides evidence that living donation plays a role in Italy despite an existing very active "mandatory-split" national policy.

Revisiting the forgotten "full-right full-left" liver division: Simplified technique and new strategical considerations for clinical implementation in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Full-right/full-left liver splitting was introduced early in the 90s as part of the great wave of technical innovations that characterized that decade. One approach was to divide the liver on the right of the Cantlie's line and leave the middle hepatic vein with the left graft, with both grafts allocated to adults. Both grafts had some functional disadvantages and exposed the adult recipients to some early hepatic dysfunction, and the results were not great. An alternative approach consisted of an ex situ division of the liver, exactly along Cantlie's line, thus sharing the middle hepatic vein between the two grafts. None of these two techniques were really adopted, and there has been nearly no transplantation of this type in the last decade worldwide. METHOD AND RESULTS: The authors propose a variation of the latter technique that was used recently with success: The division of the liver is made simpler; the two grafts are prepared ex situ and need a simple vascular reconstruction (one venous patch on each graft); and the grafts can be implanted using very standard techniques. CONCLUSION: Because candidates for liver transplantation weighing 25-60 kg (old children, teenagers, and some small adults) are often at some disadvantage in getting size-matched livers (this range of weight is less represented in the donor population), implementing the latter technique would help provide adequate grafts for them. In Italy, where many livers offered for splitting are not used, there would be ample room for implementing this option within the actual donor pool and allocation system.