Liver Transplant With Double Portal Anastomose: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND: Reno-portal reconstruction is a surgical alternative to achieve enough portal flow in liver transplant when there is a complete portal thrombosis, provided there are collaterals or portosystemic shunt, with or without spleno-renal shunt. METHODS: We present the case of a 58-year-old man with enolic cirrhosis and a history of gastrointestinal hemorrhage due to esophageal varices and portal thrombosis. The clinical case was discussed in the Transplant Committee, and the patient was included in the surgical waiting list with a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 17 and Child-Pugh score of A6. The preoperative computer tomography scan showed significant collateral circulation with esophageal varices, varices dependent on the inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) and hypoplasic portal vein. During the operation, a large shunt from the IMV to the iliac territory and type II portal thrombosis were observed, which was managed with eversion thrombectomy. A temporary portocaval shunt was performed, showing minimal flow in the portal vein, which did not improve after ligation of the systemic shunt. It was decided to perform a reno-portal anastomosis, after which the portal flow measurement was 600 cc per minute; because of this, it was decided to supplement portal flow with an end-to-side portoportal anastomosis, obtaining a flow of 1300 cc per minute with low resistance (R0.5). RESULTS: The postoperative period was favorable, with good evolution of liver analytical parameters, with permeability of the porto-portal venous anastomoses, reno-portal, arterial, and suprahepatic anastomoses in the imaging tests. CONCLUSION: If the portal flow is insufficient with a hypoplasic portal vein, a double anastomosis, portoportal, and reno-portal would be a technical resource.

Outcome of Liver Transplants Using Donors After Cardiac Death With Normothermic Regional Perfusion.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The incorporation of normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) to donors after cardiac death (DCD) allows the recovery of liver grafts without the deleterious effects on graft survival the super-rapid technique may cause. The aim of the present report is to determine if the use of NRP in Maastricht type III DCD donors achieves short- and medium-term results comparable to donors after brain death (DBD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is an observational cohort study including 117 liver transplants executed between November 2016 and April 2021, divided into NRP (n = 39) and DBD (n = 78). RESULTS: Donors were younger in the NRP group (NRP 52 vs DBD 59.4 years; P < .005). Liver recipients in each study group were of similar age and severity of liver disease, although the predominant transplant indication in the NRP group was hepatocellular carcinoma. No differences in ischemia times were found. The incidence of early allograft disfunction and primary nonfunction was balanced between NRP and DBD. Eight patients required retransplant, all of them in the DBD group. No differences were found in biliary complications (NRP 12% vs DBD 5%; P = .104). Ischemic cholangiopathy affected a single DBD patient. Graft survival's Kaplan Meier curve shows a better outcome in the NRP group, although the difference did not reach significance (P = .075). CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of perfusion machines, and specifically the NPR in situ, converts suboptimal liver grafts such as DCD into organs comparable to DBDs.

Results of liver transplantation with donors older than 80 years: a case control study.

AIM: The inclusion of elderly donors can increase the pool of organs available for transplant. BACKGROUND: To compare clinical outcomes and survival rates in patients who received livers from donors aged ≥ 80 years vs. younger donors. METHODS: We considered all liver transplantations performed in our unit between January 2006 and January 2015. Twelve patients received liver from a cadaveric donor aged ≥ 80 years (study group) and their outcomes were compared with those of patients who received liver from a younger donor (control group). This study was carried out to analyze the characteristics of donors and recipients, as well as the clinical course and survival of recipients. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed in donors' age (55.6 ± 14.4 vs. 82.7 ± 2.7 years, p < 0.001), donors' ICU stay (p = 0.008), donors' ALT levels (p = 0.009) and donors' AST levels (p = 0.01). Statistically significant differences were found in ischemia time (p < 0.05). In total, 8.3% of the recipients of liver from a donor aged < 80 required retransplantation vs. 25% of recipients of donor's ≥ 80 years. Patient survival at one, three and five years was 89%, 78.6% and 74.5%, respectively vs. 83.4%, 79.4% and 59.6% for the study group. CONCLUSION: Livers from older donors can be safely used for transplantation with acceptable patient survival rates. However, graft survival rates are lower for recipients of livers from older donors as compared to younger donors, and survival only increased with retransplantation.