Citations

Introduction: Minimally invasive major hepatic resection (MIMHR) is increasingly being performed in tertiary centers using either hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) or totally laparoscopic surgery (TLS). The outcomes data of MIMHR are scarce, especially in comparison to open major hepatic resection (OMHR). Our aim was to compare 90-day outcomes in major hepatic resections when minimally invasive approaches are attempted. Methods and Procedures: At our institution, minimally invasive liver resection was formally introduced in January 2007, initially using the HALS approach. Since then, the use of TLS approach has increased. We collected data on all patients who underwent major liver resection between January 2007 and December 2017 at our institution. In an intention to treat fashion, we then compared MIMHR to OMHR. Results: From January 2007 to December 2017, 669 patients underwent liver resection. Of these, 203 patients (30%) underwent major hepatic resection and MIMHR and OMHR were performed in 68 (33%) and 135 (67%) patients, respectively. The rate of conversion from minimally invasive to open was 30.9%. Overall, there were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (2.9% versus 1.5%; P = .499) or major complications (14.7% versus 14.8%; P = .985). MIMHR was associated with a shorter average postoperative hospital stay (6.2 days versus 7.9 days; P = .0110) and shorter average ICU stay (0.66 days versus 0.90 days; P = .0299) compared with OMHR. Conclusions: The minimally invasive approach to major liver resection is a safe and reasonable alternative to an open approach when performed by a surgeon experienced with the relevant surgical techniques. MIMHR may be associated with similar outcomes and a shorter postoperative hospital stay with no increase in 90-day postoperative complications to OMHR.

Background. Aorto-hepatic conduits can provide arterial inflow for liver transplants in cases where the native hepatic artery is unsuitable for use. Methods. Clinical outcomes of all patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) with an aorto-hepatic conduit between 2000 and 2016 were included. Recipients were divided into 2 groups: those with a supraceliac (SC) aortic conduit (N = 22) and those with an infrarenal (IR) aortic conduit (N = 82). Results. There was no difference in calculated model for end-stage liver disease score between the 2 groups. The SC group received grafts with a higher mean donor risk index (1.69 versus 1.48; P = 0.02). Early allograft dysfunction was 18.2% in the SC group and 29.3% in the IR group (P = 0.30). In the SC group, 10.5% of patients required initiation of postoperative continuous renal replacement therapy compared to 12.1% of patients in the IR group (P = 0.69). No difference in the rate of postoperative acute kidney injury was seen between the 2 groups (P = 0.54). No significant difference in median creatinine at 1 year was seen between the SC (1.2 mg/dL; IQR 1–1.3) and IR (1.2 mg/dL; IQR 0.9–1.5) groups (P = 0.85). At a median follow-up of 5.3 years, thrombosis of the aortic conduit occurred in 0% of patients in the SC group and 6.1% of patients in the IR group (P = 0.24). Graft survival was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = 0.47). Conclusions. No difference in renal dysfunction as demonstrated by need for post-LT continuous renal replacement therapy, acute kidney injury, or creatinine at 1 year post-LT was seen between SC and IR aortic conduits. A slight trend of higher conduit thrombosis rate was seen with IR compared to SC aortic conduits; however, this did not reach statistical significance. Both SC and IR aortic conduits represent reasonable options when the native hepatic artery is unsuitable for use.

Previous large registry studies have demonstrated inferior outcomes for simultaneous liver‐kidney transplantation (SLKT) recipients of grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors compared with those from donation after brain death (DBD) donors in the era from 2000 to 2010. Given the improving national results in liver transplantation alone using grafts from DCD donors, the present study aimed to investigate if results with DCD‐SLKT have improved in the modern era. Patients undergoing SLKT between 2000 and 2018 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Analysis and Research file and divided into 2 eras based on the date of SLKT: era 1 (2000‐2010) and era 2 (2011‐2018). Improvement in DCD‐SLKT patient, liver graft, and kidney graft survival rates was seen between era 1 and era 2 (P < 0.001). Concurrently, there was a decrease in the proportion of critically ill (P = 0.02) and retransplant (P = 0.006) candidates undergoing DCD‐SLKT. When DCD‐SLKT in era 2 was compared with a propensity‐matched cohort of DBD‐SLKT in era 2, no differences in patient (P = 0.99), liver graft (P = 0.19), or kidney graft (P = 0.90) survival were observed. In addition, both bilirubin (0.5 versus 0.5 mg/dL; P = 0.86) and creatinine (1.2 versus 1.2 mg/dL; P = 0.68) at last follow‐up were not different between the DCD‐SLKT and DBD‐SLKT patients in era 2. In conclusion, in the most recent era, patients undergoing DCD‐SLKT were able to achieve similar outcomes compared with matched patients undergoing DBD‐SLKT. DCD‐SLKT represents a viable option for appropriately selected recipients.

Renal dysfunction is common in liver transplantation (LT) candidates, but differentiating between reversible and irreversible renal injury can be difficult. Kidney biopsy might be helpful in differentiating reversible from irreversible renal injury, but it is associated with significant complications. We aimed to identify pre‐LT predictors of potentially reversible renal injury using histological information obtained on pre‐LT renal biopsy. Data on 128 LT candidates who underwent pre‐LT kidney biopsy were retrospectively collected and correlated with renal histological findings. Indications for kidney biopsy were iothalamate glomerular filtration rate (iGFR) ≤40 mL/minute, proteinuria >500 mg/day, and/or hematuria. According to the biopsy diagnosis, patients were grouped into the following categories: normal (n = 13); acute tubular necrosis (ATN; n = 25); membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis (n = 19); minimal histological changes (n = 24); and advanced interstitial fibrosis (IF) and glomerulosclerosis (GS) (n = 47). Compared with patients having advanced IF/GS, patients with normal biopsies and those with ATN had lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and higher international normalized ratio and total bilirubin levels (<0.05 for all). Both SBP and DBP directly correlated with the degree of IF and GS (R = 0.3, P ≤ 0.02 for all). SBP ≤90 mm Hg was 100% sensitive and 98% specific in correlating with normal biopsies or ATN, whereas SBP ≥140 mm Hg was 22% sensitive and 90% specific in correlating with advanced IF/GS. Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score, serum creatinine, iGFR, urinary sodium excretion, and renal size did not correlate with biopsy diagnosis or degree of IF or GS. In conclusion, SBP at the time of LT evaluation correlates with renal histology, and it should be included along with other clinical and laboratory markers in the decision‐making process to list patients with renal dysfunction for LT alone versus simultaneous liver‐kidney transplantation.

Liver grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) are a source of organs to decrease wait‐list mortality. While there have been lower rates of graft loss, there are concerns of an increased incidence of intraoperative events in recipients of DCD grafts. We aim to look at the incidence of intraoperative events between recipients of livers from DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) donors. We collected data for 235 DCD liver recipients between 2006 and 2017. We performed a 1:1 propensity match between these patients and patients with DBD donors. Variables included recipient age, liver disease etiology, biological Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, allocation MELD score, diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma, and year of transplantation. DCD and DBD groups had no significant differences in incidence of postreperfusion syndrome (P = 0.75), arrhythmia requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (P = 0.66), and treatments for hyperkalemia (P = 0.84). In the DCD group, there was a significant increase in amount of total intraoperative and postreperfusion blood products (with exception of postreperfusion packed red blood cells) utilized (P < 0.05 for all products), significant differences in postreperfusion thromboelastography parameters, as well as inotropes and vasopressors used (P < 0.05 for all infusions). There was no difference in patient (P = 0.49) and graft survival (P = 0.10) at 1, 3, and 5 years. In conclusion, DCD grafts compared with a cohort of DBD grafts have a similar low incidence of major intraoperative events, but increased incidence of transient vasopressor/inotropic usage and increased blood transfusion requirements. This does not result in differences in longterm outcomes. While centers should continue to look at DCD liver donors, they should be cognizant regarding intraoperative care to prevent adverse outcomes.

It has been suggested that microsteatosis does not negatively impact graft survival following liver transplantation (LT). The present study represents the largest series on donor livers with significant microsteatosis and investigates the impact of microsteatosis on perioperative factors such as postreperfusion syndrome (PRS), early allograft dysfunction (EAD), and postoperative renal dysfunction. Clinical outcomes of all patients undergoing LT with donor livers with isolated microsteatosis (≥30%; n = 239) between 2000 and 2017 were compared with a propensity score–matched cohort of patients undergoing LT with donor livers with no steatosis (n = 239). Patients in the microsteatosis group had a higher rate of PRS (33.1% versus 24.2%; P = 0.03), EAD (38.2% versus 23.0%; P < 0.001), and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) requirement following LT (10.9% versus 3.6%; P = 0.002) than the no steatosis group. No difference in patient (P = 0.33) or graft survival (P = 0.18) was observed between the 2 groups. On multivariate regression, livers with microsteatosis had an increased risk of graft loss with retransplant recipients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.59; P < 0.001), increasing Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (HR, 1.13; P = 0.01), and organs from donation after circulatory death donors (HR, 1.46; P = 0.003). In conclusion, recipients of donor livers with significant microsteatosis are at an increased risk of PRS, EAD, and postoperative renal dysfunction requiring CRRT. Livers with significant microsteatosis should be avoided in retransplant recipients and in recipients with high biological MELD scores. Once appropriately selected recipients of these livers are able to overcome the initial perioperative implications of using these donor livers, longterm patient and graft survival is similar to recipients receiving grafts with no steatosis.

The frequency at which steatotic deceased donor liver grafts are encountered will likely continue to increase. Utilization of liver grafts with moderate‐to‐severe steatosis for liver transplantation (LT) has been previously shown to be associated with increased rates of primary nonfunction and decreased recipient survival. In order to better inform clinical decision making and guide future research, critical evaluation of the literature on donor liver steatosis and posttransplantation outcome is needed. This literature review aims to provide the “skinny” on using deceased donor steatotic livers for LT.

Background. Individuals after solid organ transplant may develop secondary malignancies. In our clinical practice, we noted an increasing number of individuals who developed colorectal cancers after solid organ transplantation. The primary aim of this study was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of the patients who developed colorectal cancer after solid organ transplant. Materials and Methods. Data was gathered and merged from several registries at Mayo Clinic to identify all patients who received a diagnosis of colon or rectal cancer and solid organ transplant. Continuous variables were summarized as mean (standard deviation) and median (range), while categorical variables were reported as frequency (percentage). Time to colorectal cancer after transplant and overall survival after cancer diagnosis were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Results. Initially, 115 colorectal cancer patients who also had a transplant were identified. The diagnosis of colorectal cancer was noted after solid organ transplant in 63 patients. The mean age at transplant was 57 years. Majority had received a kidney transplant (44.4%) followed by liver (36.5%). The median time to develop colorectal cancer was 59.3 months (range: 4.4-251.4 months). 15 (24.6%) were stage 4 at diagnosis and 13 (21.3%) had stage 3 colorectal cancer. Median overall survival was 30.8 months; 5-, 10- and 15-year survival were noted to be 42.5%, 17.9%, and 7.5%, respectively. None of the stage 4 patients were alive at 5 years; 5-year survival rate for stage 1, 2, and 3 patients was 77%, 50%, and 42%, respectively. Conclusions. Our study reports on one of the largest cohorts of patients of colorectal cancer that developed the cancer after solid organ transplant. Survival is extremely poor for advanced cases. However, long-term survivors are noted who developed the cancer at a relatively early stage. Colorectal screening recommendations may need to be revised for patients after solid organ transplant.