Published online Jun 21, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i23.4270
Peer-review started: February 1, 2017
First decision: February 23, 2017
Revised: March 9, 2017
Accepted: May 19, 2017
Article in press: May 19, 2017
Published online: June 21, 2017
Processing time: 146 Days and 18.9 Hours
To analyze the outcomes of living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using left-lobe (LL) or right-lobe (RL) small-for-size (SFS) grafts.
Prospectively collected data of adult patients who underwent LDLT at our hospital in the period from January 2003 to December 2013 were reviewed. The patients were divided into the RL-LDLT group and the LL-LDLT group. The two groups were compared in terms of short- and long-term outcomes, including incidence of postoperative complication, graft function, graft survival, and patient survival. A SFS graft was defined as a graft with a ratio of graft weight (GW) to recipient standard liver volume (RSLV) (GW/RSLV) of < 50%. The Urata formula was used to estimate RSLV.
Totally 218 patients were included for analysis, with 199 patients in the RL-LDLT group and 19 patients in the LL-LDLT group. The two groups were similar in terms of age (median, 53 years in the RL-LDLT group and 52 years in the LL-LDLT group, P = 0.997) but had significantly different ratios of men to women (165:34 in the RL-LDLT group and 8:11 in the LL-LDLT group, P < 0.0001). The two groups were also significantly different in GW (P < 0.0001), GW/RSLV (P < 0.0001), and graft cold ischemic time (P = 0.007). When it comes to postoperative complication, the groups were comparable (P = 0.105). Five patients died in hospital, 4 (2%) in the RL-LDLT group and 1 (5.3%) in the LL-LDLT group (P = 0.918). There were 38 graft losses, 33 (16.6%) in the RL-LDLT group and 5 (26.3%) in the LL-LDLT group (P = 0.452). The 5-year graft survival rate was significantly better in the RL-LDLT group (95.2% vs 89.5%, P = 0.049). The two groups had similar 5-year patient survival rates (RL-LDLT: 86.8%, LL-LDLT: 89.5%, P = 0.476).
The use of SFS graft in LDLT requires careful tailor-made surgical planning and meticulous operation. LL-LDLT can be a good alternative to RL-LDLT with similar recipient outcomes but a lower donor risk. Further research into different patient conditions is needed in order to validate the use of LL graft.
Core tip: Liver transplant has become an established treatment for liver failure. The use of living-donor liver graft is one important strategy to expand the donor pool. The use of left lobe graft remains controversial due to the potential problem of small-for-size syndrome. This study illustrates that the use of left lobe graft can produce outcomes similar to right lobe graft. However, the study contains selection bias since most of the recipients of left lobe grafts had relatively lower Model for End-stage Liver Disease scores and were women, who are lighter in weight. Therefore, further study should focus on the establishment of criteria for the use of left lobe graft to allow safe transplant.