Comparable short- and long-term outcomes in deceased-donor and living-donor liver retransplantation.

Abstract

There is a big controversy over liver retransplantation, the only life-saving treatment for patients with a failing or failed liver graft. This retrospective study tried to determine if living-donor liver retransplantation (re-LDLT) is a justifiable alternative to deceased-donor liver retransplantation (re-DDLT). Anonymous data of liver transplant patients from January 2000 to April 2016 were reviewed. Recipients of retransplantation were divided into the re-DDLT and re-LDLT groups. The groups were compared in demographic characteristics, pre-retransplant and intraoperative details, and short- and long-term outcomes. Risk for living donors was examined. Twenty-nine patients had 33 re-DDLTs and 15 patients received re-LDLT. The re-LDLT group had lighter grafts (525 vs. 1295g, p≤0.001), a smaller ratio of graft weight to recipient standard liver volume (56.98 vs. 107.7%, p≤0.001), and shorter cold ischemia (106 vs. 451min, p≤0.001). The groups were otherwise comparable. Two patients in the re-DDLT group had Grade-5 complication. The groups were similar in patient survival (p=0.326) and graft survival (p=0.102). No living donors died, but three of them developed Grade-1 complications. With the required expertise, re-LDLT can produce results comparable to those of re-DDLT while keeping donor risk at bay. In places where the demand for deceased-donor liver grafts far outstrips supply, re-LDLT can be considered as an alternative to re-DDLT if the expertise is available and if the potential recipient benefits can balance out the potential donor risks.