Liver transplantation with preservation of the inferior vena cava. A comparison of conventional and piggyback techniques in adults

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyse a single centre's experience with two techniques of liver transplantation (OLT), conventional (CON-OLT) and piggyback (PB-ES), and to compare outcome in terms of survival, morbidity, mortality and post-operative liver function as well as operative characteristics. A consecutive series (1994-2000) of 167 adult primary OLT were analysed. Ninety-six patients had CON-OLT and 71 patients had PB-ES. In PB-ES group two revascularization protocols were used. In the first protocol reperfusion of the graft was performed first via the portal vein followed by the arterial anastomosis (PB-seq). In the second protocol the graft was reperfused simultaneously via portal vein and hepatic artery (PB-sim). One-, 3- and 5-yr patient survival in the CON-OLT and PB-ES groups were 90, 83 and 80%, and 83, 78 and 78%, respectively (p = ns). Graft survival at the same time points was 81, 73 and 69%, and 78, 69 and 65%, respectively (p = ns). Apart from the higher number of patients with cholangitis and sepsis in CON-OLT group, morbidity, retransplantation rate and post-operative liver and kidney function were not different between the two groups. The total operation time was not different between both groups (9.4 h in PB-ES vs. 10.0 h in CON-OLT), but in PB-ES group cold and warm ischaemia time (CIT and WIT), revascularization time (REVT), functional and anatomic anhepatic phases (FAHP and AAHP) were significantly shorter (8.9 h vs. 10.7 h, 54 min vs. 63 min, 82 min vs. 114 min, 118 min vs. 160 min and 87 min vs. 114 min, respectively, p < 0.05). RBC use in the PB-ES group was lower compared to the CON-OLT group (4.0 min vs. 10.0 units, p < 0.05). Except for WIT and REVT there were no differences in operative characteristics between PB-Sim and PB-Seq groups. The WIT was significantly longer in PB-Sim group compared with PB-Seq group (64 min vs. 50 min, p < 0.05); however REVT was significantly shorter in PB-Sim group (64 min vs. 97 min, p < 0.05). Results of this study show that both techniques are comparable in survival and morbidity; however PB-ES results in shorter AAHP, FAHP, REVT and WIT as well as less RBC use. In the PB-ES group there seems to be no advantage for any of the revascularization protocols.