Sutherasan Methee, Vorasittha Athaya, Taesombat Wipusit, Nonthasoot Bunthoon, Uthaithammarat Tatsana, Sirichindakul Pongserath
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand; Excellence Center for Organ Transplantation, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Department of Surgery, BMA General Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Transplant Proc. 2022 Oct;54(8):2224-2229. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2022.06.006. Epub 2022 Sep 14.
In orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), 3 caval reconstruction techniques are being performed worldwide. These are conventional, piggyback technique, and side-to-side cavocaval anastomosis (CCA). Each has its own advantages and drawbacks. Herein we report the result from our hospital comparing the 3 techniques.
We retrospectively reviewed the detail of OLT performed from January 2008 to March 2020. Data being collected included type of caval reconstruction, blood loss, operative time, ischemic time, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and total hospital stay, and several postoperative complications.
In the given period, 11 conventional, 90 piggyback, and 113 CCA caval reconstruction were done. There were no statistically significant differences in blood loss, operative time, cold ischemic time, and length of ICU and hospital stay. The CCA group had the lowest warm ischemic time (40 minutes) followed by the piggyback technique (43 minutes) and the conventional technique (47 minutes; P < .001). Regarding postoperative complications, there were no statistically significant differences in rate of primary nonfunction, early allograft dysfunction, hepatic artery/portal vein/biliary complication, or rate of acute kidney injury. The hepatic venous outflow complication rate was indifferent between 3 groups.
The present study showed no difference in outflow obstruction rate among the 3 techniques. The choice for reconstruction should rely on the preference of each institute and the suitability of each patient. The CCA technique may provide the lowest warm ischemic time.
在原位肝移植(OLT)中,全球范围内正在应用三种腔静脉重建技术。它们分别是传统技术、背驮式技术和侧侧腔静脉吻合术(CCA)。每种技术都有其自身的优缺点。在此我们报告我院对这三种技术进行比较的结果。
我们回顾性分析了2008年1月至2020年3月期间进行的OLT的详细情况。收集的数据包括腔静脉重建类型、失血量、手术时间、缺血时间、重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间和总住院时间,以及几种术后并发症。
在给定时期内,进行了11例传统腔静脉重建、90例背驮式腔静脉重建和113例CCA腔静脉重建。在失血量、手术时间、冷缺血时间以及ICU和住院时间方面,差异无统计学意义。CCA组的热缺血时间最短(40分钟),其次是背驮式技术(43分钟)和传统技术(47分钟;P < 0.001)。关于术后并发症,在原发性无功能发生率、早期移植物功能障碍、肝动脉/门静脉/胆道并发症发生率或急性肾损伤发生率方面,差异无统计学意义。三组之间肝静脉流出道并发症发生率无差异。
本研究表明这三种技术在流出道梗阻率方面无差异。重建方式的选择应取决于各机构的偏好以及每个患者的适用性。CCA技术可能提供最短的热缺血时间。