Abstract:To the Editor: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has expanded the donor pool in countries with low cadaveric organ donation rates. Generally, a left-side liver allograft is sufficient and safe for child and adolescent recipients.[1] For the sake of the donor's cosmetic demands and for early functional rehabilitation, laparoscopic technology has been used in live hepatectomy since 2002.[2] Three-dimensional visualization provides better depth perception and tactile feedback than does conventional two-dimensional laparoscopy.[3] In this report, we presented a case of pure three-dimensional laparoscopic full left live hepatectomy. A 39-year-old mother, weighing 56 kg, height 158 cm and body mass index (BMI) of 22.4 kg/m2, volunteered to donate the left side of her liver to her 13-year-old son (weight 34 kg, height 148 cm and BMI of 15.5 kg/m2). The recipient was diagnosed with cryptogenic decompensated cirrhosis with severe portal hypertension, refractory ascites, splenomegaly, hypersplenism and a history of recurrent episodes of esophageal gastric variceal bleeding. His Child-Pugh class was B-10. His model for end-stage liver disease score was 11. The donor was comprehensively evaluated before surgery. Liver volume and vascular anatomy were evaluated by computed tomography (CT) angiography on a three-dimensional reconstruction system (IQQA-liver software, EDDA Technology, Princeton, NJ, USA). Biliary anatomy was assessed by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). The donor's left liver volume, excluding the middle hepatic vein (MHV) and caudate lobe, was 414 cm3 with a graft-to-recipient weight (GRWR) of 1.22% and a remnant liver volume of 65.7% [Figure 1A]. The left liver had 1 portal vein and 2 branches of arteries. The MRCP showed normal biliary confluence with 1 bile duct from the left liver [Figure 1B].Figure 1: (A) Liver volumetry of the donor by three-dimensional CT scan. (B) Anatomy of the donor biliary duct by MRCP. (C) Trocar positions. (D) Operators with three-dimensional glasses on both sides of the patient. (E) Encircled vessels of left donor liver. LHA: left hepatic artery; LPV: left portal vein; LHD: left hepatic duct. (F) Encircled outflow vessels of left liver. ★: Common trunk of the left and middle hepatic veins. (G) The transection plane is kept at the left side of MHV. (H) Implanted liver graft. MHV: middle hepatic vein; MRCP: magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography.The donor was informed of the risks of laparoscopic liver procurement and three-dimensional visual surgery. Written informed consent was obtained from both the donor and recipient prior to their surgeries. All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethics Committee of the West China Hospital of Sichuan University. Under general anesthesia, the donor was placed in 30° reverse Trendelenburg position with arms abducted and the surgeons standing at the 2 sides of the donor. The placement of 5 optic trocars is shown in Figure 1C. An Endoeye Flex 3D video laparoscope (© Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) was used [Figure 1D]. After inspecting the peritoneal cavity, the left lobe was mobilized, and cholecystectomy was performed. Then, the 2 branches of left hepatic arteries (LHA) and the left portal vein (LPV) were dissected and taped with vessel loops [Figure 1E]. The common trunk of the left hepatic vein (LHV) and MHV was encircled by dissecting the tunnel between the trunk of the hepatic vein and the retrohepatic inferior vena cava [Figure 1F]. By transiently clamping the left inflow vessels, the ischemic demarcation line on the liver surface was marked as the transection line. Intraoperative ultrasound was used to identify MHV, which was kept with the donor [Figure 1G]. A laparoscopic HarmonicTM scalpel (© Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) and ultrasonic aspirator (CUSA Excel+, Integra, New Jersey, USA) were used for parenchymal transection. The intrahepatic vessels were divided between Hem-o-Lok clips (Weck®, Telefex Medical, North Carolina, USA). When transecting to the hilar plate, the left hepatic bile duct was clamped and divided at the branch point of left and common hepatic duct with rereading of the MRCP image. Then, the previous 10 cm subumbilical median incision was prepared without opening the peritoneum. After heparin was given to the donor, the LHAs and LPV were clamped and divided using Hem-o-Loks. The LHV was divided using a vascular stapler. After the graft was extracted through the incision, hemostasis was obtained and 1 drainage tube was left. The recipient underwent splenectomy and piggy-back transplantation [Figure 1H]. The donor's operation time was 495 min. Blood loss was less than 100 mL with no transfusion. The graft weighted 400 g with a GRWR of 1.18%, and the remnant liver was 66.8% of the donor's liver volume. The donor was discharged on the sixth postoperative day with normal liver function. The recipient's operation time was 460 min. The recipient was discharged at the 38th postoperative day with normal graft function. The primary concern in LDLT is the healthy living donor's safety. Left lobe donation was reported to have lower morbidity than that of right lobe donation.[1] Though there is a potential risk of insufficient allograft volume, left lobe allografts can still be safely transplanted to selected adult and adolescent recipients.[4] In this case, the remnant liver volume was 66.8% for the adult donor, and GRWR was 1.18% for the adolescent recipient. Therefore, the utilization of left lobe balanced the donor's safety and the recipient's need. In experienced centers, laparoscopic liver donation has been technically feasible and fairly safe for all pediatric and some adult LDLTs, resulting in greater cosmetic satisfaction and fewer wound complaints.[5] From October 2015 to August 2018, we have completed 18 laparoscopic living donor hepatectomies, including 6 left lateral lobes, 5 left lobes (including this case) and 7 right lobes. Nevertheless, the most challenging issue for laparoscopy is technical difficulty and prolonged surgical procedure learning curves. Furthermore, one of the major limitations of conventional two-dimensional laparoscopy is the absence of depth perception and tactile feedback. However, the three-dimensional laparoscopy can produce a stereoscopic view of the operative field, demonstrating the superiority of improved speed and the precision of laparoscopic procedures compared with traditional two-dimensional laparoscopy.[3] The three-dimensional high definitive imaging system, using videoscopes with flectional tips, enables surgeons to view anatomy from the ideal angles without restriction. The addition of depth perception and hand-eye coordination by three-dimensional laparoscopy contributes to accurate hilum dissection, as well as better identification of intro-corporeal vessels and achievement of hemostasis.[3] In conclusion, we presented our initial experience with pure three-dimensional laparoscopic left hepatectomy for LDLT. Nevertheless, laparoscopic donor hepatectomy should only be performed in select cases with normal anatomy for the sake of donor safety by an experienced surgical team with expertise in both laparoscopic liver surgery and living donor hepatectomy. Declaration of patient consent The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form, the patient(s)/patient's guardians has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the article. The patients/patient's guardians understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal the identity of the patient, although anonymity cannot be guaranteed. Acknowledgements We acknowledge the China Liver Transplant Registry (http://www.cltr.org/) for supporting the study data. Conflicts of interest None.

Abstract:Liver TransplantationVolume 13, Issue 7 p. 1062-1064 Images in Liver TransplantationFree Access U-graft anastomosis for anomalous portal venous branching reconstruction in right lobe living donor liver transplantation Mingqing Xu, Mingqing Xu Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorLunan Yan, Corresponding Author Lunan Yan [email protected] Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of China Telephone: 86-28-85422476Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJichun Zhao, Jichun Zhao Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorBo Li, Bo Li Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorTianfu Wen, Tianfu Wen Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorYong Zeng, Yong Zeng Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorYukui Ma, Yukui Ma Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorWentao Wang, Wentao Wang Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJaying Yang, Jaying Yang Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorZheyu Chen, Zheyu Chen Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this author Mingqing Xu, Mingqing Xu Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorLunan Yan, Corresponding Author Lunan Yan [email protected] Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of China Telephone: 86-28-85422476Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJichun Zhao, Jichun Zhao Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorBo Li, Bo Li Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorTianfu Wen, Tianfu Wen Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorYong Zeng, Yong Zeng Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorYukui Ma, Yukui Ma Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorWentao Wang, Wentao Wang Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJaying Yang, Jaying Yang Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorZheyu Chen, Zheyu Chen Liver Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 28 June 2007 https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.21115Citations: 6 AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Adult-to-adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation (A-A RL-LDLT) using a right lobe graft has become popular because it provides a larger liver graft that is appropriate for adult recipients despite ethical disputes regarding donor safety. However, a higher incidence of anatomic variations of the portal vein (PV) on the right liver in comparison with the left increases the technical difficulty of vascular reconstruction.1-4 Anomalous portal venous branching (APVB), which results in 2 venous openings in a right lobe graft, is one of the common anatomic variations encountered during living donor evaluation. Individuals with such APVB have often been disqualified as right lobe donors because of the technical difficulty in vascular reconstruction. Modifications in excision and anastomosis techniques, including discoid-patch excision of the PV branching confluence followed by repair with vein patchplasty and segmental resection of the main PV and Y-graft interposition, have recently allowed the use of right lobe liver grafts from donors with anomalous PV.5-7 However, these techniques have the disadvantages of donor PV injury and a special requirement for the shape of the interposition graft. We herein describe a novel U-shaped vein graft interposition to manage such a PV anomaly in A-A RL-LDLT. Abbreviations A, right anterior portal vein; Anastomosis, U-graft anastomosis with portal vein (or anastomosis for portal vein); APVB, anomalous portal venous branching; A-A RL-LDLT, adult-to-adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation; D, drainage vein of middle hepatic vein; HA, hepatic artery; IVC, inferior vena cava; L, left portal vein; P, right posterior portal vein; PV, portal vein; U, U-graft arm. One donor of A-A RL-LDLT with type III APVB according to the types proposed by Cheng et al.8 underwent a right hepatic lobectomy on August 2006 in West China Hospital. This donor had independent posterior sectoral branching from the main PV trunk. The recipient with the diagnosis of advanced liver failure secondary to chronic hepatitis B had type I (normal) PV branches.8 The donor right hepatic lobectomy was performed as described.9 After the parenchymal transection was finished, the right hepatic duct, right hepatic artery, right PV branching, and right hepatic vein were transected approximately 2–3 mm from the confluence. The right PV branching was excised separately with 2 segregate openings approximately 3 mm from the confluence; this left the donor's main PV and confluence intact. The graft was flushed with a University of Wisconsin solution through the PV on the back table. The recipient operation was performed as described.9 The recipient operation consisted of a total hepatectomy with preservation of the inferior vena cava (IVC). During hilar dissection, attention was paid to preservation of the blood supply to the native bile duct. The bile duct was divided above the confluence to obtain multiple proximal hepatic duct openings in preparation for duct-to-duct anastomosis. The hepatic artery and PV branching were transected near the hilar plate. The right hepatic vein of the graft was anastomosed to the recipient's right hepatic vein under side clamping of the IVC, with the recipient's venous orifice made larger than the graft's venous orifice to facilitate outflow drainage. The APVB reconstruction procedure and outcome are described below. The liver graft was reperfused with PV blood to end the anhepatic period. An interposition vein graft to the middle hepatic vein tributary of the live graft was anastomosed to the recipient's IVC before reconstruction of the hepatic artery. Hepatic artery anastomosis was performed under microscopy. Bile duct reconstruction was performed by duct-to-duct anastomosis. Because the 2 right PV branches were short and far apart, a novel U-shaped vein graft interposition technique was used for APVB reconstruction (Figs. 1-4). The U-graft interposition technique was described as following: (1) The two ends of a cryopreserved linear iliac vein, its length is about 3–4 times of the distance between the two separate PV branches, were anastomosed to the donor's right anterior and right posterior PV branches on the back table, respectively. (2) A proper longitudinal incision was performed at the middle part of the vein graft. (3) The recipient's main portal vein was end-to-side anastomosed to the incision at the middle portion of the vein graft. The U-graft anastomosis operation lasted for 26 minutes, and the short operation duration suggested that the manipulation of this technique was easy. Figure 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Preoperative imaging of donor PV branches by 3-dimensional reconstruction of computer telegraphy. Abbreviations: A, right anterior portal vein; L, left portal vein; P, right posterior portal vein; PV, portal vein. Figure 2Open in figure viewerPowerPoint U-shaped vein graft interposition. Abbreviations: anastomosis, anastomosis for portal vein; D, drainage vein of middle hepatic vein; U, U-graft arm. Figure 3Open in figure viewerPowerPoint U-graft anastomosis reconstruction. Abbreviations: anastomosis, U-graft anastomosis with portal vein; D, drainage vein of middle hepatic vein; PV, portal vein; U, U-graft arm. Figure 4Open in figure viewerPowerPoint U-graft anastomosis reconstruction and HA reconstruction. Abbreviations: anastomosis, U-graft anastomosis with portal vein; D, drainage vein of middle hepatic vein; HA, hepatic artery; PV, portal vein; U, U-graft arm. Fraxiparine was routinely administrated (2000 IU/day, subcutaneously) after living donor liver transplantation for 7 days to prevent the PV and hepatic artery from suffering postoperative coagulation, without additional special anticoagulation for the cryopreserved U-graft. No vascular complications such as PV thrombosis/stricture, hepatic artery thrombosis/stricture, or hepatic vein outflow stricture occurred in this recipient. The diameters of the main PV and the anterior and posterior arms of the U-graft on postoperative day 21 were 1.3, 1.1, and 1.0 cm, respectively. The velocity of blood flow in the main PV and the anterior and posterior arms of the U-graft on postoperative day 21 were 37, 64, and 61 cm/s, respectively. The liver function of this recipient was normal. These results suggested that this U-graft anastomosis for APVB reconstruction was safe. Compared with Y-graft interposition, the novel U-graft interposition has an advantage of no special requirement for the shape of the vein graft as only a Y-shaped vein can be used in the former procedure but a linear vein can be used for the U-graft. The U-graft technique overcomes the shortage of Y-shaped blood vessels, and so many linear blood vessels can be used for U-grafts. The requirement for U-graft vessels of the proper diameter and length may be a potential limitation of this technique; we suggest that the graft vessel should be about 3-4 times the length of the distance between the 2 separate PV branches, and the diameter of the graft vessel should be well matched with APVB. When the cadaveric iliac vein cannot be used as a Y-graft for various causes and/or the recipient PV cannot be used as a Y-graft because of pathological changes such as recanalization after thrombosis, the U-graft technique could be an alternative to reconstruction. Although a linear graft can be split in 2 and be created as a Y-graft, these procedures could induce more anastomosis and could increase the management difficulty and risk of vascular complications, and so we suggest that U-graft interposition could be the preferred procedure. In summary, our experience suggests that this novel U-graft interposition for the reconstruction of APVB with short and far apart PV branching could be safe and feasible; this procedure has a favorable outcome without increasing management difficulty. REFERENCES 1 Marcos A, Ham JM, Fishere RA, Olzinski AT, Posner MP. Surgical management of anatomical variations of the right lobe in living donor liver transplantation. Ann Surg 2000; 231: 824– 831. 2 Marcos A, Orloff M, Mieles L, Olzinski A, Sitzmann J. Reconstruction of double hepatic arterial and portal venous branches for right-lobe living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2001; 7: 673– 679. 3 Covey AM, Brody LA, Getrajdman GI, Sofocleous CT, Brown KT. Incidence, patterns and clinical relevance of variant portal vein anatomy. Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183: 1055– 1064. 4 Nakamura T, Tanaka K, Kiuchi T, Kasahara M, Oike F, Ueda M, et al. Anatomical variations and surgical strategies in right lobe living donor liver transplantation: lessons from 120 cases. Transplantation 2002; 73: 1896– 1903. 5 Thayer WP, Claridge JA, Pelletier SJ, Oh CK, Sanfey HA, Sawyer RG, et al. Portal vein reconstruction in right lobe living-donor liver transplantation. J Am Coll Surg 2001; 194: 96– 98. 6 Varotti G, Gondolesi GE, Goldman J, Wayne M, Florman SS, Schwartz ME, et al. Anatomic variations in right liver living donors. J Am Coll Surg 2004; 198: 577– 582. 7 Lee SG, Hwang S, Kim KH, Ahn CS, Park KM, Lee YJ, et al. Approach to anatomic variations of the graft portal vein in right lobe living-donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 2003; 75( suppl 3): S28– S32. 8 Cheng YF, Huang TL, Lee TY, Chen TY, Chen CL. Variation of the intrahepatic portal vein; angiographic demonstration and application in living-related hepatic transplantation. Transplant Proc 1996; 28: 1667– 1668. 9 Yan LN, Li B, Wen TF, Wen TF, Zhao JC, Wang WT, et al. Modified techniques for adult-adult living donor liver transplantation. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2006; 5: 173– 179. Citing Literature Volume13, Issue7July 2007Pages 1062-1064 FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation

Laparoscopic Donor Right Hepatectomy in a Donor with Type III Portal Vein Anomaly A Case Report

Laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy with venous outflow reconstruction using cadaveric common iliac artery allograft: Case report and literature review.

Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hemihepatectomy with Venous Outflow Reconstruction Using Cadaveric Common Iliac Artery Allograft

Completely Laparoscopic Alpps Using Round-The-Liver Ligation To Replace Parenchymal Transection For A Patient With Multiple Right Liver Cancers Complicated With Liver Cirrhosis (Vol 24, Pg 883, 2014)

Total Laparoscopic Right Hemihepatectomy Through Anterior Approach for Larger Tumors in the Right Lobe of the Liver

Laparoscopic Donor Right Hepatectomy with Reconstruction of Segment V and VIII Tributaries of the Middle Hepatic Vein Using a Cadaveric Iliac Artery Allograft

The First Case of Total Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hemihepatectomy in Mainland China and Literature Review

Laparoscopic-assisted right hepatectomy in living donors of liver transplantation(video)

Surgical procedures for management of right portal venous branching in right lobe living donor liver transplantation.

Pure Three-Dimensional Laparoscopic Full Left Hepatectomy of a Living Donor for an Adolescent in China

Donor Right Hepatectomy in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Report of 143 Cases.

Toward Current Standards of Donor Right Hepatectomy for Adult-to-Adult Live Donor Liver Transplantation Through the Experience of 200 Cases

U-graft Anastomosis for Anomalous Portal Venous Branching Reconstruction in Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation.

Feasibility of total laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy compared with open surgery: comprehensive review of 100 cases of the initial stage

Reconstruction of Ⅴ and Ⅷ Bepatic Veins in Right Lobe (without Middle Hepatic Vein) Living Donor Liver Transplantation

[Excision and Reconstruction of Anomalous Portal Venous Branching in Adult-to-adult Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation].

Safety Evaluation of Donors when Performing Modified Extended Right Lobe Hepatectomy in Aldlt

Pure Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy of Living Donor is Feasible and Safe: a Preliminary Comparative Study in China.

Reconstruction of Middle Hepatic Vein in Living Donor Liver Transplantation with Modified Right Lobe Graft: a Single Center Experience.

A Rescue Surgery

APPLICATION OF THE LEFT HEPATIC VEIN PREFERENTIAL APPROACH FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LEFT LATERAL HEPATIC LOBE IN LAPARASCOPIC LIVING DONOR PEDIATRIC TRANSPLANTATION