Targeting the Achilles' Heel of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant: Corner‐sparing Sutures with Mucosal Eversion Technique of Biliary Anastomosis

Ming Li,Li Jiang,Lünan Yan,Jiayin Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.24404

2016-01-01

Liver Transplantation

Abstract:Potential conflict of interest: Nothing to report. TO THE EDITOR: We read with great interest the article by Vij et al.1 recently published in Liver Transplantation. The authors introduced a modified biliary anastomosis using corner‐sparing sutures with a mucosal eversion technique, and they concluded that it can significantly reduce biliary complications, including bile leakage and biliary stricture, in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We would like to put forward some different opinions. First, the knots, as a foreign body, will induce the deposition of calcium salts and bile pigments on the knot surface, resulting in posttransplant cholelithiasis formation. Thus, we believe it is more reasonable to place all knots extraluminally when suturing the posterior wall, which is also supported by other studies.2 Unfortunately, cholelithiasis occurrence as a longterm biliary complication posttransplantation was not mentioned in the authors' study. Second, inclusion of adventitia, as the authors pointed out in this article, might play an important role in the development of intraductal adhesions and biliary strictures. We acknowledge that good vascular integrity of the inner tissue of the recipient bile duct can be reserved by the mucosal eversion technique. However, the authors did not use this technique in the donor bile duct. In other words, one side of the anastomosis is mucosa and the other side is the cut stump end. We think that mucosal eversion of both recipient and donor bile ducts may have more advantages compared to mucosal eversion only in the recipient duct. This method avoids the inclusion of adventitia from the donor in the anastomosis, which may significantly reduce intraductal adhesions. In addition, it also can restore the mucosal continuity of the bile duct from both of donor and recipient, which makes the inner surface of the anastomotic duct smoother, resulting in the reduction of anastomotic stenosis and cholelithiasis formation. Finally, Prolene sutures have been confirmed to cause significantly less perianastomotic inflammation than polydioxanone sutures, which may affect anastomotic healing and scar formation. Many centers prefer to use 6‐0 Prolene sutures for biliary reconstruction. Moreover, we also reported the favorable results of a microsurgical technique for biliary reconstruction of small hepatic ducts with 8‐0 Prolene sutures.4 Therefore, we suggest that the authors could consider using Prolene sutures in combination with corner‐sparing sutures with the mucosal eversion technique in LDLT.