Technical Aspects of Orthotopic Liver Transplantation-a Survey-Based Study Within the Eurotransplant, Swisstransplant, Scandiatransplant, and British Transplantation Society Networks.
Abdominal drain
Liver transplantation
Piggy-back
Reperfusion
Survey
Journal
Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract
ISSN: 1873-4626
Titre abrégé: J Gastrointest Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9706084
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2019
03 2019
Historique:
received:
20
05
2018
accepted:
01
08
2018
pubmed:
12
8
2018
medline:
9
6
2020
entrez:
12
8
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) has emerged as the mainstay of treatment for end-stage liver disease. However, technical aspects of OLT are still subject of ongoing debate and are widely based on personal experience and local institutional protocols. An international online survey was sent out to all liver transplant centers (n = 52) within the Eurotransplant, Swisstransplant, Scandiatransplant, and British Transplant Society networks. The survey sought information on center-specific OLT caseload, vascular and biliary reconstruction, graft reperfusion, intraoperative control of hemodynamics, and drain policies. Forty-two centers gave a valid response (81%). Out of these, 50% reported piggy-back and 40.5% total caval replacement as their standard technique. While 48% of all centers generally do not apply veno-venous bypass (vvBP) or temporary portocaval shunt (PCS) during OLT, vvBP/PCS are routinely used in six centers (14%). Portal vein first reperfusion is used in 64%, followed by simultaneous (17%), and retrograde reperfusion (12%). End-to-end duct-to-duct anastomosis without biliary drain (67%) is the most frequently performed method of biliary reconstruction. No significant associations were found between the center caseload and the surgical approach used. The predominant part of the centers (88%) stated that techniques of OLT are not evidence-based and 98% would participate in multicenter clinical trials on these topics. Technical aspects of OLT vary widely among European centers. The extent to which center-specific variation of techniques affect transplant outcomes in Europe should be elucidated further in prospective multicenter trials.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) has emerged as the mainstay of treatment for end-stage liver disease. However, technical aspects of OLT are still subject of ongoing debate and are widely based on personal experience and local institutional protocols.
METHODS
An international online survey was sent out to all liver transplant centers (n = 52) within the Eurotransplant, Swisstransplant, Scandiatransplant, and British Transplant Society networks. The survey sought information on center-specific OLT caseload, vascular and biliary reconstruction, graft reperfusion, intraoperative control of hemodynamics, and drain policies.
RESULTS
Forty-two centers gave a valid response (81%). Out of these, 50% reported piggy-back and 40.5% total caval replacement as their standard technique. While 48% of all centers generally do not apply veno-venous bypass (vvBP) or temporary portocaval shunt (PCS) during OLT, vvBP/PCS are routinely used in six centers (14%). Portal vein first reperfusion is used in 64%, followed by simultaneous (17%), and retrograde reperfusion (12%). End-to-end duct-to-duct anastomosis without biliary drain (67%) is the most frequently performed method of biliary reconstruction. No significant associations were found between the center caseload and the surgical approach used. The predominant part of the centers (88%) stated that techniques of OLT are not evidence-based and 98% would participate in multicenter clinical trials on these topics.
CONCLUSION
Technical aspects of OLT vary widely among European centers. The extent to which center-specific variation of techniques affect transplant outcomes in Europe should be elucidated further in prospective multicenter trials.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30097968
doi: 10.1007/s11605-018-3915-6
pii: 10.1007/s11605-018-3915-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
529-537Références
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2000 Aug;385(5):350-6
pubmed: 11026707
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1992 Sep;175(3):270-2
pubmed: 1514163
Ann Surg. 2004 Dec;240(6):1074-84; discussion 1084-5
pubmed: 15570212
Transpl Int. 2005 Mar;18(3):318-25
pubmed: 15730493
Transpl Int. 2006 Sep;19(9):738-48
pubmed: 16918535
Liver Transpl. 2006 Nov;12(11):1566-70
pubmed: 17058245
Am J Transplant. 2008 Jan;8(1):158-61
pubmed: 17973961
CMAJ. 2008 Jul 29;179(3):245-52
pubmed: 18663204
Liver Transpl. 2009 May;15(5):466-74
pubmed: 19399735
Hepatology. 2010 Jun;51(6):1869-84
pubmed: 20235333
Transplant Proc. 2010 Mar;42(2):647-8
pubmed: 20304214
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2011 Jul;18(4):525-36
pubmed: 21127915
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jan 19;(1):CD008258
pubmed: 21249703
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Mar 16;(3):CD007712
pubmed: 21412907
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jun 15;(6):CD008399
pubmed: 21678376
PLoS Med. 2010 Aug;8(8):e1001069
pubmed: 21829330
HPB (Oxford). 2011 Oct;13(10):692-8
pubmed: 21929669
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Mar 14;(3):CD007512
pubmed: 22419324
Am J Transplant. 2012 Nov;12(11):3119-27
pubmed: 22759208
Transpl Int. 2013 May;26(5):508-16
pubmed: 23517278
Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2014 Jun;13(3):242-9
pubmed: 24919606
Am J Transplant. 2015 Mar;15(3):772-8
pubmed: 25676165
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 26;10(6):e0129923
pubmed: 26115520
Eur J Med Res. 2015 Aug 21;20:66
pubmed: 26293656
World J Surg. 2016 Dec;40(12):2988-2998
pubmed: 27464915
Ann Surg. 1989 Nov;210(5):649-52
pubmed: 2818033
Br J Surg. 2017 Jun;104(7):907-917
pubmed: 28394402
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2017 Oct;18(7):803-809
pubmed: 28771110
BMJ Open. 2017 Oct 10;7(10):e017558
pubmed: 29018070
Transplantation. 1967 Jul;5(4):Suppl:790-803
pubmed: 4963511
Transpl Int. 1997;10(2):109-12
pubmed: 9089994