Piggyback Liver Transplantation



Piggyback Liver Transplantation


Jose L. Almeda

W. Kenneth Washburn



PIGGYBACK LIVER TRANSPLANT



  • Orthotopic liver transplantation describes the classic surgery in which a patient’s native diseased liver is replaced with a healthy donor organ at the same anatomic location. This surgery has evolved over the past 40 years and has seen advances in operative and anesthesia techniques. The classic operation described by Starzl et al.1 in 1963 included total hepatectomy with the resection of the recipient retrohepatic inferior vena cava (IVC) and interposition of the donor IVC attached to the new graft. This technique was accompanied by complications that are seen with substantial decreases in venous return to the heart. For this reason, venovenous bypass was originally used to help ameliorate these changes in volume. In 1989, Tzakis et al.2 popularized the so-called piggyback (PB) technique to help preserve blood flow to the heart during the anhepatic phase. In PB technique, the recipient IVC is not removed. Instead, the retrohepatic and caudate venous branches are ligated, preserving the entire IVC. Once the hepatic veins are clamped and the diseased liver removed, the donor IVC (just above the hepatic vein orifice) is sewn onto the recipient cava opening. In this manner, the recipient IVC is not completely cross-clamped and venovenous bypass obviated. There are some other proposed advantages to this PB technique as compared to IVC replacement:



    • Volume management—Clamping the IVC significantly affects venous return to the heart. Using PB techniques negates the need to infuse large amounts of fluid and the complications that may ensue from volume overload.


    • Intensive care unit length of stay—Some reviews have reported a decrease length of stay for this technique as compared to caval replacement and the use of venovenous bypass.3 This may be attributed to a more controlled anhepatic phase and more hemodynamic stability.


    • Technical ease—minimizes retroperitoneal dissection and needs only one anastomosis compared to two anastomoses for the bicaval technique. Retransplant is often easier if needed following a PB transplant.


    • Obviates the costs and complications of venovenous bypass (air embolism, hypothermia, wound infections, and seromas)


    • Potentially better preservation of renal function by maintaining flow to kidneys


    • Portacaval shunt easily created if necessary


  • Although no literature to date can adequately support or negate the use of either technique in liver transplant surgery (caval replacement or PB), using the PB technique is expeditious and safe.3 For those patients with advanced liver failure, decreased surgical times, fewer complications, and fewer blood transfusion is crucial to successful outcomes. Within this context, both techniques should be mastered.


PATIENT HISTORY AND PHYSICAL FINDINGS



  • A complete assessment of underlying cardiac or pulmonary disease is mandatory. Liver transplant candidates should not only be able to tolerate the operation but also to live many years following transplant. Careful attention should also be given to infections, hyponatremia, renal function, and frailty/functional status.


SURGICAL MANAGEMENT

Jul 24, 2016 | Posted by in Aesthetic plastic surgery | Comments Off on Piggyback Liver Transplantation

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access