Browse > Article

Serial Monitoring of Portal Venous Pressure/Flow during Living Donor Liver Transplantation  

Bae, Byong-Ku (Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine)
Kim, Bong-Wan (Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine)
Xu, Weiguang (Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine)
Wang, Hee-Jung (Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine)
Kim, Myung-Wook (Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine)
Publication Information
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery / v.14, no.1, 2010 , pp. 10-15 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: Although living donor liver transplantations (LDLTs) are widely performed, a shortage of living donors exists continuously, which makes it difficult to find the optimal graft. A high portal venous pressure (PVP) is mainly related to small for size syndrome (SFSS), and low portal venous flow (PVF), to ischemic liver damage, leading to potential liver failure after surgery. We reviewed the literature in search of optimal PVP and PVF values during LDLTs, and tried to determine the clinical meaning of measurements of PVP and PVF for liver transplantation. Methods: Between June, 2008 and June, 2009, we did 38 LDLTs. PVP and PVF were measured in 13 patients after laparotomy, after implantation of graft and after splenectomy. In addition, compliance (PVF/PVP) and compliance (mL/min/mmHg/g) per unit graft weight were calculated. Splenectomy was done when continuously maintained portal hypertension (>20 mmHg) occurred even after implantation. Splenectomy was also done for patients who presented preoperatively with splenomegaly and pancytopenia. Results: After graft implantation, portal venous pressure decreased (16.8${\pm}$4.1 mmHg vs. 14.7${\pm}$3.1 mmHg)(p=.003), whereas portal venous flow increased (1236.4${\pm}$725.3 mL/min vs. 1916.9${\pm}$603 mL/min)(p=.019). Also, after splenectomy, portal venous pressure/flow decreased (16.4${\pm}$3.7 mmHg vs. 13.8${\pm}$3.3 mmHg)(p=.009)/(2136.4 mL/min vs. 1619.1${\pm}$336.3 mL/min) (p=.001). Finally, after implantation, compliance increased (60${\pm}$40 mL/min/mmHg vs. 126${\pm}$18 mL/min/mmHg)(p=.007). Conclusion: After splenectomy, compliance remained constant (126${\pm}$18 mL/min/mmHg vs. 122${\pm}$34 mL/min/mmHg)(p=.364). After implantation of the graft, portal pressure decreased and portal venous flow increased. The compliance of the graft was not influenced by splenectomy. This shows that splenectomy is a good method to control high portal pressure without influencing the compliance of the graft.
Keywords
Portal venous flow; Portal venous pressure; Compliance; Liver transplantation;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Lee S, Park K, Hwang S, et al. Congestion of right liver graft in living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 2001;71: 812-814.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Kiuchi T, Kasahara M, Uryuhara K, et al. Impact of graft size mismatching on graft prognosis in liver transplantation from living donors. Transplantation 1999;67:321-327.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Man K, Fan ST, Lo CM, et al. Graft injury in relation to graft size in right lobe live donor liver transplantation: a study of hepatic sinusoidal injury in correlation with portal hemodynamics and intragraft gene expression. Ann Surg 2003;237: 256-264.
4 Margarit C, Lazaro JL, Charco R, Hidalgo E, Revhaug A, Murio E. Liver transplantation in patients with splenorenal shunts: intraoperative flow measurements to indicate shunt occlusion. Liver Transpl Sung 1999;5:35-39.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Yagi S, Iida T, Taniguchi K, et al. Impact of portal venous pressure on regeneration and graft damage after living-donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2005;11:68-75.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Dahm F, Georgiev P, Clavien PA. Small-for-size syndrome after partial liver transplantation: definition, mechanisms of disease and clinical implications. Am J Transplant 2005;5: 2605-2510.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Sadamori H, Yagi T, Matsukawa H, et al. The outcome of living donor liver transplantation with prior spontaneous large portasystemic shunts. Transpl Int 2008;21:156-162.
8 Yagi S, Iida T, Hori T, et al. Optimal portal venous circulation for liver graft function after living-donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 2006;81:373-378.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Ikegami T, Toshima T, Takeishi K, et al. Bloodless splenectomy during liver transplantation for terminal liver diseases with portal hypertension. J Am Coll Surg 2009;208: e1-4.
10 Troisi R, de Hemptinne B. Clinical relevance of adapting portal vein flow in living donor liver transplantation in adult patients. Liver Transpl 2003;9:S36-41.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Shimamura T, Taniguchi M, Jin MB, et al. Excessive portal venous inflow as a cause of allograft dysfunction in smallfor- size living donor liver transplantation. Transpl Proc 2001; 33:1331.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Konishi N, Ishizaki Y, Sugo H, Yoshimoto J, Miwa K, Kawasaki S. Impact of a left-lobe graft without modulation of portal flow in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2008;8:170-174.
13 Kawai M, Naruse K, Komatsu S, et al. Mechanical stressdependent secretion of interleukin 6 by endothelial cells after portal vein embolization: clinical and experimental studies. J Hepatol 2002;37:240-246.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Sato Y, Koyama S, Tsukada K, Hatakeyama K. Acute portal hypertension reflecting shear stress as a trigger of liver regeneration following partial hepatectomy. Surg Today 1997;27:518-526.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Shimada M, Shiotani S, Ninomiya M, et al. Characteristics of liver grafts in living-donor adult liver transplantation: comparison between right- and left-lobe grafts. Arch Surg 2002; 137:1174-1179.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Ito T, Kiuchi T, Yamamoto H, et al. Changes in portal venous pressure in the early phase after living donor liver transplantation: pathogenesis and clinical implications. Transplantation 2003;75:1313-1317.   DOI   ScienceOn