4.5 Article

Longterm Analysis of Biliary Complications After Duct-to-Duct Biliary Reconstruction in Living Donor Liver Transplantations

Journal

LIVER TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 24, Issue 8, Pages 1050-1061

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lt.25074

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ajou University Medical Foundation, Republic of Korea [2017-C0460-00016]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Biliary complication (BC) is still regarded as the Achilles' heel of a living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aims to evaluate the longterm outcomes of the duct-to-duct (DD) biliary reconstruction using 7-0 suture and to identify the risk factors of BCs after LDLTs. Data of 140 LDLTs between 2006 and 2015 were analyzed. All biliary reconstructions were performed as DD anastomoses using 7-0 suture: 102 for the right lobe, 20 for the left lobe, and 18 for right posterior sector grafts. BC was defined as a bile leakage (BL) or a biliary stricture (BS), and the median follow-up time after LDLT was 65 months. A total of 19 recipients (13.5%) developed BCs (8 BLs and 16 BSs) after LDLT. The survival rates between recipients with and without BCs were 83% and 86.7%, respectively (P = 0.88). In univariate analyses, the risk factors for BC were small diameter of the graft's bile duct, long warm ischemic time, small graft-to-recipient weight ratio, and no use of external biliary stent (EBS). The graft's bile duct diameter 3 mm and no use of EBS were determined as independent risk factors (hazard ratios of 9.74 and 7.68, respectively) in multivariate analyses. The 116 recipients with EBS had no BL, 11 had BSs (9%), while 24 without EBS had 8 BLs (33%) and 5 BSs (21%). After a propensity score match between the recipients with and without EBS, the EBS group (24) developed only 1 BS (4%). In conclusion, DD anastomosis using 7-0 suture combined with EBS could provide favorable longterm outcomes after LDLT, which should thus be considered the surgical technique of choice for LDLTs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available