Modified cavocavostomy technique for deceased donor liver transplantation

Rationale. The refinement of liver transplantation technique, the development and implementation of new surgical technologies into clinical practice, including those for inferior vena cava reconstruction, are important for the improvement of surgery outcomes.

The study purposes were to present our own modification of cavocavostomy and options for its technical implementation in deceased donor liver transplantation, as well as to study the clinical effects and the impact of new surgical technique on the outcomes.

Material and methods. A retrospective, single-centre study included the data from 109 consecutive deceased donor liver transplantations performed between 2012 and 2021. In 106 procedures, inferior vena cava reconstruction was performed either according to the classic technique (group 1, n=23, 22%), or using our own modification of cavocavostomy (group 2, n=83, 78%). To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of the new surgical technique, we compared the characteristics of donors and recipients, intraoperative parameters, features of early postoperative course, incidence of surgical complications, initial function, immediate and long-term graft survival. Three piggyback procedures were not included in the comparative analysis.

Results. Two groups were generally comparable in terms of the characteristics of donors and recipients, however, the classic inferior vena cava was significantly more often used during transplants for unresectable parasitic liver lesions (17% vs. 1%, p=0.008) and retransplantations (30% vs. 5%, p=0.002). There were no statistically significant differences in the main intraoperative parameters between groups 1 and 2. The duration of transplantations was 8.0 h (interquartile range: 6.5–8.5 h) and 7.0 h (interquartile range: 6.0–8.0 h), p=0.112; anhepatic phase lasted 70 min (interquartile range: 60–75 min) and 70 min (interquartile range: 59–90 min), p=0.386; warm ischemia time was 45 min (interquartile range: 38–52 min) and 45 min (interquartile range: 38–50 min), p=0.690; inferior vena cava was clamped for 47 min (interquartile range: 40–55 min) and 50 min (interquartile range: 40–55 min), p=0.532. The volumes of intraoperatively transfused blood components were, respectively: packed red cells 630 ml (interquartile range: 0–1280 ml) and 600 ml (interquartile range: 0–910 ml), p=0.262; blood reinfusion 770 ml (interquartile range: 360–1200 ml) and 700 ml (interquartile range: 0–1200 ml), p=0.370; fresh frozen plasma 2670 ml (interquartile range: 2200 and 3200 ml) and 2240 ml (interquartile range: 1880–2900 ml), p=0.087.

When using classic caval reconstruction technique, the proportion of grafts with early dysfunction was higher: 44% vs. 17% (p=0.011), due to the higher rate of retransplantations in this group. The incidence of acute kidney injury (by RIFLE > I) was 35% and 19% (p=0.158), the need for renal replacement therapy was 22% and 15% (p=0.520) in group 1 and group 2, respectively. The total incidence of surgical complications in the early postoperative period was 30% and 16%, p=0.110.

Conclusions. The proposed technique of cavocavostomy can be considered as a priority method for caval reconstruction during deceased donor liver transplantation, with the exception of specific indications for the use of the classic technique (retransplantation, involvement of the inferior vena cava wall in a parasitic process or presentation of a tumor node to it, as well as in cases of widespread adhesive process in the abdominal cavity, hypertrophy of the 1 segment of the native liver, the presence and location of TIPS, thinning of the wall of the retrohepatic inferior vena cava, the risk of graft compression with its large size).

The choice of the cavocavostomy variant should be carried out taking into account the size ratio of the graft to the recipient's right subdiaphragmatic space, and the topography features of the recipient's hepatic veins.

1. Starzl TE, Marchioro TL, Vonkaulla KN, Hermann G, Brittain RS, Waddell WR. Homotransplantation of the liver in humans. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1963;117:659–676. PMID: 14100514

2. Calne RY, Williams R. Liver transplantation in man. I. Observations on technique and organization in five cases. Br Med J. 1968;4(5630):535–540. PMID: 4881063 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.4.5630.535

3. Tzakis A, Todo S, Starzl TE. Orthotopic liver transplantation with preservation of the inferior vena cava. Ann Surg. 1989;210(5):649–652. PMID: 2818033 https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-198911000-00013

4. Belghiti J, Panis Y, Sauvanet A, Gayet B, Fékété F. A new technique of side to side caval anastomosis during orthotopic hepatic transplantation without inferior vena caval occlusion. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1992;175(3):270–272. PMID: 1514163

5. Wu YM, Voigt M, Rayhill S, Katz D, Chenhsu RY, Schmidt W, et al. Suprahepatic venacavaplasty (cavaplasty) with retrohepatic cava extension in liver transplantation: experience with first 115 cases. Transplantation. 2001;72(8):1389-1394. PMID: 11685109 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007890-200110270-00010

6. Dasgupta D, Sharpe J, Prasad KR, Asthana S, Toogood GJ, Pollard SG, et al. Triangular and self-triangula ting cavocavostomy for orthotopic liver transplantation without posterior suture lines: a modified surgical technique. Transpl Int. 2006;19(2):117–121. PMID: 16441360 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14322277.2005.00246.x

7. Lee TC, Dhar VK, Cortez AR, Morris MC, Winer LK, Silski LS, et al. Cincinnati Research on Outcomes and Safety in Surgery (CROSS). Impact of side-to-side cavocavostomy versus traditional piggyback implantation in liver transplantation. Surgery. 2020;168(6):1060-1065. PMID: 32888712 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2020.07.041

8. Widmer JD, Schlegel A, Ghazaly M, Richie Davidson B, Imber C, Sharma D, et al. Piggyback or cava replacement: which implantation technique protects liver recipients from acute kidney injury and complications? Liver Transpl. 2018;24(12):1746–1756. PMID: 30230686 https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.25334

9. Chan T, DeGirolamo K, Chartier-Plante S, Buczkowski AK. Comparison of three caval reconstruction tech niques in orthotopic liver transplantation: A retrospective review. Am J Surg. 2017;213(5):943–949. PMID: 28410631 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.03.045

10. Schmitz V, Schoening W, Jelkmann I, Globke B, Pascher A, Bahra M, et al. Different cava reconstruction techniques in liver transplantation: piggyback versus cava resection. Hepatobiliary Pancre at Dis Int. 2014;13(3):242–249. PMID: 24919606 https://doi.org/10.1016/s1499-3872(14)60250-2

11. Levi DM, Pararas N, Tzakis AG, Nishida S, Tryphonopoulos P, GonzalezPinto I, et al. Liver transplantation with preservation of the inferior vena cava: lessons learned through 2,000 cases. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(4):691–698. PMID: 22364695 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.12.039

12. Navarro F, Le Moine MC, Fabre JM, Belghiti J, Cherqui D, Adam R, et al. Specific vascular complications of orthotopic liver transplantation with preservation of the retrohepatic vena cava: review of 1361 cases. Transplantation. 1999;68(5):646–650. PMID: 10507483 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007890199909150-00009

13. Mehrabi A, Mood ZA, Fonouni H, Kashfi A, Hillebrand N, Müller SA, et al. A single-center experience of 500 liver transplants using the modified piggyback technique by Belghiti. Liver Transpl. 2009;15(5):466–474. PMID: 19399735 https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.21705

14. Belghiti J, Ettorre GM, Durand F, Sommacale D, Sauvanet A, Jerius JT, et al. Feasibility and limits of caval-flow preservation during liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2001;7(11):983–987. PMID: 11699035 https://doi.org/10.1053/jlts.2001.28242

15. Hesse UJ, Berrevoet F, Troisi R, Pattyn P, Mortier E, Decruyenaere J, et al. Hepato-venous reconstruction in orthotopic liver transplantation with preservation of the recipients' inferior vena cava and veno-venous bypass. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2000;385(5):350–356. PMID: 11026707 https://doi.org/10.1007/s004230000149

16. Cherqui D, Lauzet JY, Rotman N, Duvoux C, Dhumeaux D, Julien M, et al. Orthotopic liver transplantation with preservation of the caval and portal flows. Technique and results in 62 cases. Transplantation. 1994;58(7):793–796. PMID: 7940712

17. Parrilla P, Sánchez-Bueno F, Figueras J, Jaurrieta E, Mir J, Margarit C, et al. Analysis of the complications of the piggy-back technique in 1,112 liver transplants. Transplantation. 1999;67(9):1214–1247. PMID: 10342311 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007890-199905150-00003

18. Chen Z, Ju W, Chen C, Wang T, Yu J, Hong X, et al. Application of various surgical techniques in liver transplantation: a retrospective study. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(17):1367. PMID: 34733919 https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-1945

19. Němec P, Ondrásek J, Nicovský J, Studeník P, Hökl J, Wagner R, et al. Význam piggyback techniky pri rekonstrukci venózního odtoku pri transplantaci jater [The piggyback technique in venous outflow tract reconstruction in liver transplantation]. Rozhl Chir. 2001;80(2):62–66. (In Czech.). PMID: 12881917

20. Nikeghbalian S, Toutouni MN, Salahi H, Aliakbarian M, Malekhosseini SA. A comparative study of the classic and piggyback techniques for orthotopic liver transplantation. Electron Physi cian. 2014;6(1):741–746. PMID: 25763139 https://doi.org/10.14661/2014.741-746

21. Cabezuelo JB, Ramirez P, Acosta F, Torres D, Sansano T, Pons JA, et al. Does the standard vs piggyback surgical technique affect the development of early acute renal failure after orthotopic liver transplantation? Transplant Proc. 2003;35(5):1913–1914. PMID: 12962846 https://doi.org/10.1016/s00411345(03)00598-0

22. Brescia MD, Massarollo PC, Imakuma ES, Mies S. Prospective randomized trial comparing hepatic venous outflow and renal function after conventional versus piggyback liver transplantation. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0129923. PMID: 26115520 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129923

23. Massarollo PCB, Coelho FF, Brescia MDG, Sandoli Baía CE, Lallée MP, Dias de Almeida M, et al. Long-term outcome of a modified piggyback liver transplantation technique using the recipient's right and middle hepatic veins. Transplant Proc. 2020;52(5):1308–1311. PMID: 32247596 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.02.039

24. Lerut J, Ciccarelli O, Roggen F, Laterre PF, Danse E, Goffette P, et al. Cavocaval adult liver transplantation and retransplantation without veno venous bypass and without portocaval shunting: a prospective feasibility study in adult liver transplantation. Transplantation. 2003;75(10):1740–1745. PMID: 12777866 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.TP.0000061613.66081.09

25. Vieira de Melo PS, Miranda LE, Batista LL, Neto OC, Amorim AG, Sabat BD, et al. Orthotopic liver transplantation without venovenous bypass using the conventional and piggyback techniques. Transplant Proc. 2011;43(4):13271333. PMID: 21620122 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2011.03.061

26. Onopriev VI, Voskanyan SE, Artemyev AI, Evdokimov VA. Method of great vessel anastomosis. Patent № 2329772 С2 Russian Federation. Published July 27, 2008. Bull. № 21. Available at: https://patenton.ru/patent/RU2329772C2.pdf [Accessed April 1, 2022].

27. Aggarwal S, Kang Y, Freeman JA, Fortunato FL, Pinsky MR. Postreperfusion syndrome: cardiovascular collapse following hepatic reperfusion during liver transplantation. Transplant Proc. 1987;19(4 Suppl 3):54–55. PMID: 3303534

28. Olthoff KM, Kulik L, Samstein B, Kaminski M, Abecassis M, Emond J, et al. Validation of a current definition of early allograft dysfunction in liver transplant recipients and analysis of risk factors. Liver Transpl. 2010;16(8):943–949. PMID: 20677285 https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.22091

29. Bellomo R, Ronco C, Kellum JA, Mehta RL, Palevsky P. Acute dialy sis quality initiative workgroup. Acute renal failure – definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: the Second international consensus conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) group. Crit Care. 2004;8(4):R204–212. PMID: 15312219 https://doi.org/10.1186/cc2872