Split-liver transplantation: a comparison of ex vivo and in situ techniques.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The expanding applicability of liver transplantation as treatment for end-stage liver disease has fostered a disproportionate increase in liver transplant candidates in the face of an unchanging pool of donor organs. This has resulted in disparities in pretransplant waiting times and deaths. The splitting of a liver allograft allows for the transplantation of 2 recipients, usually an adult and a child, thus providing a means to expand the cadaveric donor pool.

METHODS

The authors present their results on the performance of an ex vivo (back table) split and in situ (in a hemodynamically stable cadaveric donor) split to evaluate safety, applicability, and effectiveness. Between November 1989 through April 1998, 54 split-liver transplant recipient operations were performed (24 pediatric and 30 adult). Thirty donors were procured: the ex vivo splitting yielded 25 grafts from 13 donors (donor age, 24.6+/-11 years), and the in-situ technique yielded 29 grafts from 17 donors (mean donor age of 25.5+/-10.4 years). Five donors involved interinstitutional sharing for which the left side of the graft was kept at the host hospital and the right side grafts were utilized at our center.

RESULTS

Overall 1-year patient survival was 85%, with a graft survival of 72%. Patient survival was similar with ex vivo (74%) as compared with the in situ splitting group (96%; P = .06), as was graft survival in ex vivo (61 %) versus in situ (81%) splitting (P = .15). The pediatric population benefited most from the in situ technique, with a 1-year patient survival rate of 100% with the in situ technique versus the ex vivo technique survival rate of 64% at 1 year (P = .02). The 1-year graft survival comparing these 2 techniques was 83% for the in situ group versus 45% for the ex vivo group. Analysis of the program evolution of split-liver transplantation suggested a time-dependent learning curve, which was applicable to surgical splitting technique, implantation, and recipient selection.

CONCLUSIONS

The principle of splitting livers from cadaveric donors is fundamentally sound and technically feasible. The authors' outcomes analysis using 2 different procurement techniques suggests that the in situ technique is clinically efficacious, can be used alternatively with the ex vivo technique, and is comparable to whole-liver allograft transplantation.