The LDLT option in the pediatric population allows recipients to be transplanted early. A total of 202 consecutive pediatric liver transplants from two different institutions--108 (LDLT) and 94 (DDLT)--were retrospectively compared. Overall, one- and three-yr patient and graft survival were similar between DDLT and LDLT. ACR was greater in recipients of DDLT at one and three yr (50.8% and 61.0%) compared to LDLT (30.8% and 32.2%) (p = 0.002). When the data were stratified according to PELD/MELD score, LDLT with a low score had better one- and three-yr graft survival (96.2% and 96.2%) compared to DDLT (88.2% and 85.2%) (p = 0.02), with comparable patient survival (p = 0.75). Patient and graft survival were similar between DDLT and LDLT in the high PELD/MELD group. Lower incidence of ACR in both low and high PELD/MELD groups was (29.6% and 34.3%) for LDLT compared to DDLT (50.3% and 53.3%, p = 0.002 and p = 0.028, respectively). Regardless of PELD/MELD score, status, age group, and recipient weight, LDLT provides excellent patient and graft survival with a lower incidence of rejection compared to DDLT.

Objectives: Here, we present the outcomes of 100 consecutive pediatric liver transplant patients in our center. Materials and Methods: Five hundred fifteen adult and pediatric liver transplants were performed at Organ Transplantation Center, Sisli Memorial Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey, between August 2006 and November 2012. Of these, the first 100 consecutive pediatric liver transplant patients were retrospectively analyzed. Results: One hundred three liver transplants were performed in 100 children (mean age, 4.7 y; age range, 4.4 mo to 17.3 y; 53% female, 47% male; mean body weight, 17.2 kg; range, 4.5 to 75 kg). Biliary atresia (27%) and progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis (18%) were the most common causes of liver disease. Of all the cases, 88.4% were living-donor liver transplants. Arterial reconstruction was performed under an operating microscope in most cases. Duct-to-duct biliary anastomoses were preferred in anatomically favorable cases. Mean hospital stay was 17.5 days. Median follow-up was 19.9 months (range, 6 to 66.1 mo). The main complication after surgery was infection (34%). Postoperative technical complications included hepatic arterial thrombosis (3.9%), portal venous thrombosis (6.8%), and biliary leak (6.8%). One-, 3-, and 5-year patient survivals were 89.8%, 89.8%, and 83.8%. There were no serious postoperative complications in the living donors.Conclusions: Living-donor liver transplant in pediatric patients is a safe alternative to deceaseddonor transplant. It is becoming the most frequent treatment option for end-stage liver disease in pediatric patients in our center, given the paucity of pediatric deceased-donor organs.

Objective: Living liver donor surgery is a major surgical procedure applied to healthy people with mortality and morbidity risks and does not provide any direct therapeutic advantage to the donor. We retrospectively analyzed the postoperative complication of our living liver donors to figure out the risks of donation.

Background: Defining the hepatic artery anatomy is of great importance for both surgeons and radiologists. Michel classification was designed to classify hepatic artery variations. Nevertheless, there are variations that do not fit into this classification. In this study, we aim to define the incidence of all variations in a healthy liver donor by reviewing their CT scan with special emphasis on variations that do not fit in any of the Michel classes. Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis of CT scan of donors and potential liver donors who were evaluated by triphasic CT scan. The CT scans were reviewed independently by a radiologist and two transplant surgeons. Cases that did not fit in any of the Michel classes were classified as class 0. Results: Out of 241 donors, 210 were classified within the Michel classification, of which 60.9 % were class I and 9.1% class II. Thirty-one donors (12.9%) classified as class 0. Of which, nine, three, two and three had replaced right hepatic artery from pancreaticoduodenal artery, gastroduodenal artery, aorta and celiac artery, respectively. Two and 6 donors had accessory right hepatic artery from pancreaticoduodenal artery and gastroduodenal artery respectively. Segment 4 artery originated from left and right hepatic artery in 56.8% and 31.9%, respectively. Conclusions: A great caution should be taken when evaluating the hepatic artery anatomy, clinicians should anticipate and be familiar with the rare unclassified variations of the hepatic artery.

No abstract