Recipient hepatic artery intimal dissection (HAD) followed by hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) is a serious complication of liver transplantation. Once this is recognized intraoperatively, the accepted approach is to use an alternative arterial inflow, which may not be possible in all patients. We describe a new classification and technique for the management of HAD during living donor liver transplantation. On the basis of the longitudinal extent of intimal dissection, HAD was classified into 4 types. Management was based on the type of dissection, availability of an adequate length of hepatic artery (HA), and an alternate source of inflow. The dissected HA itself was used for arterial anastomosis in patients with preserved pulsatile flow in the dissected artery and a lack of an alternative source of arterial inflow. The technique of using the dissected artery was based on close approximation of the tunica intima to the media with the first 2 sutures of the arterial anastomosis. Of 47 (2.4%) patients who developed HAD, 22 (46.8%) had a type 2 dissection for whom the other (right or the left) undissected HA was used for the anastomosis, and 20 (42.6%) had major (type 3 or 4) dissection. The dissected artery was used for the anastomosis in 9 (45%) of these patients. Postoperative HAT developed in only 1 of 9 patients. Pre-existing portal vein thrombosis and prior transarterial embolization were found to be major risk factors for the development of HAD. Using the technique described, the dissected artery can be successfully used for a satisfactory HA anastomosis with low thrombosis rates.

The recent outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has brought elective surgeries including liver transplantation to a standstill. The concerns in living donor liver transplant (LDLT) were that immunosuppressed recipients and healthy donors would be exposed to nosocomial severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. 1 However, as patients began to suffer and die, Liver Transplant Society of India revised its guidelines 2 and allowed LDLT for those who were very sick, or had just recovered from a life-threatening decompensation (high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease/Child-Turcotte-Pugh [MELD/CTP] score) or had malignancy. More than 90% of transplants in India are from live donors because we have a very low donation rate. Our center is the largest LDLT center in India and performs an average of 250 adults/pediatric transplants per year. In the ongoing pandemic, most Western centers have stopped LDLT and therefore our experience in this pandemic may allay some of the concerns.

In living donor liver transplant (LDLT), it is recommended to have a minimum graft recipient body weight ratio (GRBWR) 0.8 for good outcomes. Recent reports have, however, shown that good outcomes can be obtained even with GRBWR less than 0.8. We hypothesized that in patients receiving a graft with GRWR less than 0.8 absolute graft weight rather than GRBWR may be more relevant for predicting good outcome. Early post-transplant outcomes were assessed in adult patients undergoing elective right lobe LDLT. Patients were categorized as having good (survival) or poor (mortality) outcome. A ROC curve was drawn based on their graft weights and a cutoff value that provided the highest sensitivity and specificity for a good outcome was chosen. 147 patients received right lobe grafts with GRBWR less than 0.8. The 90-day mortality rate was 13.6% (n = 20). AUROC was 67.7%. Graft weight cutoff of 643 g gave the best combination of sensitivity (51.2%) and specificity (77.8%). There were 15 (19.4%) deaths in group with graft weight less than 643 g compared to 5 (7.1%) patients with graft weight 643 g or above. This cutoff value of 643 g (rounded of to 650 g) gave a positive predictive value (PPV) of 94%.

Background: With ageing population and higher prevalence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in older patients, more and more living donor liver transplants (LDLTs) are being considered in this group of patients as eligibility for deceased donor liver transplant is restricted to those aged 65 years and younger. However, the short-and long-term outcomes of this group have not been reported from India, which does not have a robust national health scheme. The aim of this study was to provide guidelines for transplant in this group. Methods: All patients aged 60 years and older (group 1) who underwent LDLT in our centre between January 2006 and December 2017 were studied. A propensity score-matched group in 1:2 ratio was created with comparable sex and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (group 2). The 2 groups were compared for duration of hospital stay, surgical complications, hospital mortality and 1-, 3-and 5-year survival. Results: Group 1 consisted of 207 patients, and group 2 had 414 patients. The number of patients in group 1 gradually increased with time from 4 in 2006 to 33 in 2017 accounting for 15% of total cases. Group 1 had more patients with viral hepatitis, NASH and HCC, and they had a higher 30-day mortality due to cardiorespiratory complications. Although 1-and 3-year survival was similar, the 5-year survival was significantly lower in group 1. Conclusion: Five-year survival was lower in the elderly group due to cardiorespiratory complications and recurrence of HCC. Outcomes in the elderly group can be improved with better patient selection and preventing HCC recurrence.

Background: Natural portosystemic shunt ligation practices in liver transplant vary widely across transplant centres and are frequently undertaken to prevent the serious consequence of portal steal phenomenon. No concrete indications have so far been convincingly identified for their management in living donor liver transplant. Methods: We retrospectively studied the outcome of 89 cirrhotic patients who either did (n = 63) or did not (n = 25) undergo shunt ligation during living donor liver transplantation between 2017 and 2020. Results: The incidence of early allograft dysfunction/nonfunction (P = 1.0) and portal venous complications (P = 0.555) were similar between the two groups. Although overall complications, biliary complications, and the composite of Grade III and IV complications were significantly higher in the nonligated group (P = 0.015, 0.052 and 0.035), 1year graft and patient survival were comparable between them (P = 0.524). Conclusion: We conclude that shunt ligation in living donor liver transplantation may not always be necessary if adequate portal flow, good vascular reconstruction, and good graft quality have been ensured. ( J CLIN EXP HEPATOL xxxx;xxx:xxx)