Serial Monitoring of Portal Venous Pressure/Flow during Living Donor Liver Transplantation.
- Author:
Byong Ku BAE
1
;
Bong Wan KIM
;
Weiguang XU
;
Hee Jung WANG
;
Myung Wook KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, Korea. wanghj@ajou.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Portal venous flow;
Portal venous pressure;
Compliance;
Liver transplantation
- MeSH:
Compliance;
Humans;
Hypertension, Portal;
Laparotomy;
Liver;
Liver Failure;
Liver Transplantation;
Living Donors;
Pancytopenia;
Portal Pressure;
Splenectomy;
Splenomegaly;
Transplants
- From:Korean Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery
2010;14(1):10-15
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Although living donor liver transplantations (LDLTs) are widely performed, a shortage of living donors exists continuously, which makes it difficult to find the optimal graft. A high portal venous pressure (PVP) is mainly related to small for size syndrome (SFSS), and low portal venous flow (PVF), to ischemic liver damage, leading to potential liver failure after surgery. We reviewed the literature in search of optimal PVP and PVF values during LDLTs, and tried to determine the clinical meaning of measurements of PVP and PVF for liver transplantation. METHODS: Between June, 2008 and June, 2009, we did 38 LDLTs. PVP and PVF were measured in 13 patients after laparotomy, after implantation of graft and after splenectomy. In addition, compliance (PVF/PVP) and compliance (mL/min/mmHg/g) per unit graft weight were calculated. Splenectomy was done when continuously maintained portal hypertension (>20 mmHg) occurred even after implantation. Splenectomy was also done for patients who presented preoperatively with splenomegaly and pancytopenia. RESULTS: After graft implantation, portal venous pressure decreased (16.8+/-4.1 mmHg vs. 14.7+/-3.1 mmHg)(p=.003), whereas portal venous flow increased (1236.4+/-725.3 mL/min vs. 1916.9+/-603 mL/min)(p=.019). Also, after splenectomy, portal venous pressure/flow decreased (16.4+/-3.7 mmHg vs. 13.8+/-3.3 mmHg)(p=.009)/(2136.4 mL/min vs. 1619.1+/-336.3 mL/min) (p=.001). Finally, after implantation, compliance increased (60+/-40 mL/min/mmHg vs. 126+/-18 mL/min/mmHg)(p=.007). CONCLUSION: After splenectomy, compliance remained constant (126+/-18 mL/min/mmHg vs. 122+/-34 mL/min/mmHg)(p=.364). After implantation of the graft, portal pressure decreased and portal venous flow increased. The compliance of the graft was not influenced by splenectomy. This shows that splenectomy is a good method to control high portal pressure without influencing the compliance of the graft.
