Surgical procedures for management of right portal venous branching in right lobe living donor liver transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to describe the surgical management of right portal venous (PV) branches encountered among 104 cases of right lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS: From January 2002 to September 2007, we performed 104 cases of right-lobe LDLT including 11-donors who had anomalous right portal venous branches (APVB). One recipient had PV sponginess hemangioma. The donor right PV branches were type I in 93 cases, type II (trifurcation) in nine cases, and type III in two cases. Except one narrow bridge of tissue excision, the PV branches were transected on the principal of donor priority: PV branches were excised approximately 2 to 3 mm from the confluence while leaving the donor's main portal vein and confluence intact. In type II APVB, donor PV branches were obtained with two separate openings in six cases; with two separate openings joined as a common orifice at the back table in two cases, with one common opening with a narrow bridge of tissue in one case. In type III APVB, the donor right anterior and posterior PV branches were obtained with separate openings. The donor right PV branches with one common opening in 92 cases of type I PV branches and a joined common orifice in three cases of type II APVB were anastomosed to the recipient's main portal vein or to right branching. As the unavailable recipient PV for sponginess hemangioma, one case of type I right PV branches was end-to-end anastomosed to one of the variceal lateral veins of about 1 cm diameter in a pediatric patient. The PV were reconstructed as double anastomoses in six type II APVB and in one type III APVB obtained with two separate PV openings. In the another type III APVB reconstruction, we successfully utilized a novel U-shaped vein graft interposition.

RESULTS: The type II APVB donor receiving a narrow bridge of portal vein tissue excision developed portal vein thrombosis on the third postoperative day and underwent reexploration for thrombectomy. There were no vascular complications, such as portal vein thrombosis or stricture among other donors or all recipients. The velocity of blood flow in the U-graft was normal. The anastomosis between the type I donor right portal vein and recipient variceal lateral vein was unobstructed.

CONCLUSION: Right PV branches should be excised on the principal of donor priority while leaving the donor's main portal vein and confluence intact. Single anastomoses was the fundamental procedure of right branch reconstruction. Double anastomoses could be used as the main management for type II and type III APVB reconstruction. U-graft interposition may be a potential procedure for type III APVB reconstruction. Single anastomoses between the donor right portal vein and the recipient variceal lateral vein may be performed when recipient portal vein is unavailable. These innovations for excision and reconstruction of right PV branches were feasible, safe, and had good outcomes.