Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Surg J (N Y) 2018; 04(04): e188-e196
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1675236
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Impact of Graft Steatosis on Postoperative Complications after Liver Transplantation

Emad Ali Ahmed
1   Division of Hepatobiliary and Abdominal Transplantation Surgery, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy
2   Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Department of General Surgery, University of Sohag, Sohag, Egypt
,
Ashraf Mohammad El-Badry
2   Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Department of General Surgery, University of Sohag, Sohag, Egypt
,
Federico Mocchegiani
1   Division of Hepatobiliary and Abdominal Transplantation Surgery, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy
,
Roberto Montalti
1   Division of Hepatobiliary and Abdominal Transplantation Surgery, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy
,
Asem Elsani Ali Hassan
2   Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Department of General Surgery, University of Sohag, Sohag, Egypt
,
Alaa Ahmed Redwan
2   Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Department of General Surgery, University of Sohag, Sohag, Egypt
,
Marco Vivarelli
1   Division of Hepatobiliary and Abdominal Transplantation Surgery, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy
› Author Affiliations Source of Funding None.
Further Information

Publication History

18 January 2018

30 August 2018

Publication Date:
18 October 2018 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Steatotic grafts are more susceptible to ischemia-reperfusion injury than are normal grafts. Therefore, using steatotic grafts for liver transplantation (LT) is associated with high primary dysfunction and decreased survival rates. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of graft steatosis on post LT outcomes.

Methods A retrospective cohort analysis of 271 LT recipients from 2005 to 2016 was performed and patients were classified based on two types of steatosis, macrosteatosis (MaS), and microsteatosis (MiS). Each category was subdivided into three groups according to the degree of steatosis: no (< 5%), mild (≥5 to < 30%), and moderate (≥30 to ≤60%). The primary hospital stays and 6-month postoperative complications were analyzed by the Clavien–Dindo classification system. Additionally, patient and graft survivals were studied.

Results Significant differences were observed in grade III MaS (p-value = 0.019) and grade V MiS (p-value = 0.020). A high trend of early graft dysfunction was found in the moderate MaS and MiS groups; however, they were not statistically significant (p-value = 0.199 and 0.282, respectively). Interestingly, the acute cellular rejection (ACR) rate was found to be inversely proportional to the degree of steatosis in both categories but it did not reach a significant level (p-value = 0.161 and 0.111, respectively).

Conclusion Excellent post LT long-term outcomes using grafts with mild and moderate steatosis were determined. Further studies are needed to evaluate the newly proposed relationship between ACR and steatosis.

Keywords

graft steatosis - fatty liver - liver transplantation - macrosteatosis - microsteatosis - reperfusion injury
 

  • References

  • 1 Angele MK, Rentsch M, Hartl WH. , et al. Effect of graft steatosis on liver function and organ survival after liver transplantation. Am J Surg 2008; 195 (02) 214-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nocito A, El-Badry AM, Clavien PA. When is steatosis too much for transplantation?. J Hepatol 2006; 45 (04) 494-499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Machado MV, Cortez-Pinto H. Non-invasive diagnosis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. A critical appraisal. J Hepatol 2013; 58 (05) 1007-1019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Todo S, Demetris AJ, Makowka L. , et al. Primary nonfunction of hepatic allografts with preexisting fatty infiltration. Transplantation 1989; 47 (05) 903-905
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 McCormack L, Petrowsky H, Jochum W, Mullhaupt B, Weber M, Clavien PA. Use of severely steatotic grafts in liver transplantation: a matched case-control study. Ann Surg 2007; 246 (06) 940-946 , discussion 946–948
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Noujaim HM, de Ville de Goyet J, Montero EF. , et al. Expanding postmortem donor pool using steatotic liver grafts: a new look. Transplantation 2009; 87 (06) 919-925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wong TC, Fung JY, Chok KS. , et al. Excellent outcomes of liver transplantation using severely steatotic grafts from brain-dead donors. Liver Transpl 2016; 22 (02) 226-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Tandoi F, Salizzoni M, Brunati A, Lupo F, Romagnoli R. Excellent outcomes of liver transplantation using severely steatotic grafts from brain-dead donors. Liver Transpl 2016; 22 (03) 377-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Fishbein TM, Fiel MI, Emre S. , et al. Use of livers with microvesicular fat safely expands the donor pool. Transplantation 1997; 64 (02) 248-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Yoong KF, Gunson BK, Neil DA. , et al. Impact of donor liver microvesicular steatosis on the outcome of liver retransplantation. Transplant Proc 1999; 31 (1,2): 550-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Soejima Y, Shimada M, Suehiro T. , et al. Use of steatotic graft in living-donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 2003; 76 (02) 344-348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cieślak B, Lewandowski Z, Urban M, Ziarkiewicz-Wróblewska B, Krawczyk M. Microvesicular liver graft steatosis as a risk factor of initial poor function in relation to suboptimal donor parameters. Transplant Proc 2009; 41 (08) 2985-2988
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Agha RA, Borrelli MR, Farwana R. , et al. Impact of the PROCESS guideline on the reporting of surgical case series: a before and after study. Int J Surg 2017; 45: 92-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240 (02) 205-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Clavien PA, Camargo Jr. CA, Croxford R, Langer B, Levy GA, Greig PD. Definition and classification of negative outcomes in solid organ transplantation. Application in liver transplantation. Ann Surg 1994; 220 (02) 109-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 OPTN policies.Available from: https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/media/1200/optn_policies.pdf 2016
    PubMed
  • 17 Olthoff KM, Kulik L, Samstein B. , et al. Validation of a current definition of early allograft dysfunction in liver transplant recipients and analysis of risk factors. Liver Transpl 2010; 16 (08) 943-949
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 International Working Party. Terminology for hepatic allograft rejection. Hepatology 1995; 22 (02) 648-654
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R. , et al. Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. Surgery 2011; 149 (05) 680-688
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hisatsune H, Yazumi S, Egawa H. , et al. Endoscopic management of biliary strictures after duct-to-duct biliary reconstruction in right-lobe living-donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 2003; 76 (05) 810-815
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Westerkamp AC, de Boer MT, van den Berg AP, Gouw AS, Porte RJ. Similar outcome after transplantation of moderate macrovesicular steatotic and nonsteatotic livers when the cold ischemia time is kept very short. Transpl Int 2015; 28 (03) 319-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Chu MJ, Dare AJ, Phillips AR, Bartlett AS. Donor hepatic steatosis and outcome after liver transplantation: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 2015; 19 (09) 1713-1724
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Frongillo F, Lirosi MC, Sganga G. , et al. Graft steatosis as a risk factor of ischemic-type biliary lesions in liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 2014; 46 (07) 2293-2294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Baccarani U, Isola M, Adani GL. , et al. Steatosis of the hepatic graft as a risk factor for post-transplant biliary complications. Clin Transplant 2010; 24 (05) 631-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Cho JY, Suh KS, Lee HW. , et al. Hepatic steatosis is associated with intrahepatic cholestasis and transient hyperbilirubinemia during regeneration after living donor liver transplantation. Transpl Int 2006; 19 (10) 807-813
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hejlova I, Honsova E, Sticova E. , et al. Prevalence and risk factors of steatosis after liver transplantation and patient outcomes. Liver Transpl 2016; 22 (05) 644-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Subramanian V, Seetharam AB, Vachharajani N. , et al. Donor graft steatosis influences immunity to hepatitis C virus and allograft outcome after liver transplantation. Transplantation 2011; 92 (11) 1259-1268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Botha JF, Thompson E, Gilroy R. , et al. Mild donor liver steatosis has no impact on hepatitis C virus fibrosis progression following liver transplantation. Liver Int 2007; 27 (06) 758-763
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar