Search

Liver transplantation is the most effective treatment for end-stage liver disease. Despite improvements in surgical techniques, transplant rejection remains a significant concern. The liver is considered an immune-privileged organ due to its unique microenvironment and complex interactions among various cell types. Alloimmune responses mediated by T cells and antigen-presenting cells (APCs) play crucial roles in transplant rejection. The liver’s dual blood supply and unique composition of its sinusoidal endothelial cells (LSECs), Kupffer cells (KCs), hepatocytes, and hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) contribute to its immune privilege. Alloantigen recognition by T cells occurs through direct, indirect, and semidirect pathways, leading to acute cellular rejection (ACR) and chronic rejection. ACR is a T cell-mediated process that typically occurs within the first few weeks to months after transplantation. Chronic rejection, on the other hand, is a gradual process characterized by progressive fibrosis and graft dysfunction, often leading to graft loss. Acute antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) is less common following surgery compared to other solid organ transplants due to the liver’s unique anatomy and immune privilege. However, when it does occur, AMR can be aggressive and lead to rapid graft dysfunction. Despite improvements in immunosuppression, rejection remains a challenge, particularly chronic rejection. Understanding the mechanisms of rejection and immune tolerance, including the roles of regulatory T cells (Tregs) and hepatic dendritic cells (DCs), is crucial for improving transplant outcomes. Strategies to induce immune tolerance, such as modulating DC function or promoting Treg activity, hold promise for reducing rejection and improving long-term graft survival. This review focuses on the liver’s unique predisposition to rejection and tolerance, highlighting the roles of individual cell types in these processes. Continued research into the mechanisms of alloimmune responses and immune tolerance in liver transplantation is essential for developing more effective therapies and improving long-term outcomes for patients with end-stage liver disease.

Background and Objectives: Hepatic resection offers promising outcomes for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) but can be constrained by factors like patient suitability. Continuous advancements in laparoscopic and robotic technologies have made minimally invasive hepatectomies (MIHs) a viable alternative to open hepatectomies with benefits in terms of recovery and complications. Materials and Methods: We completed a retrospective review on 138 HCC patients who underwent OH or MIH between 2010 and 2020 at the Hume-Lee Transplant Center. Univariate and multivariate analyses were completed on demographic, clinical, and tumor-specific data to assess the impact of these variables on overall and disease-free survival at 1, 3, and 5 years. Preoperative metrics like length of hospital stay (LOS) and operation duration were also evaluated. Results: Of the 109 OH and 29 MIH patients, MIH patients demonstrated shorter LOS and operative times. However, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were similar between groups, with no significant variations in 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates. Age > 60 years and a lack of preoperative transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) were significant predictors of inferior OS and DFS in multivariate analyses. Conclusions: MIH is an efficient substitute for OH with comparable survival, even in older patients. The reduced LOS and operation time enhance its feasibility, and older patients previously denied for curative resection may qualify for MIH. Preoperative TACE also enhances survival outcomes, emphasizing its general role in managing resectable HCCs. Both robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomies offer acceptable short- and long-term clinical outcomes, highlighting MIH as the standard choice for HCC patients.

Abstract Background Hepatic artery dissection after liver transplantation is an uncommon morbidity. The onset mechanism and management for this disorder remain unclear. The present report describes the cases of two patients with hepatic artery dissection after living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) with simultaneous splenectomy and provides new insight into the onset mechanism of this disorder. Case presentation: Case 1 A 51-year-old man with liver cirrhosis caused by hepatitis B virus underwent LDLT with a right lobe graft and splenectomy simultaneously. The recipient’s right hepatic artery had partial dissection at the anastomosis site; therefore, his left hepatic artery was anastomosed. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) on postoperative day (POD) 27 showed dissection from his celiac artery to his left hepatic artery with bleeding in the false lumen. There was a risk of rupture of the false lumen; therefore, emergency interventional radiology and coil embolization of the false lumen were performed. The patient was doing well at 6 months after LDLT. Case 2 A 58-year-old woman with liver cirrhosis caused by primary biliary cholangitis underwent LDLT with a left lobe graft and splenectomy simultaneously. Her hepatic artery had a dissection that extended from her left hepatic artery to the proper hepatic artery. The gastroduodenal artery was anastomosed. Contrast-enhanced CT on POD 8 revealed dissection from the celiac artery to the common hepatic artery as well as a pseudoaneurysm at the celiac artery. We managed the patient with conservative treatment and performed daily follow-ups with Doppler ultrasonography examination and serial contrast-enhanced CT. At the time of writing this report, the patient was doing well at 34 months after LDLT. Conclusions Patients who have an intimal dissection at the anastomosis site and/or simultaneous splenectomy are at a higher risk of hepatic artery dissection. Most patients with asymptomatic hepatic artery dissections can be treated conservatively. Blood flow in the intrahepatic artery should be checked frequently using Doppler ultrasonography or contrast-enhanced CT soon after diagnosis.

Abstract Background Outcome of the liver transplantation (LT) is worse in hepatitis C virus (HCV)/human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-coinfected patients compared to patients infected with HCV alone. We report the world’s first case of living donor domino liver transplantation (LDDLT) using a familial amyloid polyneuropathy (FAP) liver in a coinfected recipient with HCV-related liver cirrhosis. Case presentation The recipient was a 43-year-old male with a CD4 cell count of 52/μL and undetectable HIV-RNA at the time of LT. He received a domino liver graft from a 41-year-old female with FAP. No acute cellular rejection or infection occurred after LT. HCV recurrence was confirmed histologically on the posttransplant day 34. Peginterferon/ribavirin therapy resulted in non-response; however, the patient achieved a sustained viral response with sofosbuvir (SOF)/ledipasvir (LDV). Currently, HCV and HIV testing are negative, and symptomatic de novo amyloidosis has not occurred. Conclusions LDDLT allows successful LT in HCV/HIV-coinfected patients; posttransplant HCV recurrence can be successfully treated with anti-viral therapy.

Background: This study's aim was to show the feasibility and safety of robotic liver resection (RLR) even without extensive experience in major laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). Methods: A single center, retrospective analysis was performed for consecutive liver resections for solid liver tumors from 2014 to 2022. Results: The analysis included 226 liver resections, comprising 127 (56.2%) open surgeries, 28 (12.4%) LLR, and 71 (31.4%) RLR. The rate of RLR increased and that of LLR decreased over time. In a comparison between propensity score matching-selected open liver resection and RLR (41:41), RLR had significantly less blood loss (384 ± 413 vs 649 ± 646 mL, P = .030) and shorter hospital stay (4.4 ± 3.0 vs 6.4 ± 3.7 days, P = .010), as well as comparable operative time (289 ± 123 vs 290 ± 132 mins, P = .954). A comparison between LLR and RLR showed comparable perioperative outcomes, even with more surgeries with higher difficulty score included in RLR (5.2 ± 2.7 vs 4.3 ± 2.5, P = .147). The analysis of the learning curve in RLR demonstrated that blood loss, conversion rate, and complication rate consistently improved over time, with the case number required to achieve the learning curve appearing to be 60 cases. Conclusions: The findings suggest that RLR is a feasible, safe, and acceptable platform for liver resection, and that the safe implementation and dissemination of RLR can be achieved without solid experience of LLR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]