Abstract
Purpose
Portal vein (PV) reconstruction is a key factor for successful living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Anatomical variations of right PV (RPV) are encountered among potential donors.
Methods
To evaluate a single center experience of reconstruction techniques for the right hemi-liver grafts with PV variations during the period between May 2004 and 2022.
Results
A total of 915 recipients underwent LDLT, among them 52 (5.8%) had RPV anatomical variations. Type II PV was found in 7 cases (13.5%), which were reconstructed by direct venoplasty. Type III PV was found in 27 cases (51.9%). They were reconstructed by direct venoplasty in 2 cases (3.8%), Y graft interposition in 2 cases (3.8%), and in situ double PV anastomoses in 23 cases (44.2%). Type IV PV was found in 18 cases (34.6%) and was reconstructed by Y graft interposition in 9 cases (17.3%), and in situ double PV anastomoses in 9 cases (17.3%).
Early right posterior PV stenosis occurred in 2 recipients (3.8%). Early PV thrombosis occurred in 3 recipients (5.8%). The median follow-up duration was 54.5 months (4 – 185). The 1-, 3-, and 5-years survival rates were 91.9%, 86%, and 81.2%, respectively. Late PV stenosis occurred in 2 recipients (3.8%) and was managed conservatively.
Conclusion
Utilization of potential living donors with RPV anatomic variations may help to expand the donor pool. We found that direct venoplasty and in situ dual PV anastomoses techniques were safe, feasible, and associated with successful outcomes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Liver transplantation is widely accepted as the only effective treatment for patients with end stage liver disease and selected hepatic malignancies [1]. In Egypt, deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) program is still awaited because of social and ethical aspects, making living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) the only hope for those patients [2, 3].
The first adult LDLT was performed in 1994 [4]; afterwards, the use of the right hemi-liver graft has become popular in different liver transplantation centers. This is attributed to the larger volume of liver tissue provided by the right hemi-liver graft that is appropriate for adult liver transplant recipients [5]. On the other hand, the right hemi-liver graft is associated with high incidence of vascular tree and biliary tract anatomical variations, which add more surgical challenges and difficulties [6, 7].
Portal vein (PV) reconstruction is a key factor to achieve a successful LDLT surgery. Anatomical variations of the right PV (RPV) are commonly encountered among potential donors. The incidence of portal venous variations had been heterogenous between different series ranging between 10% and 35% [5, 8, 9]. Different surgical techniques have been described to overcome these anatomical variations like back wall venoplasty, autologous Y-graft interposition, in situ dual PV anastomoses, and Malatya approach utilizing autologous saphenous vein graft [10,11,12,13]. However, the most ideal surgical technique for reconstruction of RPV anatomical variations remains controversial.
The current study was conducted to estimate the incidence of RPV anatomical variations among liver donors and evaluate different reconstruction techniques utilized in portal flow reconstruction for the right hemi-liver graft with PV anatomical variations. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study from Egyptian centers addressing the feasibility and the outcomes of adult LDLT utilizing right hemi-liver grafts with PV anatomical variations.
Patients and methods
We retrospectively reviewed the data of all recipients who underwent LDLT at Liver Transplantation Unit, Gastrointestinal Surgery Center, Mansoura University during the period between May 2004 and May 2022. Recipients who underwent LDLT utilizing right hemi-liver grafts from living donors with RPV anatomical variations were identified and included in the current study. Recipients’ data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database for all recipients undergoing LDLT. An informed consent was obtained from each recipient and donor. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board and Local Ethical Committee at the Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Egypt with reference number (R.23.01.2003).
Preoperative preparation
Preoperative evaluation protocol had been described previously [2, 14]. In summary, preoperative evaluation of potential recipients included 4 phases: Phase I included detailed laboratory and radiological evaluation, and anesthetic consultation. Phase II included detailed cardiopulmonary and neuro-psychiatric evaluation. Phase III included gastrointestinal endoscopic evaluation. Phase IV included routine general consultations to exclude possible hidden septic foci.
For donors, evaluation of PV anatomical variation was dependent of computed tomographic portography. Classification of PV anatomical variations was based upon Cheng classification where: Type I, classical anatomical division of the main PV; Type II, trifurcation of the main PV; Type III, the right posterior PV arises as the first branch of the main PV; Type IV, the right anterior PV arises from the left PV [15].
Operative technique
The operative technique had been described before [2, 14]. A standard right hemi-liver graft was commonly used for adult LDLT. The liver graft was implanted into the hepatic fossa. Reconstruction of the hepatic venous outflow was done first, followed by portal, arterial, and biliary reconstruction.
For liver grafts with RPV anatomical variations, different techniques were utilized for PV reconstruction. If the two RPV branches were close to each other, as in type II PV, a common orifice was created by direct venoplasty utilizing polypropylene 6/0 sutures at the back table to be anastomosed as a single orifice to recipient PV. In some donors, the RPV was divided at the level of the trifurcation leaving a small bridge between the two PV branches. The intervening bridge was widened by venoplasty utilizing polypropylene 6/0 sutures at the back table. Similarly, a single PV anastomosis is created with the recipient PV (Figs. 1A, B and 2).
If the two RPV branches were far from each other, as in type III and IV PV, we utilized either autologous Y-graft interposition technique or in situ direct dual PV anastomoses technique. For autologous Y-graft interposition technique, the recipient’s PV bifurcation was excised with the proximal main PV trunk and used as a Y-graft. The recipient right and left portal branches were anastomosed to the two separate graft RPV branches utilizing polypropylene 6/0 sutures at the back table. The distal end of the autologous Y-graft was then anastomosed to the remnant recipient main PV as a single anastomosis in the recipient (Fig. 1C).
For in situ direct dual PV anastomoses technique, the two separate graft RPV branches were anastomosed each to the recipient right and left PV branches utilizing polypropylene 6/0 sutures. This required an acceptable angulation of the recipient main PV axis (Figs. 1D and 3). In few recipients with type III or IV PV, the two separate graft RPV branches were anastomosed each to the corresponding recipient right anterior and posterior PV branches with closure of the recipient left PV stump utilizing polypropylene 6/0 sutures (Figs. 1D and 4).
Intraoperative Doppler ultrasound was used to confirm the patency of all vascular anastomoses. A portal vein flow around 100 – 300 ml/min/100 g liver graft was considered adequate. After ensuring adequate hemostasis and biliostasis, abdominal drains were placed around the graft and near the raw surface.
Postoperative care and follow-up
After surgery, all cases were transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) for monitoring. Patients underwent detailed laboratory evaluation twice daily during the ICU stay. Oral intake and ambulation were allowed once bowel sounds were restored. Patients were transferred to the ward on the fifth postoperative day, depending on clinical improvement. Doppler ultrasound (US) played the main role in the follow-up of the recipients. Our postoperative protocol included doppler US examinations once daily during the first week, day after other during the second and third weeks and before hospital discharge, and then once weekly during the following 2 months. Further radiological workup was done upon suspicion of any postoperative complications.
After discharge, patients were followed up regularly on outpatient visits. Follow-up visit included detailed history taking, clinical examination, detailed laboratory evaluation including trough level of immunosuppression drugs, and Doppler US evaluation of hepatic vasculature.
Definitions
Postoperative morbidity is defined as any adverse event occurring during the first 90 postoperative days and is graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Major complications are defined as class 3 or higher [16]. Postoperative liver dysfunction, biliary fistula, and hemorrhage are defined according to the ISGLS definitions [17,18,19]. Early postoperative mortality was defined as mortality occurring during the first 90 postoperative days and was excluded from further survival analysis. Late morbidities were defined as morbidities occurring after the first 90 postoperative days. Late mortality was defined as mortality occurring after the first 90 postoperative days. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the day of surgery to the day of confirmed death or the last follow-up visit.
Data analysis
Shapiro–Wilk test was used to assess the normality of the data. Categorical variables were expressed as number and percentage, and continuous variables were expressed as median and range. Survival analysis was performed by Kaplan–Meier analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS 22 software (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA). A p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
During the period between May 2004 and May 2022, 915 recipients underwent LDLT at Liver Transplantation Unit, Gastrointestinal Surgery Center, Mansoura University. Fifty-two recipients (5.8%) underwent LDLT utilizing right hemi-liver grafts from living donors with RPV anatomical variations and were included in the current study.
Preoperative demographic data
The preoperative demographic data of the study cases were summarized in Table 1. The most common indications for liver transplantation were hepatitis C virus related liver cirrhosis in 32 recipients (61.5%), followed by hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in 14 recipients (26.9%).
Operative data
The operative data of the study cases were summarized in Table 2. Recipient PV was normal in 43 recipients (82.7%), attenuated in 7 recipients (13.5%), and partially thrombosed in 2 recipients (3.8%) requiring eversion thrombectomy.
Type II PV was found in 7 cases (13.5%), which were reconstructed by direct venoplasty of the double PV stomas and single PV anastomosis in the recipient. Type III PV was found in 27 cases (51.9%). They were reconstructed by direct venoplasty of the double PV stomas and single PV anastomosis in the recipient in 2 cases (3.8%), Y graft interposition (from recipient PV) in the bench surgery and single PV anastomosis in the recipient in 2 cases (3.8%), and in situ double PV anastomoses in the recipient in 23 cases (44.2%). Type IV PV was found in 18 cases (34.6%) and was reconstructed by Y graft interposition (from recipient PV) in the bench surgery and single PV anastomosis in the recipient in 9 cases (17.3%), and in situ double PV anastomoses in the recipient in 9 cases (17.3%).
Postoperative data
The postoperative data of the study cases were summarized in Table 3. Hepatic artery thrombosis occurred in 1 recipient (1.9%) that required surgical revision. Early right posterior PV stenosis occurred in 2 recipients (3.8%), one (1.9%) was managed conservatively and the other (1.9%) required radiology-guided dilatation and stenting. Early PV thrombosis occurred in 3 recipients (5.8%). One recipient (1.9%) was just segmental thrombosis and was managed conservatively, the other one (1.9%) required radiology-guided dilatation and stenting, and the last one (1.9%) required early surgical revision.
Long-term outcomes
The long-term follow-up data of the study cases were summarized in Table 4. The median follow-up duration was 54.5 months (4 – 185). The 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 91.9%, 86%, 81.2%, and 81.2%, respectively (Fig. 5). Late morbidities occurred in 14 recipients (26.9%). Biliary stricture occurred in 5 recipients (9.6%), 4 recipients were managed with endoscopic dilatation and stenting, while one recipient required surgical intervention. Late PV stenosis occurred in 2 recipients (3.8%) and was managed conservatively with close follow-up monitoring. Late mortality occurred in 6 recipients (11.5%), and the most common cause of late mortality was chronic rejection (2 recipients—3.8%).
Discussion
The global demands for liver transplantation have been progressively increasing worldwide in the last decades. On the other hand, there is a global shortage of organs that can meet the current demands resulting in a major organ shortage problem [20]. The problem is much exaggerated in countries where DDLT is lacking. In Egypt, DDLT program is still awaited because of several cultural and ethical aspects, making LDLT the only hope for patients with end stage liver disease (ESLD) with or without HCC [2, 3].
The availability of an appropriate living donor is the most vital step for LDLT. However, several factors can lead to rejection of the available living donor [8]. Transplant teams should exert all efforts to overcome potential factors that may lead to donor exclusion especially potential graft anatomical variations.
Portal venous reconstruction is a crucial and technically demanding step in liver transplantation [21]. Recent advancement of the imaging techniques of the liver enables the transplant surgeons to identify the intrahepatic anatomy precisely [5]. Anatomical variations of the right PV (RPV) are commonly encountered among potential donors for adult LDLT. The incidence of portal venous variations had been heterogenous between different series ranging between 10% and 35% [5, 8, 9]. In the current study, the incidence of RPV anatomical variations was 5.8% among right hemi-liver donors.
In the past, the anatomical variations of the RPV were considered contraindications for living donation. However, the improvement of surgical techniques and familiarity of the surgical procedure allowed transplantation teams to accept living donors with RPV anatomical variations allowing further expansion of the potential donor pool. Different surgical techniques had been described to overcome the RPV anatomical variations like back wall venoplasty (unification venoplasty), autologous Y-graft interposition utilizing either the recipient’s own PV confluence or cryopreserved iliac veins, in situ direct dual PV anastomoses, and Malatya approach utilizing autologous saphenous vein graft [10,11,12,13]. However, the most ideal surgical technique for reconstruction of RPV anatomical variations remains controversial.
In the current study we evaluated our center experience of different reconstruction techniques utilized in portal flow reconstruction for the right hemi-liver graft with PV anatomical variations. In the beginning of our experience, we utilized autologous Y-graft interposition technique utilizing the recipient’s own PV confluence for reconstruction of widely separated two RPV stomas. Autologous Y-graft interposition technique was used in 2 cases (3.8%) of Type III PV and 9 cases (17.3%) of Type IV PV in our series. It should be noted that our group experienced several complications after utilizing autologous Y-graft interposition technique especially thrombosis of right posterior PV (3 cases—5.8%). This is commonly attributed to twisting or kinking of the long right posterior PV [12, 22, 23]. Right posterior PV thrombosis could be managed with interventional radiology and stenting; however, one case (1.9%) required surgical exploration and revision of the right posterior PV anastomosis, but the patient outcome was poor. Similarly, Lee et al. evaluated the use of autologous Y-graft interposition technique in adult LDLT, and they found a high incidence of PV complications requiring PV stenting in 5 recipients (6.3%). They concluded that autologous Y-graft interposition technique is a technically demanding technique regarding the length, orientation, twisting, and buckling deformity of the autologous graft. It is associated with high incidence of functional PV stenosis requiring radiological interventions [24]. Yaprak et al. reported three main drawbacks of autologous Y graft interposition technique including that native PV has the risk of size and angle mismatch between the donors segmental PV branches and the vascular graft. Secondly, autologous native PV Y graft is associated with additional risks such as partial thrombosis of the vascular graft, increased wall thickness of the PV secondary to cirrhosis, and challenging dissection due to previous surgical and interventional procedures in the native liver. Finally, preexisting HCC in the native liver may threaten the vascular graft [8].
In the current practice, our group adopted the use of in situ double PV anastomoses in the recipient instead of autologous Y graft interposition technique for cases with widely separated two RPV stomas. In situ double PV anastomoses technique was used in 23 cases (44.2%) of Type III PV and 9 cases (17.3%) of Type IV PV in our series with adequate intraoperative PV flow. It should be noted that we did not experience any PV complications after adoption of in situ double PV anastomoses technique by our group. Kuriyama et al. recently evaluated the feasibility and outcomes of direct dual PV anastomoses in LDLT using the right hemi-liver graft with anatomical PV variations. They utilized direct dual PV anastomoses technique in 9 adult recipients with Type III PV variation and achieved successful results of all recipients [25].
In situ double PV anastomoses technique is simple and can be easily performed. Although it may be associated with some twist of the axis of main PV, however, it is not associated with significant PV flow changes. In few recipients with type III or IV PV, the two separate graft RPV stomas were anastomosed each to the corresponding recipient right anterior and posterior PV branches with closure of the recipient left PV stump to prevent over twisting of the axis of main PV. The main drawbacks of this technique are the prolonged warm ischemic time during performance of the dual PV anastomoses, and it could not be performed for recipients with higher PV thrombosis grades [25].
An additional important issue among potential donors with RPV anatomical variations is the association with right hepatic duct variations [26, 27]. Such association leads to an additional technical challenge for biliary reconstruction and increases the complexity of recipient operation. Kuriyama et al. found that biliary variations were found in 40% of donors with RPV anatomical variations [25]. Similarly, Kishi et al. found that biliary variations were more frequently found among donors with RPV anatomical variations (57%) when compared to donors with regular RPV anatomy (28.4%) [28]. In the current study, right hepatic duct variations were found in 45 cases (86.5%). Thirty-eight cases (73.1%) required multiple biliary anastomoses. Our group reported the importance of the use of intraoperative cholangiogram during living-donor right hemi-hepatectomy for evaluation of the donors’ biliary anatomical variations and defining the safe plane for right hepatic duct(s) division to decrease the incidence of biliary complications [29]. We experienced early biliary complications in 10 cases (19.2%) and late biliary complications in 5 cases (9.6%) in the current series. All of these complications were successfully managed by means of radiology guided drainage, endoscopic intervention, and surgical intervention if required [30].
The current study had some limitations. Firstly, it is a single center retrospective study which is liable to selection bias. Secondly, the number of included cases is relatively small owing to the unique nature of such vascular variation; however, a future multi-center study may help to recruit more cases.
Conclusion
In conclusion, anatomical variations of the RPV are commonly encountered among potential living donors. Transplant surgeons should be familiar with such anatomical variations and different techniques for their reconstruction. We found that direct venoplasty of the double PV stomas and in situ dual PV anastomoses techniques are safe, feasible, and associated with successful outcomes. Utilization of potential living donors with RPV anatomic variations may help to expand the donor pool for LDLT.
Data Availability
The study data will be available for review upon a reasonable request.
Change history
10 January 2024
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03226-x
References
Olthoff KM, Merion RM, Ghobrial RM, Abecassis MM, Fair JH, Fisher RA et al (2005) Outcomes of 385 adult-to-adult living donor liver transplant recipients: a report from the A2ALL consortium. Ann Surg 242(3):314–323
Wahab MA, Hamed H, Salah T, Elsarraf W, Elshobary M, Sultan AM et al (2014) Problem of living liver donation in the absence of deceased liver transplantation program: Mansoura experience. World J Gastroenterol 20(37):13607–13614
Wahab MA, Shehta A, Elshoubary M, Yassen AM, Elmorshedi M, Salah T et al (2018) Living-donor liver transplantation in hepatitis C virus era: a report of 500 consecutive cases in a single center. Transplant Proc 50(5):1396–1406
Yamaoka Y, Washida M, Honda K, Tanaka K, Mori K, Shimahara Y et al (1994) Liver transplantation using a right lobe graft from a living related donor. Transplantation 57:1127–1141
Marcos A, Ham JM, Fisher RA, Olzinski AT, Posner MP (2000 Jun) Surgical management of anatomical variations of the right lobe in living donor liver transplantation. Annals of surgery. 231(6):824–831
Sugawara Y, Makuuchi M, Tamura S, Matsui Y, Kaneko J, Hasegawa K et al (2006) Portal vein reconstruction in adult living donor liver transplantation using cryopreserved vein grafts. Liver Transpl 12:1233–1236
Yaprak O, Demirbas T, Duran C, Dayangac M, Akyildiz M, Tokat Y et al (2011) Living donor liver hilar variations: surgical approaches and implications. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 10:474–479
Yaprak O, Guler N, Baici NC, Dayangac M, Demirbas T, Killi R et al (2012) A new technique for the reconstruction of complex portal vein anomalies in right lobe living liver donors. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 11(4):438–441
Thayer WP, Claridge JA, Pelletier SJ et al (2001) Portal vein reconstruction in right lobe living-donor liver transplantation. J Am Coll Surg 194:96
Marcos A, Orloff M, Mieles L, Olzinski A, Sitzmann J (2001) Reconstruction of double hepatic arterial and portal venous branches for right-lobe living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 7:673–679
Xu M, Yan L, Zhao J, Li B, Wen T, Zeng Y et al (2007) U-graft anastomosis for anomalous portal venous branching reconstruction in right lobe living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 13:1062–1064
Guler N, Dayangac M, Yaprak O, Akyildiz M, Gunay Y, Taskesen F et al (2013) Anatomical variations of donor portal vein in right lobe living donor liver transplantation: the safe use of variant portal veins. Transpl Int 26:1191–1197
Yilmaz S, Kayaalp C, Isik B, Ersan V, Otan E, Akbulut S et al (2017) Reconstruction of anomalous portal venous branching in right lobe living donor liver transplantation: Malatya approach. Liver Transpl 23:751–761
Wahab MA, Shehta A, Elshoubary M, Salah T, Fathy O, Sultan A et al (2018) Outcomes of living donor liver transplantation for patients with preoperative portal vein problems. J Gastrointest Surg 22(12):2055–2063
Cheng YF, Huang TL, Lee TY, Chen TY, Chen CL (1996) Variation of the intrahepatic portal vein; angiographic demonstration and application in living-related hepatic transplantation. Transplant Proc 28:1667–1668
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213
Rahbari NN, Garden OJ, Padbury R, Brooke-Smith M, Crawford M, Adam R et al (2011) Posthepatectomy liver failure: a definition and grading by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS). Surgery 149:713–724
Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R, Rahbari NN, Adam R, Capussotti L, 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;149:680-688
Rahbari NN, Garden OJ, Padbury R, Maddern G, Koch M, Hugh TJ et al (2011) Post-hepatectomy haemorrhage: a definition and grading by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS). HPB 13(8):528–535
Abouna GM (2008) Organ shortage crisis: problems and possible solutions. Transplant Proc 40(1):134–138
Kuriyama N, Kazuaki G, Hayasaki A, Fujii T, Iizawa Y, Kato H et al (2020) Surgical procedures of portal vein reconstruction for recipients with portal vein thrombosis in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 52(6):1802–1806
Lee SG, Hwang S, Kim KH, Ahn CS, Park KM, Lee YJ et al (2003) Approach to anatomic variations of the graft portal vein in right lobe living-donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 75(3):28–32
Lee SG (2015) A complete treatment of adult living donor liver transplantation: a review of surgical technique and current challenges to expand indication of patients. Am J Transplant 15(1):17–38
Lee HJ, Hwang S, Ahn CS, Kim KH, Moon DB, Ha TY et al (2012) Long-term outcomes of portal Y-graft interposition for anomalous right portal veins in living donor liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 44:454–456
Kuriyama N, Tanemura A, Hayasaki A, Fujii T, Iizawa Y, Kato H, Murata Y, Azumi Y, Kishiwada M, Mizuno S, Usui M (2018) Feasibility and outcomes of direct dual portal vein anastomosis in living donor liver transplantation using the right liver graft with anatomic portal vein variations. Transplant Proc 50(9):2640–2644
Shehta A, Lee JM, Lee KW, Hong SK, Cho JH, Yi NJ et al (2019) Pure laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy for donors with right portal vein anatomical variations. Liver Transplant 25(9):1445–1454
Park K, Shehta A, Lee JM, Hong SK, Yoon KC, Cho JH et al (2019) Pure 3D laparoscopy versus open right hemihepatectomy in a donor with type II and III portal vein variations. Ann Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Surg 23(4):313–318
Kishi Y, Imamura H, Sugawara Y, Sano K, Kaneko J, Kokudo N et al (2010) Evaluation of donor vasculobiliary anatomic variations in liver graft procurements. Surgery 147:30–39
Sultan AM, Salah T, Elshobary MM, Fathy OM, Elghawalby AN, Yassen AM et al (2014) Biliary complications in living donor right hepatectomy are affected by the method of bile duct division. Liver Transplant 20(11):1393–1401
Shehta A, Elshobari M, Salah T, Sultan AM, Yasen A, Elsadany M et al (2023) Predictive factors of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis for biliary complications in living-donor liver transplantation recipients. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 35(4):359–364
Acknowledgements
All authors acknowledge Dr. Mosab Salah, Lecturer of Anatomy and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University who helped in arranging the diagrams.
Funding
Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conception and design of the manuscript: AS. Acquisition of data: MAW, AS. Analysis and interpretation of data: AS. Drafting the manuscript: All authors. Critical revision of the final version to be published: All authors. Approval of the final version to be published: All authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Shehta, A., Elshobari, M., Salah, T. et al. Feasibility and outcomes of living-donor liver transplantation utilizing the right hemi-liver graft with portal vein anatomical variations. Langenbecks Arch Surg 408, 387 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-03115-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-03115-9