Skip to main content
Log in

CT and MR imaging evaluation of living liver donors

  • Special Section: Liver transplantation
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Preoperative cross-sectional imaging evaluation of potential living liver donors allows to exclude donors with an increased risk for morbidity and mortality, and to assure that a suitable graft for the recipient can be obtained, minimizing the risk of complications in both the donor and the recipient. CT is routinely performed to delineate the anatomy of the liver, relevant vasculature, and liver volumes in whole right or left lateral segment donation. MR imaging is the gold standard for the assessment of biliary anatomy and allows a better quantification of hepatic steatosis compared to CT. Knowledge of normal and variant vascular and biliary anatomy and their surgical relevance for liver transplantation is of paramount importance for the radiologist. The purpose of this review is to outline the current role of CT and MR imaging in the assessment of hepatic parenchyma, hepatic vascular anatomy, biliary anatomy, and hepatic volumetry in the potential living liver donor with short notes on acquisition protocols and the relevant reportable findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kamel IR, Kruskal JB, Pomfret EA, et al. Impact of multidetector CT on donor selection and surgical planning before living adult right lobe liver transplantation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176:193-200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Braun HJ, Ascher NL, Roll GR, Roberts JP. Biliary complications following living donor hepatectomy. Transplant Rev 2016;30:247-252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Perez-Daga JA, Santoyo J, Suárez MA, et al. Influence of degree of hepatic steatosis on graft function and postoperative complications of liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 2006; 38:2468-2470.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hecht EM, Wang ZJ, Kambadakone A, et al. Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Preoperative Planning and Postoperative Complications. Am J Roentgenol 2019; 213: 65-76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee SY, Mooney MA, Inra ML, et al. Exposure to ionizing radiation during liver transplantation evaluation, waitlist time, and in the postoperative period: a cause for concern. Hepatology 2014;59:496-504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim RD, Sakamoto S, Haider MA, et al. Role of magnetic resonance cholangiography in assessing biliary anatomy in right lobe living donors. Transplantation 2005 7; 79:1417-1421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schroeder T, Malagó M, Debatin JF, et al. “All-in-one” imaging protocols for the evaluation of potential living liver donors: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and multidetector computed tomography. Liver Transpl 2005;1:776-787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bedogni G, Miglioli L, Masutti F, et al. Prevalence of and risk factors for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: the Dionysos nutrition and liver study. Hepatology. 2005; 42:44-52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bedogni G, Bellentani S, Miglioli L, et al. The Fatty Liver Index: a simple and accurate predictor of hepatic steatosis in the general population. BMC Gastroenterol 2006; 6:33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hahn LD, Emre SH, Israel GM. Radiographic features of potential donor livers that precluded donation. Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202:W343-W348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Salama IA, Dessouky BA, Korayem EM, Aal SA. Impact of multislice spiral computed tomography on donor selection and surgical planning in living-related liver transplant. Exp Clin Transplant 2010; 8:111-124.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hamar M, Selzner M. Steatotic donor livers: Where is the risk-benefit maximized? Liver Transpl 2017; 23:S34-S39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hwang I, Lee JM, Lee KB, et al. Hepatic steatosis in living liver donor candidates: preoperative assessment by using breath-hold triple-echo MR imaging and 1H MR spectroscopy. Radiology 2014; 271:730-738.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yoon JH, Lee JM, Suh KS, et al. Combined Use of MR Fat Quantification and MR Elastography in Living Liver Donors: Can It Reduce the Need for Preoperative Liver Biopsy? Radiology 2015; 276:453-464.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gallegos-Orozco JF, Silva AC, Batheja MJ, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography can discriminate normal vs. abnormal liver biopsy in candidates for live liver donation. Abdom Imagin. 2015;40:795-802.

  16. Kim SH, Lee JM, Han JK, et al. Hepatic macrosteatosis: predicting appropriateness of liver donation by using MR imaging–correlation with histopathologic findings. Radiology. 2006; 240:116-129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee SS, Park SH, Kim HJ et al. Non-invasive assessment of hepatic steatosis: prospective comparison of the accuracy of imaging examinations. J Hepatol 2010; 52:579–585.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Park SH, Kim PN, Kim KW, et al. Macrovesicular hepatic steatosis in living liver donors: use of CT for quantitative and qualitative assessment. Radiology 2006;239:105-112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee SW, Park SH, Kim KW, et al. Unenhanced CT for assessment of macrovesicular hepatic steatosis in living liver donors: comparison of visual grading with liver attenuation index. Radiology 2007; 244:479-485.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rogier J, Roullet S, Cornélis F et al. Noninvasive assessment of macrovesicular liver steatosis in cadaveric donors based on computed tomography liver-to-spleen attenuation ratio. Liver Transpl 2015; 21:690-695.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dioguardi Burgio M, Bruno O, Agnello F, et al. The cheating liver: imaging of focal steatosis and fatty sparing. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 10:671-678.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Zheng D, Guo Z, Schroder PM, et al. Accuracy of MR Imaging and MR Spectroscopy for Detection and Quantification of Hepatic Steatosis in Living Liver Donors: A Meta-Analysis. Radiology 2017; 282:92-102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Idilman IS, Aniktar H, Idilman R, et al. Hepatic steatosis: quantification by proton density fat fraction with MR imaging versus liver biopsy. Radiology 2013;267:767-775.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Satkunasingham J, Nik HH, Fischer S, et al. Can negligible hepatic steatosis determined by magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction obviate the need for liver biopsy in potential liver donors? Liver Transpl 2018; 24:470-477.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kawamoto S, Soyer PA, Fishman EK, Bluemke DA. Nonneoplastic liver disease: evaluation with CT and MR imaging. Radiographics. 1998; 18:827-848.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fulcher AS, Szucs RA, Bassignani MJ, Marcos A. Right lobe living donor liver transplantation: preoperative evaluation of the donor with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176:1483-1491.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Erbay N, Raptopoulos V, Pomfret EA, Kamel IR, Kruskal JB. Living donor liver transplantation in adults: vascular variants important in surgical planning for donors and recipients. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181:109-114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Winter TC, Freeny PC, Nghiem HV, et al. Hepatic arterial anatomy in transplantation candidates: evaluation with three-dimensional CT arteriography. Radiology 1995; 195:363-370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Marcos A, Ham JM, Fisher RA, Olzinski AT, Posner MP. Surgical management of anatomical variations of the right lobe in living donor liver transplantation. Ann Surg 2000; 231:824-831.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. López-Andújar R, Moya A, Montalvá E, et al. Lessons learned from anatomic variants of the hepatic artery in 1,081 transplanted livers. Liver Transpl 2007; 13:1401-1404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Catalano OA, Singh AH, Uppot RN, et al. Vascular and biliary variants in the liver: implications for liver surgery. Radiographics 2008; 28:359-378.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lee MW, Lee JM, Lee JY, et al. Preoperative evaluation of the hepatic vascular anatomy in living liver donors: comparison of CT angiography and MR angiography. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006; 24:1081-1087.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jhaveri KS, Guo L, Guimarães L. Current State-of-the-Art MRI for Comprehensive Evaluation of Potential Living Liver Donors. Am J Roentgenol 2017;209:55-66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mortelé KJ, Cantisani V, Troisi R, et al. Preoperative liver donor evaluation: Imaging and pitfalls. Liver Transpl 2003;9:S6-S14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Michels NA. Blood Supply and Anatomy of the Upper Abdominal Organs with a Descriptive Atlas. Philadelphia: Lippincott,1955.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pannu HK, Maley WR, Fishman EK. Liver transplantation: preoperative CT evaluation. Radiographics. 2001; 21:S133-S146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wang S, He X, Li Z, et al. Characterization of the middle hepatic artery and its relevance to living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2010;16:736-741.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cheng YF, Huang TL, Lee TY, Chen TY, Chen CL. Variation of the intrahepatic portal vein; angiographic demonstration and application in living-related hepatic transplantation. Transplant Proc. 1996; 28:1667-1668.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Covey AM, Brody LA, Getrajdman GI, Sofocleous CT, Brown KT AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004; 183:1055-1064.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Couinaud C. Liver anatomy: portal (and suprahepatic) or biliary segmentation. Dig Surg. 1999;16(6):459-67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sureka B, Patidar Y, Bansal K et al Portal vein variations in 1000 patients: surgical and radiological importance. Br J Radiol 2015;88:20150326.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Nakamura T, Tanaka K, Kiuchi T, et al. Anatomical variations and surgical strategies in right lobe living donor liver transplantation: lessons from 120 cases. Transplantation. 2002; 73:1896-903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Koç Z, Oğuzkurt L, Ulusan S. Portal vein variations: clinical implications and frequencies in routine abdominal multidetector CT. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2007; 13:75-80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kitami M, Takase K, Murakami G, et al. Types and frequencies of biliary tract variations associated with a major portal venous anomaly: analysis with multi-detector row CT cholangiography. Radiology 2006; 238:156-166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sahani D, Mehta A, Blake M, et al Preoperative hepatic vascular evaluation with CT and MR angiography: implications for surgery. Radiographics 2004; 24:1367-1380.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Radtke A, Sotiropoulos GC, Molmenti EP, et al. The influence of accessory right inferior hepatic veins on the venous drainage in right graft living donor liver transplantation. Hepatogastroenterology. 2006; 53:479-483.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lee SG. 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 2015; 15:17-38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Taourel P, Bret PM, Reinhold C, Barkun AN, Atri M. Anatomic variants of the biliary tree: diagnosis with MR cholangiopancreatography. Radiology. 1996; 199:521-527.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kim SY, Byun JH, Lee SS, et al. Biliary tract depiction in living potential liver donors: intraindividual comparison of MR cholangiography at 3.0 and 1.5 T. Radiology 2010; 254(2):469-478.

  50. Kim SY, Byun JH, Hong HS, et al. Biliary tract depiction in living potential liver donors at 3.0-T magnetic resonance cholangiography. Invest Radiol 2008;43:594-602.

  51. Cai L, Yeh BM, Westphalen AC, Roberts J, Wang ZJ. 3D T2-weighted and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced 3D T1-weighted MR cholangiography for evaluation of biliary anatomy in living liver donors. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2017; 42:842-850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lee JH, Kim B, Kim HJ, et al High spatial resolution navigated 3D T1-weighted hepatobiliary MR cholangiography using Gd-EOB-DTPA for evaluation of biliary anatomy in living liver donors. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2018; 43:1703-1712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kim B, Kim SY, Kim KW, et al. MRI in donor candidates for living donor liver transplant: Technical and practical considerations. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018; 48:1453-1467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Yu MH, Lee JM, Yoon JH, et al. Clinical application of controlled aliasing in parallel imaging results in a higher acceleration (CAIPIRINHA)-volumetric interpolated breathhold (VIBE) sequence for gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 38:1020-1026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Ogawa M, Kawai T, Kan H, et al. Shortened breath-hold contrast-enhanced MRI of the liver using a new parallel imaging technique, CAIPIRINHA (controlled aliasing in parallel imaging results in higher acceleration): a comparison with conventional GRAPPA technique. Abdom Imaging. 2015; 40:3091-3098.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Yoshida J, Chijiiwa K, Yamaguchi K, Yokohata K, Tanaka M. Practical classification of the branching types of the biliary tree: an analysis of 1,094 consecutive direct cholangiograms. J Am Coll Surg 1996; 182:37-40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Huang TL, Cheng YF, Chen CL, Chen TY, Lee TY. Variants of the bile ducts: clinical application in the potential donor of living-related hepatic transplantation. Transplant Proc 1996;28:1669-1670.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Choi JW, Kim TK, Kim KW, et al Anatomic variation in intrahepatic bile ducts: an analysis of intraoperative cholangiograms in 300 consecutive donors for living donor liver transplantation. Korean J Radiol 2003; 4:85-90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Mortelé KJ, Ros PR. Anatomic variants of the biliary tree: MR cholangiographic findings and clinical applications. Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177:389-394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Alonso-Torres A, Fernández-Cuadrado J, Pinilla I, Parrón M, de Vicente E, López-Santamaría M. Multidetector CT in the evaluation of potential living donors for liver transplantation. Radiographics 2005; 25:1017–1030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL, Tso WK, Wong J. Biliary reconstruction and complications of right lobe live donor liver transplantation. Ann Surg 2002; 236:676-683.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Ye S, Dong JH, Duan WD, Ji WB, Liang YR. The Preliminary Study on Procurement Biliary Convergence from Donors with Complicated Bile Duct Variant in Emergency Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation. J Clin Exp Hepatol 2017; 7:33-41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Goumard C, Cachanado M, Herrero A, et al. Biliary reconstruction with or without an intraductal removable stent in liver transplantation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2015;16:598.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Kiuchi T, Kasahara M, Uryuhara K, et al. Impact of graft size mismatching on graft prognosis in liver transplantation from living donors. Transplantation 1999; 67:321-327.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL, Yong BH, Wong J. Determinants of hospital mortality of adult recipients of right lobe live donor liver transplantation. Ann Surg 2003; 238:864-69; discussion 869-870.

  66. Bell R, Pandanaboyana S, Upasani V, Prasad R. Impact of graft-to-recipient weight ratio on small-for-size syndrome following living donor liver transplantation. ANZ J Surg 2018; 88:415-420.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Kaido T, Mori A, Ogura Y, et al. Lower limit of the graft-to-recipient weight ratio can be safely reduced to 0.6% in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation in combination with portal pressure control. Transplant Proc. 2011; 43:2391-3.

  68. Selzner M, Kashfi A, Cattral MS, et al. A graft to body weight ratio less than 0.8 does not exclude adult-to-adult right-lobe living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2009;15:1776-1782.

  69. Moon JI, Kwon CH, Joh JW, et al Safety of small-for-size grafts in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation using the right lobe. Liver Transpl 2010; 16:864-869.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Lee SD, Kim SH, Kim YK, Lee SA, Park SJ. Graft-to-recipient weight ratio lower to 0.7% is safe without portal pressure modulation in right-lobe living donor liver transplantation with favorable conditions. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2014; 13:18-24.

  71. Uemura T, Wada S, Kaido T, et al. How far can we lower graft-to-recipient weight ratio for living donor liver transplantation under modulation of portal venous pressure? Surgery. 2016; 159:1623-1630.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Agarwal S, Naganathan S, Rajasekhar K, et al. Minimum absolute graft weight of 650 grams predicts a good outcome in living donor liver transplant despite a graft recipient body weight ratio of less than 0.8. Clin Transplant. 2019 Sep 9:e13705. doi: 10.1111/ctr.13705. In press.

  73. Akdur A, Kirnap M, Ozcay F, et al. Large-for-size liver transplant: a single-center experience. Exp Clin Transplant. 2015;13 Suppl 1:108-10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Kim SH, Park GC, Hwang S, et al. Results of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation with Sixth-Decade Donors: A Propensity Score Matching Study in a High-Volume Institution. Ann Transplant 2018; 23:802-807.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu CL, et al. Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation using extended right lobe grafts. Ann Surg 1997;226:261-269; discussion 269-270.

  76. Kwon HJ, Kim KW, Kim B, et al Resection plane-dependent error in computed tomography volumetry of the right hepatic lobe in living liver donors. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2018;24:54-60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Karlo C, Reiner CS, Stolzmann P, et al. CT- and MRI-based volumetry of resected liver specimen: comparison to intraoperative volume and weight measurements and calculation of conversion factors. Eur J Radiol 2010;75:e107-e111.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Kim KW, Lee J, Lee H, et al. Right lobe estimated blood-free weight for living donor liver transplantation: accuracy of automated blood-free CT volumetry–preliminary results. Radiology 2010; 256:433-440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Lemke AJ, Brinkmann MJ, Pascher A, et al. Accuracy of the CT-estimated weight of the right hepatic lobe prior to living related liver donation (LRLD) for predicting the intraoperatively measured weight of the graft. Rofo 2003; 175:1232-1238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federica Vernuccio.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

All authors have nothing to disclose for this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vernuccio, F., Whitney, S.A., Ravindra, K. et al. CT and MR imaging evaluation of living liver donors. Abdom Radiol 46, 17–28 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02385-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02385-6

Keywords

Navigation