• Continuous suture
• Hepaticojejunostomy
• Holedochocholedochostomy
• Interrupted suture

• Anastomosis, Roux-en-Y/methods
• Anastomosis, Surgical/methods
• Bile Ducts/surgery
• Cholangitis
• Constriction, Pathologic/surgery
• Humans
• Liver Abscess/surgery
• Liver Transplantation/methods
• Postoperative Complications/epidemiology
• Postoperative Complications/surgery
• Prospective Studies
• Retrospective Studies
• Sutures

Hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) for bilioenteric continuity is generally performed with interrupted sutures. This study compares the safety, economics, short- and long-term outcomes of continuous suture hepaticojejunostomy (CSHJ) and interrupted suture hepaticojejunostomy (ISHJ).

A retrospective cohort analysis involving all HJs between January 2014 and December 2018 was conducted. Patients with type IV or V biliary strictures, duct diameter < 8 mm and/or associated vascular injury, and liver transplant recipients were excluded. Patient demographics, preoperative parameters including diagnosis, intra-operative parameters including type and number of sutures, suture time, and postoperative morbidity (based on Clavien-Dindo classification) were recorded. Patients were followed up to 60 months. McDonald&rsquo;s Grade A and B outcomes were considered favorable. Cost according to suture type and number (polydioxanone 3-0/5-0 mean cost, US$ 9.26/length; polyglactin 3-0/4-0 mean cost, US$ 6.56/length), and operation room charge (US$ 67.47/hour) were compared between the two techniques. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS ver. 22 software.

A total of 556 eligible patients (468 patients undergoing ISHJ and 88 undergoing CSHJ; 47% [n = 261] with malignant and 53% [n = 295] with benign pathology) were analyzed. The two groups were similar. Number of sutures, cost, time, and postoperative bile leak were significantly higher in the ISHJ group. Bile leak occurred in 54 patients (6 CSHJ, 48 ISHJ). Septic shock-induced death occurred in 16 cases (3 CSHJ, 13 ISHJ). Morbidity and the anastomotic stricture rates were comparable in both groups.

CSHJ is a safe, economical, and worthy of routine use.

• Continous suture hepaticojejunostomy
• Cost of hepaticojejunostomy, economics, anastomotic time
• Hepaticojejunostomy outcome
• Interrupted suture hepaticojejunostomy

• KL2 TR002381 NCATS NIH HHS
• UL1 TR002378 NCATS NIH HHS

• Biliary reconstruction
• hepaticojejunostomy
• laparoscopic technology
• minimally invasive
• robotic surgery

• Liver transplantation (LT)
• biliary tract diseases
• cholangiography
• cholangiopancreatography endoscopic retrograde
• review

• Anastomotic strictures
• Choledochojejunostomy
• Continuous sutures
• Interrupted sutures

Biliary complications are common after living donor liver transplant (LDLT) although with advancements in surgical understanding and techniques, the incidence is decreasing. Biliary strictures are more common than leaks. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the first line modality of treatment of post LDLT biliary strictures with a technical success rate of 75%-80%. Most of ERCP failures are successfully treated by percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and rendezvous technique. A minority of patients may require surgical correction. ERCP for these strictures is technically more challenging than routine as well post deceased donor strictures. Biliary strictures may increase the morbidity of a liver transplant recipient, but the mortality is similar to those with or without strictures. Post transplant strictures are short segment and soft, requiring only a few session of ERCP before complete dilatation. Long-term outcome of patients with biliary stricture is similar to those without stricture. With the introduction of new generation cholangioscopes, ERCP success rate may increase, obviating the need for PTBD and surgery in these patients.

• Living donor liver transplant
• Biliary complications
• Biliary strictures
• Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
• Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage

• Hepatocellular carcinoma
• Liver transplantation
• Piggyback technique
• Portal vein thrombosis
• Surgery

AIM: To elucidate the impact of various donor recipient and transplant factors on the development of biliary complications after liver transplantation.

METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 200 patients of our newly established liver transplantation (LT) program, who received full size liver graft. Biliary reconstruction was performed by side-to-side (SS), end-to-end (EE) anastomosis or hepeaticojejunostomy (HJ). Biliary complications (BC), anastomotic stenosis, bile leak, papillary stenosis, biliary drain complication, ischemic type biliary lesion (ITBL) were evaluated by studying patient records, corresponding radiologic imaging and reports of interventional procedures [e.g., endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)]. Laboratory results included alanine aminotransferase (ALT), gammaglutamyltransferase and direct/indirect bilirubin with focus on the first and fifth postoperative day, six weeks after LT. The routinely employed external bile drain was examined by a routine cholangiography on the fifth postoperative day and six weeks after transplantation as a standard procedure, but also whenever clinically indicated. If necessary, interventional (e.g., ERCP) or surgical therapy was performed. In case of biliary complication, patients were selected, assigned to different complication-groups and subsequently reviewed in detail. To evaluate the patients outcome, we focussed on appearance of postoperative/post-interventional cholangitis, need for rehospitalisation, retransplantation, ITBL or death caused by BC.

RESULTS: A total of 200 patients [age: 56 (19-72), alcoholic cirrhosis: n = 64 (32%), hepatocellular carcinoma: n = 40 (20%), acute liver failure: n = 23 (11.5%), cryptogenic cirrhosis: n = 22 (11%), hepatitis B virus /hepatitis C virus cirrhosis: n = 13 (6.5%), primary sclerosing cholangitis: n = 13 (6.5%), others: n = 25 (12.5%) were included. The median follow-up was 27 mo until June 2015. The overall biliary complication rate was 37.5% (n = 75) with anastomotic strictures (AS): n = 38 (19%), bile leak (BL): n = 12 (6%), biliary drain complication: n = 12 (6%); papillary stenosis (PS): n = 7 (3.5%), ITBL: n = 6 (3%). Clinically relevant were only 19% (n = 38). We established a comprehensive classification for AS with four grades according to clinical relevance. The reconstruction techniques [SS: n = 164, EE: n = 18, HJ: n = 18] showed no significant impact on the development of BCs in general (all n < 0.05), whereas in the HJ group significantly less AS were found (P = 0.031). The length of donor intensive care unit stay over 6 d had a significant influence on BC development (P = 0.007, HR = 2.85; 95%CI: 1.33-6.08) in the binary logistic regression model, whereas other reviewed variables had not [warm ischemic time > 45 min (P = 0.543), cold ischemic time > 10 h (P = 0.114), ALT init > 1500 U/L (P = 0.631), bilirubin init > 5 mg/dL (P = 0.595), donor age > 65 (P = 0.244), donor sex (P = 0.068), rescue organ (P = 0.971)]. 13% (n = 10) of BCs had no therapeutic consequences, 36% (n = 27) resulted in repeated lab control, 40% (n = 30) received ERCP and 11% (n = 8) surgical therapy. Fifteen (7.5%) patients developed cholangitis [AS (n = 6), ITBL (n = 5), PS (n = 3), biliary lesion BL (n = 1)]. One patient developed ITBL twelve months after LT and subsequently needed retransplantation. Rehospitalisation rate was 10.5 % (n= 21) [AS (n = 11), ITBL (n = 5), PS (n = 3), BL (n = 1)] with intervention or reinterventional therapy as main reasons. Retransplantation was performed in 5 (2.5%) patients [ITBL (n = 1), acute liver injury (ALI) by organ rejection (n = 3), ALI by occlusion of hepatic artery (n = 1)]. In total 21 (10.5%) patients died within the follow-up period. Out of these, one patient with AS developed severe fatal chologenic sepsis after ERCP.

CONCLUSION: In our data biliary reconstruction technique and ischemic times seem to have little impact on the development of BCs.

• Liver transplantation
• Biliary complications
• Anastomotic stenosis
• Ischemic type biliary lesion
• Non-anastomotic strictures
• Bile leak
• Ischemic time
• Biliary drain complications

Biliary complications (BC) currently represent a major source of morbidity after liver transplantation. Although refinements in surgical technique and medical therapy have had a positive influence on the reduction of postoperative morbidity, BC affect 5% to 25% of transplanted patients. Bile leak and anastomotic strictures represent the most common complications. Nowadays, a multidisciplinary approach is required to manage such complications in order to prevent liver failure and retransplantation.

• Biliary complication
• Bile leak
• Anastomotic stricture
• Endoscopic treatment
• Liver transplantation

• Bile leak
• Biliary stricture
• Liver transplantation

• Anastomosis, Surgical/methods
• Bile Ducts/injuries
• Bile Ducts/surgery
• Humans
• Liver Transplantation/methods
• Suture Techniques

• Anastomosis, Surgical
• Biliary Tract Diseases/epidemiology
• Biliary Tract Diseases/etiology
• Biliary Tract Diseases/surgery
• Biliary Tract Surgical Procedures/methods
• Humans
• Liver Transplantation/adverse effects
• Plastic Surgery Procedures/methods
• Tissue Donors

• Adult
• Anastomosis, Surgical/adverse effects
• Anastomotic Leak/therapy
• Bile Ducts/surgery
• Biliary Tract Diseases/etiology
• Cadaver
• Constriction, Pathologic/etiology
• Constriction, Pathologic/surgery
• Drainage/methods
• Humans
• Incidence
• Liver Transplantation/adverse effects
• Living Donors
• Postoperative Complications/etiology
• Postoperative Complications/surgery
• Plastic Surgery Procedures
• Risk Factors
• Tissue Donors
• Treatment Outcome

• Anastomosis, Surgical
• Humans
• Male
• Prostatectomy/methods
• Urethra/surgery
• Urinary Bladder/surgery

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has gone through its formative years and established as a legitimate treatment when a deceased donor liver graft is not timely or simply not available at all. Nevertheless, LDLT is characterized by its technical complexity and ethical controversy. These are the consequences of a single organ having to serve two subjects, the donor and the recipient, instantaneously. The transplant community has a common ground on assuring donor safety while achieving predictable recipient success. With this background, a reflection of the development of LDLT may be appropriate to direct future research and patient-care efforts on this life-saving treatment alternative.

• Historical perspective
• Living donor liver transplantation