劈离式肝移植右侧供肝肝内胆管的解剖分型与胆道重建

Anatomic classification and reconstruction of right intrahepatic bile duct in the donor liver of split liver trans-plantation

  • 摘要:
    目的 探讨劈离式肝移植(SLT)右侧供肝肝内胆管的解剖分型与胆道重建。
    方法 采用回顾性描述性研究方法。收集2014年7月至2022年1月中山大学附属第三医院收治的85例行SLT患者的临床资料;男65例,女20例;年龄为45(1~82)岁。观察指标:(1)手术情况。(2)右侧供肝肝内胆管解剖情况。(3)胆道重建情况。(4)术后胆道并发症情况。(5)随访情况。正态分布的计量资料以x±s表示;偏态分布的计量资料以M(范围)或MQ1,Q3)表示。计数资料以绝对数或百分比表示,组间比较采用χ²检验或Fisher确切概率法。
    结果 (1)手术情况。85例供肝中,采用左右半肝劈离方式11例,采用经典的右三叶和左外叶劈离方式74例。85例供肝冷缺血时间为291(273,354)min;受者手术时间为(497±97)min,无肝期时间为51(40,80)min,输血量为8(7,12)U。(2)右侧供肝肝内胆管解剖情况。85例供肝中,经典胆管解剖模型(1型)47例,占比为55.3%(47/85),解剖变异型38例,占比为44.7%(38/85)。38例解剖变异型分别为:2型7例,3a型16例,3b型2例,3c型2例,4型1例,5a型3例,5b型4例,6型3例。85例供肝的胆管劈离方式中,84例为保留肝总管主干于右半肝或右三叶,1例行完全左右半肝劈离将肝总管主干保留于左半肝,右半肝保留右肝管(1型);84例仅有1个胆管开口,1例有2个胆管开口(3c型)。(3)胆道重建情况。85例受者胆道重建方案为供肝胆总管‑受者胆总管端端吻合69例(1型38例、2型5例、3a型14例、3b型2例、4型1例、5a型3例、5b型4例、6型2例),供肝胆总管‑受者空肠吻合11例(1型7例、2型2例、3c型1例、6型1例),供肝肝总管‑受者空肠吻合3例(1型1例、3a型2例),供肝右肝管‑受者空肠吻合1例(1型),供肝右后支‑受者肝总管端端吻合+供肝肝总管‑受者空肠Roux‑en‑Y吻合1例(3c型)。(4)术后胆道并发症情况。85例受者中,6例发生胆道并发症,发生率为7.1%(6/85)。6例发生胆道并发症受者中,5例为1型,1例为3b型。5例发生胆道并发症的1型受者中,3例为术后胆道狭窄合并胆漏,2例为术后胆管吻合口狭窄。1例发生胆道并发症的3b型受者术后出现胆管吻合口狭窄合并肝断面胆漏。47例经典胆管解剖模型和38例解剖变异型受者发生胆道并发症分别为5例和1例,两者比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。(5)随访情况。83例受者获得随访,随访时间为52(12,96)个月。随访期间,2例受者因非胆道并发症因素死亡(1型1例,3a型1例)。
    结论 SLT右侧供肝肝内胆管解剖分型主要为经典胆管解剖模型,胆道重建方案主要为供肝胆总管‑受者胆总管端端吻合。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To investigate the anatomic classification and reconstruction of right intrahepatic bile duct in the donor liver of split liver transplantation (SLT).
    Methods The retrospective and descriptive study was constructed. The clinical data of 85 patients who underwent SLT in the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat‑sen University from July 2014 to January 2022 were collected. There were 65 males and 20 females, aged 45(range, 1-82)years. Observation indicators: (1) surgical conditions; (2) anatomy of right intrahepatic bile duct; (3) bile duct reconstruction; (4) postoperative biliary complications; (5) follow‑up. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean±SD, and measurement data with skewed distribution were represented as M(range) or M(Q1,Q3).Count data were described as absolute numbers or percentages, and comparison between groups was conducted using the chi‑square test or Fisher exact probability.
    Results (1) Surgical conditions. Of the 85 donor livers, 11 donor livers were split between the left and right hemilivers, and 74 donor livers were split between the classic right trilobe and left lateral lobe. The cold ischemia time of 85 donor livers was 291(273, 354)minutes, and the operation time, anhepatic phase time and volume of intraoperative blood transfusion of 85 recipients were (497±97)minutes, 51(40, 80)minutes and 8(7, 12)U. (2) Anatomy of right intrahepatic bile duct. Of the 85 donor livers, there were 47 donor livers with classic bile duct anatomical model (type 1), of the ratio as 55.3%(47/85), and 38 donor livers with anatomical variants, of the ratio as 44.7%(38/85). Of the 38 donor livers with anatomical variants, 7 donor livers were type 2, 16 donor livers were type 3a, 2 donor livers were type 3b, 2 donor livers were type 3c, 1 donor liver was type 4, 3 donor livers were type 5a, 4 donor livers were type 5b, 3 donor livers were type 6. For bile duct splitting patterns of the 85 donor livers, 84 donor livers were split with the main trunk of common hepatic duct preserving in the right hemiliver or right trilobe, and 1 donor liver were treated with complete left and right hemiliver splitting to preserve the main trunk of the common hepatic duct in the left hemiliver and the right hemiliver in the right hepatic duct (type 1 bile duct anatomical model). There were 84 donor livers with only one bile duct opening, and 1 donor liver with two bile duct openings (type 3c bile duct anatomical model). (3) Bile duct reconstruction. Of the 85 recipients, there were 69 recipients with common bile duct end‑to‑end anastomosis to common bile duct of donor liver (38 donor livers with type 1 bile duct anatomical model, 5 donor livers with type 2 bile duct anatomical model, 14 donor livers with type 3a bile duct anatomical model, 2 donor livers with type 3b bile duct anatomical model, 1 donor liver with type 4 bile duct anatomical model, 3 donor livers with type 5a bile duct anatomical model, 4 donor livers with type 5b bile duct anatomical model, 2 donor livers with type 6 bile duct anatomical model), 11 recipients with jejunum anastomosis to common bile duct of donor liver (7 donor livers with type 1 bile duct anatomical model, 2 donor livers with type 2 bile duct anatomical model, 1 donor liver with type 3c bile duct anatomical model, 1 donor liver with type 6 bile duct anatomical model), 3 recipients with jejunum anastomosis to common hepatic duct of donor liver (1 donor liver with type 1 bile duct anatomical model, 2 donor livers with type 3a bile duct anatomical model), 1 recipient with jejunum anastomosis to right hepatic duct of donor liver (type 1 bile duct anatomical model), 1 recipient with common hepatic duct end‑to‑end anastomosis to right posterior branch of donor liver combined with jejunum of the recipient Roux‑en‑y anastomosis to common hepatic duct of donor liver (type 3c bile duct anatomical model). (4) Postoperative biliary complications. Of the 85 recipients, 6 cases had postoperative biliary complications, with an incidence of 7.1% (6/85). Of the 6 recipients with postoperative biliary complications, there were 5 recipients with donor liver with type 1 bile duct anatomical model, including 3 cases undergoing postoperative biliary stricture with biliary leakage and 2 cases undergoing postoperative biliary anastomotic stricture, 1 recipient with donor liver with type 3b bile duct anatomical model and undergoing postoperative biliary anastomotic stricture and bile leakage in the liver section. Cases with biliary complications were 5 in the 47 recipients with donor liver with classic bile duct anatomical model and 1 in the 38 recipients with donor liver with anato-mical variants, showing no significant difference between them (P>0.05). (5) Follow‑up. There were 83 recipients receiving followed up for 52(12,96)months. During the follow‑up period, 2 recipients died due to non‑biliary complication factors (1 donor liver with type 1 bile duct anatomical model and 1 donor liver with 3a bile duct anatomical model).
    Conclusion The anatomical classification of right intrahepatic bile duct of donor liver in SLT is mainly classical bile duct anatomical model, and the bile duct reconstruction scheme is mainly common bile duct of donor liver end‑to‑end anasto-mosis to common bile duct of recipient.

     

/

返回文章
返回