Editorial: reducing blood loss in liver transplantation—the impact of surgical technique

Liver transplantation is the standard of care for end stage liver disease, fulminant liver failure and selected liver malignancies. It is performed world-wide with acceptable morbidity and mortality. There are many parallels between transplantation surgery and abdominal oncological surgery ranging from pre-operative work up, imaging, peri-operative management and post-operative recovery, with advances in each translating to the other.

Peri-operative blood transfusion and in particular, massive blood transfusion, has been shown to be associated with increased morbidity (1), mortality (2), worse oncological outcomes (3), survival (4,5) and a significant health economic cost (6).

Many initiatives have been investigated and applied to minimize this precious resource in various clinical settings. These include pre-operative correction of anaemia and iron deficiency, auto-transfusion, donor blood usage (7), perioperative management of coagulopathy, advanced anaesthetic techniques including low CVP anaesthesia, objective intra-operative monitoring of coagulopathy (8), the intra operative use of topical haemostatic agents and the operative use of energy devices (1,9,10).

In liver transplantation, surgeons have to face the added challenge of clinical or sub-clinical portal hypertension. This burden begins at the skin incision (caput medusae, recanalized paraumbilical vein) through porta hepatis dissection (porta hepatis varices, peri-choledochal vessels) and the retroperitoneal and para-caval regions where further portosystemic shunts are usually present. The vessels that form collaterals or varices tend to be anatomically thinner, more friable and have raised venous pressure within them, increasing the risk of inadvertent injury and bleeding during surgery. Obtaining haemostasis may involve surgical ligatures, stapling devices, energy sealant devices or monopolar cautery.

Liver transplantation is undertaken by highly skilled, clinically experienced and technically proficient teams whose meticulous surgical technique contribute significantly to the reduction in operative and post-operative blood loss. Surgeons would make a clinical judgement to mentally classify a vessel to be treated to be low, moderate or high-risk vessel. This decision is likely to be biased by the size of the vessel, vessel wall quality, amount of tissue around it, vicinity with a major vascular structure and difficulty in access before the vessel is treated or in the event of failure after the treatment. When dealing with portal hypertension and abnormal collateral vessels, in which the vein wall tends to be thinner and more friable, surgeons tend to avoid taking risks, even more in the setting of a long and exhaustive operation.

Vessels with low risk of bleeding, in the interest of time, tend to be treated with monopolar or even bipolar cautery. Medium risk vessels are often treated by a sealant device or by surgical ligation. High-risk vessels are usually treated with surgical ties, sutures or staplers. Therefore, the interplay between monopolar, sealant device and surgical ligation is likely to be unique in each individual operation making it hard to assess objectively the relative efficiency of each technique.

In this issue, Lee et al., objectively analyzed the use of a sealant device (LigaSure^TM) versus a monopolar cautery during the recipient operation (hepatectomy and after vascular reconstruction) in the liver transplant setting in a major HPB and Liver Transplant center is South Korea (11).

From a pool of 187 patients having liver transplant in 15 months, 118 had the hepatectomy performed with monopolar and 69 with LigaSure^TM, showing that the most common energy device used in the author’s centre is the monopolar cautery (63.1%). The authors used a propensity score matching analysis controlling 14 variables. They were able to compare 138 patients, with 69 in each group.

There was no difference regarding intra-operative blood loss and blood transfusion, however there was significantly higher rates of postoperative bleeding (measured by re-operation) in the monopolar cautery group (18.8%) when compared to the LigaSure^TM group (4.35%). The authors also found less infective complications rates in the LigaSure^TM group. However, the outcomes variable (infective complication) is not clearly defined in the methodology (intra-abdominal infection, surgical site infection, lung or catheter related infection). One could speculate that the source of bleeding requiring re-operation and potential source of subsequent infective complications were the smaller vessels routinely ablated by monopolar cautery. This would support the hypothesis that the regular use of sealant energy devices on these small vessels may be the reason for the better outcome. The medium and larger vessels would be expected to be routinely sealed by energy device, surgical ligatures or stapling devices. This is particularly relevant when clamping the portal vein at the time of liver explantation, when there is an increase in the portal pressure which could lead to bleeding in areas previous sealed by the LigaSure or the monopolar cautery and the former may provide better seal.

This study published by Lee et al., has shown that simple expediency of using a sealant energy device in areas where monopolar cautery is used, may have a significant effect on post-operative bleeding, return to theatre and infective complications. Other studies addressing the use of sealant devices in liver transplantation have shown they have the potential to save hospital costs, reduce surgical time and decrease blood loss. Moreover, it has been suggested that it may also reduce staff exposure to sharp instruments (10,12). Results from a prospective trial are, however, still pending (9).

Additional areas of interest would be the impact of temporary portocaval shunts (in temporary decompressing the portal venous pressure until the cirrhotic liver is removed and the new graft re-anastomosed), use of topical haemostatic agents, the use of a haemostatic pause after revascularization and details of infective complications. While a prospective study would confirm these findings, this study strengthens the concept that a multi-modal approach is important to minimizing perioperative blood loss, even more in situations where high blood loss is expected such as liver transplantation surgery.

Acknowledgments

Funding: None.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Annals of Translational Medicine. The article did not undergo external peer review.

Conflicts of Interest: Both authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-2021-13). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Ferraris VA, Hochstetler M, Martin JT, et al. Blood transfusion and adverse surgical outcomes: The good and the bad. Surgery 2015;158:608-17. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Rana A, Petrowsky H, Hong JC, et al. Blood transfusion requirement during liver transplantation is an important risk factor for mortality. J Am Coll Surg 2013;216:902-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Muaddi H, Abreu P, Ivanics T, et al. The effect of perioperative packed red blood cells transfusion on patient outcomes after liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma. HPB (Oxford) 2021. [Epub ahead of print].
4. Han S, Kwon JH, Jung SH, et al. Perioperative Fresh Red Blood Cell Transfusion May Negatively Affect Recipient Survival After Liver Transplantation. Ann Surg 2018;267:346-51. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Gordon K, Figueira ERR, Rocha-Filho JA, et al. Perioperative blood transfusion decreases long-term survival in pediatric living donor liver transplantation. World J Gastroenterol 2021;27:1161-81. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Ramos E, Dalmau A, Sabate A, et al. Intraoperative red blood cell transfusion in liver transplantation: influence on patient outcome, prediction of requirements, and measures to reduce them. Liver Transpl 2003;9:1320-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Tang GT, Shaylor R, Hui V, et al. The use of organ donor blood in liver transplantation. Clin Transplant 2021; [Epub ahead of print]. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Cleland S, Corredor C, Ye JJ, et al. Massive haemorrhage in liver transplantation: Consequences, prediction and management. World J Transplant 2016;6:291-305. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Houben P, Khajeh E, Hinz U, et al. SEALIVE: the use of technical vessel-sealing devices for recipient hepatectomy in liver transplantation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2018;19:380. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Lamattina JC, Hosseini M, Fayek SA, et al. Efficiency of the LigaSure vessel sealing system for recipient hepatectomy in liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 2013;45:1931-3. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Lee JM, Hong K, Han ES, et al. LigaSure versus monopolar cautery for recipient hepatectomy in liver transplantation: a propensity score-matched analysis. Ann Transl Med 2021;9:1050. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Olmez A, Karabulut K, Aydin C, et al. Comparison of harmonic scalpel versus conventional knot tying for transection of short hepatic veins at liver transplantation: prospective randomized study. Transplant Proc 2012;44:1717-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]