Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008;10(3):196-203.
doi: 10.1080/13651820801953031.

The need for venovenous bypass in liver transplantation

Affiliations

The need for venovenous bypass in liver transplantation

Hamidreza Fonouni et al. HPB (Oxford). 2008.

Abstract

Since introduction of the conventional liver transplantation (CLTx) by Starzl, which was based on the resection of recipient inferior vena cava (IVC) along the liver, the procedure has undergone several refinements. Successful use of venovenous bypass (VVB) was first introduced by Shaw et al., although in recent decades there has been controversy regarding the routine use of VVB during CLTx. With development of piggyback liver transplantation (PLTx), the use of caval clamping and VVB is avoided, leading to fewer complications related to VVB. However, some authors still advocate VVB in PLTx. The great diversity among centers in their use of VVB during CLTx, or even along the PLTx technique, has led to confusion regarding the indication setting for VVB. For this reason, we present an overview of the use of VVB in CLTx, the target of patients for whom VVB could be beneficial, and the needs assessment of VVB for patients undergoing PLTx. Recent studies have shown that with the advancement of surgical skills, refinement of surgical techniques, and improvements in anesthesiology, there are only limited indications for doing CLTx with VVB routinely. PLTx with preservation of IVC can be performed in almost all primary transplants and in the majority of re-transplantations without the need for VVB. Nevertheless, in a few selective cases with severe intra-operative hemodynamic instability, or with a failed test of transient IVC occlusion, the application of VVB is still justifiable. These indications should be judged intra-operatively and the decision is based on each center's preference.

Keywords: Conventional liver transplantation; piggyback liver transplantation; venovenous bypass.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Starzl TE, Demetris AJ. Year Book Medical Publishers; Chicago: 1990. Liver transplantation.
    1. Moore FD, Wheele HB, Demissianos HV, Smith LL, Balankura O, Abel K, et al. Experimental whole-organ transplantation of the liver and of the spleen. Ann Surg. 1960;152:374–87. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moore FD, Smith LL, Burnap TK, Dallenbach FD, Dammin GJ, Gruber UF, et al. One-stage homotransplantation of the liver following total hepatectomy in dogs. Transpl Bull. 1959;6:103–7. - PubMed
    1. Starzl TE, Kaupp HA, Brock DR, et al. Reconstructive problems in canine liver homotransplantation with special reference to the postoperative role of hepatic venous flow. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1960;111:733–43. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Starzl TE, Marchioro TL, Huntley RT, Rifkind D, Rowlands DT, Jr, Dickinson TC, et al. Experimental and clinical homotransplantations of the liver. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1964;120:739–65. - PMC - PubMed