Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 2, 2025
Porcine Liver Transplantation Without Veno-Venous Bypass As an Extended Criteria Donor Model
Published on: August 17, 2022
The learning curve for piggyback liver transplantation: identifying factors challenging surgery
Pietro Addeo1, Caroline Schaaf2, Vincent Noblet3
1Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Pôle des Pathologies Digestives, Hépatiques et de la Transplantation, Hôpital de Hautepierre-Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Université de Strasbourg, France; ICube, Université de Strasbourg, CNRS UMR 7357, Illkirch, France.
Background:
This study aimed to quantify the learning curve of piggyback liver transplantation and to identify factors that impact the operative time and blood transfusion during the learning curve.
Methods:
A retrospective review was performed on consecutive cases of patients' first piggyback liver transplantations that were performed by a single surgeon. The learning curve for the operative time was evaluated using the cumulative sum method.
Results:
There were 181, consecutive, first-time piggyback liver transplantations. The median operative time was 345 minutes (range: 180-745 minutes) with a median transfusion rate of 4 packed red blood cell units (range: 0-23 units). The cumulative sum learning curve identified 3 phases: an initial phase (1-70 piggyback liver transplantations), a plateau phase (71-101 piggyback liver transplantations), and a stable phase (102-181 piggyback liver transplantations). Over the 3 phases, there were significant decreases in the median duration of the surgery (388.8 vs 344.8 vs 326.9 minutes; P = .004, P = .0004, P ≤ .0001) and the number of red blood cell units transfused (6.00 vs 3.90 vs 3.71; P = .02, P = .79, P = .0006). Multivariable analysis identified that the following factors impacted the operative time: surgeon experience (P = .00006), previous upper abdominal surgery (P = .01), portocaval shunt fashioning (P = .0003), early portal section (P = .00001), multiple arterial graft reconstruction (P = .03), and the length of the retrohepatic inferior vena covered by segment 1 (P = .0006). Independent risk factors for increased blood loss were surgeon experience (P = .0001), previous upper abdominal surgery (P = .002), the retrohepatic inferior vena cava encirclement by segment 1 (P = .0001), severe portal hypertension (P = .01), early portal section (P = .001), and low prothrombin time (P = .00001).
Conclusion:
Easily identifiable factors related to recipients (segment 1 morphology, previous upper abdominal surgery, severe portal hypertension) and to surgeon (operative experience, portocaval shunt fashioning, early portal section, and multiple arterial reconstructions) impact operative time and blood loss during the learning curve of piggyback liver transplantation. These factors can be used for grading the difficulties of liver transplantation to tailor the surgical strategy.
