title: Remnant liver regeneration and spleen volume changes after living liver donation: influence of the middle hepatic vein.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Graft harvest with or without the middle hepatic vein (MHV) affects venous return and function of the remaining liver. The aims of this study are to compare the remnant liver volume and spleen changes in the donors of different types of graft harvest and to evaluate the influence of resection with or without the MHV on the remnant liver volume regeneration, spleen volume change and serum total bilirubin.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 165 donors were grouped according to the type of graft harvest: 88 donors underwent left lateral segmentectomy (LLS), 10 donors underwent extend LLS or left lobectomy (LL), and 67 donors underwent right lobectomy (RL). Groups LLS and LL were later combined as group LH (left hepatectomy, n = 98). There were 68 men and 97 women. The mean age was 32.9 +/- 8.1 yr. The total liver volume (LV) and spleen volume (S1) before graft harvest, graft weight (GW), regenerated liver volume (LV(6m)) and spleen volume (S2) six months post-donation were calculated.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There were no significant differences in the regenerated liver volume six months postoperation (LV(6m)) and recovery ratio (LV(6m)/LV x 100%) among the different groups, albeit significant smaller LV(6m) in both groups compared with the initial liver volume was noted. Postoperative spleen volume (S2), average spleen ratio (S2/S1) and spleen change ratio were significantly larger and higher in group RL than in group LH. A significant increase in spleen volume was noted in both groups six months after graft harvest. A significantly higher TB in group RL (4.1 +/- 1.7 mg/dL, range: 1.4-8.5 mg/dL) was noted compared with that of group LH (1.6 +/- 1.0 mg/dL, range: 0.7-6.2 mg/dL).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There was a significant increase in the regenerated remnant liver and splenic volumes six months postoperation in all types of hepatectomy following living donor hepatectomy, and there was no difference in the mean TB levels among donors whether the MHV was included or not in the graft.
authors.affiliation: Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical Center, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
authors.forename: Tai-Yi
authors.initials: TY
authors.lastname: Chen
authors.forename: Chao-Long
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Chen
authors.forename: Tung-Liang
authors.initials: TL
authors.lastname: Huang
authors.forename: Leo Leung-Chit
authors.initials: LL
authors.lastname: Tsang
authors.forename: Chih-Chi
authors.initials: CC
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.forename: Shih-Ho
authors.initials: SH
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.forename: Chin-Hsiang
authors.initials: CH
authors.lastname: Yang
authors.forename: Allan M
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Concejero
authors.forename: Yu-Fan
authors.initials: YF
authors.lastname: Cheng
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006498:Hepatectomy / Q000379:methods; D006503:Hepatic Veins / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D008099:Liver / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000601:surgery; D008115:Liver Regeneration / Q000502:physiology*; D016031:Liver Transplantation / Q000379:methods / Q000502:physiology*; D019520:Living Donors; D008297:Male; D011379:Prognosis; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013154:Spleen / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed