Splitting livers: Trans-hilar or trans-umbilical division? Technical aspects and comparative outcomes

Jean De Ville De Goyet, F. Di Francesco, V. Sottani, C. Grimaldi, A. E. Tozzi, L. Monti, P. Muiesan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Controversy remains about the best line of division for liver splitting, through Segment IV or through the umbilical fissure. Both techniques are currently used, with the choice varying between surgical teams in the absence of an evidence-based choice. We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of 47 left split liver grafts that were procured with two different division techniques: "classical" (N = 28, Group A) or through the umbilical fissure and plate (N = 19, Group B). The allocation of recipients to each group was at random; a single transplant team performed all transplantations. Demographics, characteristics, technical aspects, and outcomes were similar in both groups. The grafts in Group A, prepared with the classical technique, were procured more often with a single BD orifice compared with the grafts in Group B; however, this was not associated with a higher incidence of biliary problems in this series of transplants (96% actual graft survival rate [median ± s.d. follow-up: 26 ± 20 months]). Both techniques provide good quality split grafts and an excellent outcome; surgical expertise with a given technique is more relevant than the technique itself. The classical technique, however, seems to be more flexible in various ways, and surgeons may find it to be preferable.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)517-526
Number of pages10
JournalPediatric Transplantation
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - Aug 1 2015


  • complications of liver transplantation
  • donor hepatectomy
  • pediatric liver transplantation
  • practice guidelines

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Transplantation


Dive into the research topics of 'Splitting livers: Trans-hilar or trans-umbilical division? Technical aspects and comparative outcomes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this