As promoters of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) with preservation of
caval flow, we reviewed our 8-year experience to assess the feasibility an
d limits of this technique. Preservation of caval flow during OLT, which im
proves intraoperative hemodynamic stability, was not considered feasible in
a significant proportion of transplant recipients. When transient clamping
of caval flow is required, causes and consequences of this clamping during
all phases of the procedure were not reported. Between, 1991 and 1998, a t
otal of 275 OLTs using a whole graft were performed in 259 patients with a
policy consisting of a systematic attempt to preserve inferior vena cava (I
VC) and caval flow. Preservation of IVC flow was possible in all cases, and
no procedure was converted to the conventional technique. Caval flow was m
aintained throughout the procedure in 246 procedures (90%). Temporary IVC c
ross-clamping was required in 24 cases during hepatectomy because of diffic
ult dissection and in 5 cases after graft reperfusion because of outflow ob
struction; none required the use of a venovenous shunt. IVC cross-clamping
during hepatectomy was required more frequently in cases of a large liver,
with a mean duration of 11 +/- 4 minutes, but without significant influence
on early postoperative risk, including one graft failure (4%) and one, pos
toperative death (4%). Conversely, IVC cross-clamping after reperfusion, wi
th a mean duration of 23 +/- 5 minutes, was associated with four graft fail
ures (80%) and four deaths (80%). We conclude that IVC preservation is feas
ible in almost all candidates, allowing the use of split livers from cadave
ric or living donors independently from their underlying disease. Although
preservation of caval flow was possible in the large majority of cases, tra
nsient IVC cross-damping during hepatectomy was well tolerated in contrast
to caval damping after graft reperfusion. Therefore, if necessary, we recom
mend transient IVC cross-clamping to perform a large cavocaval anastomosis.