First-in-human liver transplantation from a centenarian deceased donor after brain death.

Liver transplantation from elderly donors is expanding due to demand for liver grafts, aging of recipients and donors, and introduction of machine perfusion. We report on a liver transplant from a 100-year-old deceased donor after brain death. The liver was transplanted after the use of hypothermic machine perfusion to a 60-year-old recipient with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Nine months after the transplant, the patient is alive with a functioning graft and no evidence of acute rejection or tumor recurrence.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections: propensity-matched comparison of two-center experience.

BACKGROUND: The advantages of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) are still debated. This study compares the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) liver resections in propensity score matched cohorts. METHODS: Data regarding minimally invasive liver resections in two liver surgery units were retrospectively reviewed. A propensity score matched analysis (1:1 ratio) identified two groups of patients with similar characteristics. Intra- and post-operative outcomes were then compared. The difficulty of MILS was based on the IWATE criteria. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-nine patients underwent MILS between January 2014 and December 2021 (LLR = 192; RLR = 77). Propensity score matching identified 148 cases (LLR = 74; RLR = 74) consisting of compensated cirrhotic patients (100%) underwent non-anatomic resection of IWATE 1-2 class (90.5%) for a solitary tumor < 5 cm in diameter (93.2%). In such patients, RLRs had shorter operative time (227 vs. 250 min, p = 0.002), shorter Pringle's cumulative time (12 vs. 28 min, p < 0.0001), and less blood loss (137 vs. 209 cc, p = 0.006) vs. LLRs. Conversion rate was nihil (both groups). In RLRs compared to LLRs, R0 rate (93 vs. 96%, p > 0.71) and major morbidity (4.1 vs. 5.4%, p > 0.999) were similar, without post-operative mortality. Hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group (6.2 vs. 6.6, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study supports the non-inferiority of RLR over LLR. In compensated cirrhotic patients underwent resection of low-to-intermediate difficulty for a solitary nodule < 5 cm, RLR was faster, with less blood loss despite the shorter hilar clamping, and required shorter hospitalization compared to LLR.

Implementing a robotic liver resection program does not always require prior laparoscopic experience.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary experience in laparoscopic liver surgery is usually suggested prior to implementation of a robotic liver resection program. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing robotic (RLR) versus laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma at a center with concomitant initiation of robotic and laparoscopic programs RESULTS: A total of 92 consecutive patients operated on between May 2014 and February 2019 were included: 40 RLR versus 52 LLR. Median age (69 vs. 67; p = 0.74), male sex (62.5% vs. 59.6%; p = 0.96), incidence of chronic liver disease (97.5% vs.98.1%; p = 0.85), median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (8 vs. 9; p = 0.92), and median largest nodule size (22 vs. 24 mm) were similar between RLR and LLR. In the LLR group, there was a numerically higher incidence of nodules located in segment 4 (20.0% vs. 16.6%; p = 0.79); a numerically higher use of Pringle's maneuver (32.7% vs. 20%; p = 0.23), and a shorter duration of surgery (median of 165.5 vs. 217.5 min; p = 0.04). Incidence of complications (25% vs.32.7%; p = 0.49), blood transfusions (2.5% vs.9.6%; p = 0.21), and median length of stay (6 vs. 5; p = 0.54) were similar between RLR and LLR. The overall (OS) and recurrence-free (RFS) survival rates at 1 and 5 years were 100 and 79 and 95 and 26% for RLR versus 96.2 and 76.9 and 84.6 and 26.9% for LLR (log-rank p = 0.65 for OS and 0.72 for RFS). CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, concurrent implementation of a robotic and laparoscopic liver resection program appears feasible and safe, and is associated with similar oncologic long-term outcomes.

The Role of Salvage Transplantation in Patients Initially Treated With Open Versus Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery: An Intention-to-Treat Analysis.

Despite gaining wide consensus in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) has been poorly investigated for its role in the setting of salvage liver transplantation (SLT). A multicenter retrospective analysis was carried out in 6 Italian centers on 211 patients with HCC who were initially resected with open (n = 167) versus MILS (n = 44) and eventually wait-listed for SLT. The secondary endpoint was identification of risk factors for posttransplant death and tumor recurrence. The enrolled patients included 211 HCC patients resected with open surgery (n = 167) versus MILS (n = 44) and wait-listed for SLT between January 2007 and December 2017. We analyzed the intention-to-treat survival of these patients. MILS was the most important protective factor for the composite risk of delisting, posttransplant patient death, and HCC recurrence (OR, 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.63; P = 0.003). MILS was also the only independent protective factor for the risk of post-SLT patient death (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.93; P = 0.04). After propensity score matching, MILS was the only independent protective factor against the risk of delisting, posttransplant death, and HCC recurrence (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.07-0.75; P = 0.02). On the basis of the current analysis, MILS seems protective over open surgery for the risk of delisting, posttransplant patient death, and tumor recurrence. Larger prospective studies balancing liver function and tumor stage are strongly favored to better clarify the beneficial effect of MILS for HCC patients eventually referred to SLT.

Severe liver trauma: the transplant surgeon's perspective. A case report.

Patients with severe liver trauma may be referred to liver transplantation (LT), even though no universal algorithm is currently agreed upon. LT is usually performed as a two-stage procedure after failure of primary surgery or in the event of surgery-related acute liver failure (ALF), but pre-transplant patient management, appropriate selection criteria and prompt referral to LT centers are paramount for a favorable graft outcome. This is a report on a patient who underwent LT as a two-stage procedure for sepsis-related ALF after extended right hepatectomy for a complex abdominal blunt trauma. Prompt referral to the Liver Transplant Unit of the Cisanello Hospital, Pisa, where the whole spectrum of surgical options and intensive care support are available was crucial to allow successful LT in a timely fashion. Therefore, the authors strongly advocate the whole algorithm for patients with severe liver traumas be put under control of an experienced LT team in order to improve surgical results.