Pre-operative assessment of living liver donors' liver anatomy and volumes.

Decades of experience supports LDLT as a favorable strategy to reduce waitlist mortality. The multiple regenerative pathways of hepatocytes and other hepatic cells justify the rationale behind it. Nonetheless, living liver donation is still underused and its broader implementation is challenging, mostly due to variability in practices leading to concerns related to donor safety. A non-systematic literature search was conducted for peer-reviewed original articles related to pre-operative evaluation of living liver donor candidates. Eligible studies were synthesized upon consensus for discussion in this up-to-date review. Review of the literature demonstrate that the importance of preoperative assessment of vascular, biliary and liver volume to ensure donor safety and adequate surgical planning for graft procurement is widely recognized. Moreover, data indicates that anatomic variants in vascular and biliary systems in healthy donors are common, present in up to 50% of the population. Therefore, comprehensive mapping and visualizations of each component is needed. Different imaging modalities are reported across practices and are discussed in detail. Lastly, assessment of liver volume must take into account several technical and donor factors that increase the chances of errors in volume estimation, which occurs in up to 10% of the cases. Experience suggests that maximizing donor safety and lessening their risks is a result of integrated experience between hepatobiliary and transplant surgery, along with multidisciplinary efforts in performing a comprehensive pre-operative donor assessment. Although technical advances have increased the accuracy of volume estimation, over- or under-estimation remains a challenge that needs further attention.

Surgical approach to achieve R0 resections in primary and metastatic liver tumors: a literature review.

Background and Objective: Primary and metastatic liver tumors are a significant cause of mortality worldwide. Regardless of the etiology of the tumor, macro- and microscopically clear margins (R0) while preserving adequate function of the remaining organ are the main goals after liver resections. However, technically challenging procedures are required to achieve R0 resection. Currently, there is no consensus of which should be the ideal minimal safety margin for liver tumor resections, with contrasting reports in regards of safety, tumor recurrence and overall outcomes following R0. Therefore, we aim to review current worldwide surgical practices to achieve R0 resections for primary and metastatic liver tumors in challenging surgical techniques and their reported outcomes. Methods: PubMed database, Google Scholar, and OVID Medline were searched for peer-reviewed original articles related to surgical techniques performed to achieve R0 resections in the setting of primary and/or metastatic liver tumors. An up-to-date review of English-language articles published between 2015 to July 2022 was performed. Key Content and Findings: Primary and metastatic liver tumors can be effectively treated using hepatic resection. Current literature highlights that tumors involving major vascular structures are not uncommon. Surgical advances have allowed for vascular control techniques, as well as vascular resections to be performed in a feasible and safe manner to achieve R0 resections. Complex resections combining surgical techniques can be performed in certain population after a detailed evaluation. Liver transplantation (LT) have been used with varying degrees of success for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), non-resectable CRLM and metastatic neuroendocrine tumors. Conclusions: Safety and feasibility of R0 resections have been reported for multiple techniques. Technical complexity should not be a limitation to achieve or pursue R0 tumor resection. However, there has to be a balance between patient risk/benefit in attempting R0 resections. Adequate training of surgeons on implementation of complex techniques, as well as transplant oncology techniques applied to hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery represents as a promising path to improve short and long-term outcomes for liver-related oncology patients.

A more radical perspective on surgical approach and outcomes in pancreatic cancer-a narrative review.

Background and Objective: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains a dismal disease and is expected to become an even greater burden in the near future. This review focuses on the different surgical aspects for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), distal and total pancreatectomy (TP), incorporating lessons from both the western and eastern visions in treating pancreatic cancer. Methods: We conducted an extensive literature review through PubMed, prioritizing papers published in the last 5 years, but older emblematic papers were also included. We included articles that explored the treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, with focus on the surgical aspect and strategies to improve outcomes. References of selected articles were also reviewed to identify any missed studies. Only papers in English were included. Key Content and Findings: As evidence continues to build, it is clear that both systemic and surgical therapies have a fundamental and complementary role. State of art surgical treatment encompasses complete mesopancreas excision for radical lymphadenectomy. Preoperative planning of dissection planes, extensive knowledge of vascular anatomic variations, oncological principles and expertise for vascular resections are mandatory to perform a more radical operation, in pursuit of improved outcomes. Conclusions: Based on current data, patient selection remains key and a more radical surgical approach brings more accomplishing results bringing as to believe that more is better.

Proceedings of the 26th Annual Virtual Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society.

After a 1-y absence due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the 26th Annual Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society was held from May 15 to 18, 2021, in a virtual format. Clinicians and researchers from all over the world came together to share their knowledge on all the aspects of liver transplantation (LT). Apart from a focus on LT in times of coronavirus disease 2019, featured topics of this year's conference included infectious diseases in LT, living donation, machine perfusion, oncology, predictive scoring systems and updates in anesthesia/critical care, immunology, radiology, pathology, and pediatrics. This report presents highlights from invited lectures and a review of the select abstracts. The aim of this report, generated by the Vanguard Committee of International Liver Transplantation Society, is to provide a summary of the most recent developments in clinical practice and research in LT.

Technical Aspects and Considerations of Meso-Rex Bypass Following Liver Transplantation With Left Lateral Segment Grafts: Case Report and Review of the Literature.

In pediatric patients with extrahepatic portal vein obstruction and complications of portal hypertension, but with normal liver function, a meso-Rex bypass (MRB) connecting the superior mesenteric vein to the intrahepatic left portal is the favored surgical management. Pediatric patients with a history of a partial liver transplant (LT), especially living donors, are at greater risk for portal vein complications. Hence, an adequate knowledge of this technique and its additional challenges in the post-LT patient setting is crucial. We provide an overview of the available literature on technical aspects for an MRB post-LT. Preoperative considerations are highlighted, along with intraoperative considerations and postoperative management. Special attention is given to the even-more-demanding aspect of performing an MRB post-liver transplantation with a left lateral segment. Surgical alternatives are also discussed. In addition, we report here a unique case in which this surgical technique was performed on a complex pediatric patient with a history of a living-donor LT with a left lateral segment graft over a decade ago.

Early removal of drains and lines after liver transplantation to reduce the length of hospital stay and enhance recovery - A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The timing of removing abdominal drains, central venous catheters (CVC), and urinary catheters (UC) on post liver transplantation (LT) outcomes is not well elucidated. OBJECTIVES: To provide international expert panel recommendations and guidelines on time of drain and catheter removal as a part of an ERAS protocol to reduce the length of hospital stay and enhance recovery. METHODS: Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. Papers considered were those reporting one or more outcomes of interest related to drainage and line removal in the setting of LT. POSPERO Protocol ID: CRD42021238349 RESULTS: On analyzing five relevant studies pertaining to drains in patients undergoing LT (four retrospectives and one prospective), the length of hospital and/or ICU stay was similar or shorter, and postoperative morbidity and mortality were lower in those without drains. No studies pertaining specifically to the time of removal of drains, CVC's, or UC's in LT were found. Studies in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery or hepatectomies recommend early removal of CVC and UC to reduce catheter-associated infections. CONCLUSIONS: Based more on expert recommendation, we propose that abdominal drains, if placed during LT, should be removed by postoperative day 5 after LT, based on quantity and fluid characteristics (Quality of Evidence; Low to Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Larger studies are needed to more reliably determine indications for early drain and line removal in an ERAS protocol setting.

Liver Transplantation With Grafts From Super Obese Donors.

There are limited data on liver transplant (LT) outcomes with grafts from super obese donors. The present study aims to evaluate a unique cohort of recipients following LT using grafts from donors with body mass index (BMI) ≥50. METHODS: Patients receiving grafts from donors with BMI ≥50 and BMI <50 from 2010 to 2019 were identified. A 1:2 case-control match was conducted to compare outcomes between the groups. Survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Six hundred sixty-five adult LTs were performed in the study period. Eighteen patients receiving a graft from a donor with BMI ≥50 were identified and matched to 36 patients receiving a graft from a donor with BMI <50. Grafts from male donors were significantly lower in the donor BMI ≥50 group when compared with the donor BMI <50 group (16.7% versus 66.7%, P = 0.001). Liver biopsy was performed in 77.8% of grafts in the donor BMI ≥50 group, whereas only in 38.8% of the grafts in the donor BMI <50 group (P = 0.007). Recipients in the donor BMI ≥50 group had a significantly higher diagnosis rate of hepatocellular carcinoma pretransplant versus the donor BMI <50 group (38.9% versus 8.3%, respectively; P = 0.006). Major complications within 30 d did not differ statistically between groups. Biliary complications within the first 30 d were equal among groups (16.7%). Subanalysis comparing the super obese donor group versus the nonobese donor group showed no differences in terms of postoperative complications, readmission rate, graft rejection, or major complications including the need for reoperation, retransplantation, or mortality. Graft and patient survival at 1-, 3-, and 5-y graft were similar between the donor BMI ≥50 group versus donor BMI <50 group (94%/89%/89% versus 88%/88%/88%, P = 0.89, and 94%/94%/94% versus 88%/88%/88%, P = 0.48, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: LT with carefully selected grafts from super obese donors can be safely performed with outcomes comparable with non-super obese donor livers. Therefore, these types of grafts could represent a safe means to expand the donor pool.

Robot-assisted kidney transplantation is a safe alternative approach for morbidly obese patients with end-stage renal disease.

BACKGROUND: Many centres deny obese patients with a body mass index (BMI) >35 access to kidney transplantation due to increased intraoperative and postoperative complications. METHODS: From August 2017 to December 2019, 73 consecutive cases of kidney transplantation in morbidly obese patients were enrolled at a single university at the initiation of a robotic transplant surgery program. Outcomes of patients who underwent robotic assisted kidney transplant (RAKT) were compared to frequency-matched patients undergoing open kidney transplant (OKT). RESULTS: A total of 24 morbidly obese patients successfully underwent RAKT, and 49 obese patients received an OKT. The RAKT group developed fewer surgical site infections (SSI) than the OKT group. Graft function, creatinine, and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) were similar between groups 1 year after surgery. Graft and patient survival were 100% for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: RAKT offers a safe alternative for morbidly obese patients, who may otherwise be denied access to OKT.

Outcomes of Highly Selected Live Donors With a Future Liver Remnant Less Than or Equal to 30%: A Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The main concern with live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the risk to the donor. Given the potential risk of liver insufficiency, most centers will only accept candidates with future liver remnants (FLR) >30%. We aimed to compare postoperative outcomes of donors who underwent LDLT with FLR ≤30% and >30%. METHODS: Adults who underwent right hepatectomy for LDLT between 2000 and 2018 were analyzed. Remnant liver volumes were estimated using hepatic volumetry. To adjust for between-group differences, donors with FLR ≤30% and >30% were matched 1:2 based on baseline characteristics. Postoperative complications including liver dysfunction were compared between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 604 live donors were identified, 28 (4.6%) of whom had a FLR ≤30%. Twenty-eight cases were successfully matched with 56 controls; the matched cohorts were mostly similar in terms of donor and graft characteristics. The calculated median FLR was 29.8 (range, 28.0-30.0) and 35.2 (range, 30.1-68.1) in each respective group. Median follow-up was 36.5 mo (interquartile range, 11.8-66.1). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. No difference was observed in overall complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 32.1% versus FLR >30%: 28.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-3.27) or major complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 14.3% versus FLR >30%: 14.3%; OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.33-4.10). Posthepatectomy liver failure was rare, and no difference was observed (FLR ≤30%: 3.6% versus FLR >30%: 3.6%; OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.11-11.1). CONCLUSION: A calculated FLR between 28% and 30% on its own should not represent a formal contraindication for live donation.

Current status of liver transplantation in North America.

Liver transplantation is continuing to grow and evolve in North America. Changes in organ availability, recipient selection, indications and progressive approaches to oncologic treatment have occurred in the last five years. Despite increased activity in deceased and living donation in North America, there continues to be a high mortality on the waitlist as the recipient indications have changed over time which has led to new approaches to help patients with end-stage liver disease.

Expanding the donor pool for liver transplantation with marginal donors.

The current supply of acceptable donor livers is not sufficient to meet the demands of listed patients awaiting transplantation resulting in thousands of deaths each year. Increased utilization of marginal livers may help alleviate this supply/demand mismatch by expanding the donor liver pool. The current status of liver transplantation using marginal donor grafts and efforts to optimize usage are discussed with attention to elderly donors, steatotic livers, donors after circulatory death, and split liver grafts.

Living donor liver transplantation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As experience grows, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become an effective treatment option to overcome the deceased donor organ shortage. RECENT FINDINGS: Donor safety is the highest priority in LDLT. Strict donor selection according to structured protocols and center experience are the main factors that determine donor safety. However, with increased experience, many centers have explored increasing organ availability within living donation by means of ABO incompatible LDLT, dual graft LDLT, and anonymous living donation. Also, this growing experience in LDLT has allowed the transplant community to cautiously explore the role of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma outside of Milan criteria and patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases. SUMMARY: LDLT has become established as a viable strategy to ameliorate the organ shortage experienced by centers around the world. Improved understanding of this technique has allowed the improved utilization of live donor graft resources, without compromising donor safety. Moreover, LDLT may offer some advantages over deceased donor liver transplantation and a unique opportunity to assess the broader applicability of liver transplantation.

Live donor liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma offers increased survival vs. deceased donation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are conflicting reports on the outcomes after live donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to compare the survival of patients with HCC, with a potential live donor (pLDLT) at listing vs. no potential donor (pDDLT), on an intention-to-treat basis. METHODS: All patients with HCC listed for liver transplantation between 2000-2015 were included. The pLDLT group was comprised of recipients with a potential live donor identified at listing. Patients without a live donor were included in the pDDLT group. Survival was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox regression was applied to identify potential predictors of mortality. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients were included in the pLDLT group and 632 patients in the pDDLT group. In the pLDLT group, 57 patients (26%) were beyond the UCSF criteria whereas 119 patients (19%) in the pDDLT group were beyond (p = 0.02). Time on the waiting list was shorter for the pLDLT than the pDDLT group (4.8 [2.9-8.5] months vs. 6.2 [3.0-12.0] months, respectively, p = 0.02). The dropout rate was 32/219 (14.6%) in the pLDLT and 174/632 (27.5%) in the pDDLT group, p <0.001. The 1-, 3- and 5-year intention-to-treat survival rates were 86%, 72% and 68% in the pLDLT vs. 82%, 63% and 57% in the pDDLT group, p = 0.02. Having a potential live donor was a protective factor for death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 95% CI 0.53-0.86). Waiting times of 9-12 months (HR 1.53; 95% CI 1.02-2.31) and ≥12 months (HR 1.69; 95% CI 1.23-2.32) were predictors of death. CONCLUSION: Having a potential live donor at listing was associated with a significant decrease in the risk of death in patients with HCC in this intention-to-treat analysis. This benefit is related to a lower dropout rate and a shorter waiting period. LAY SUMMARY: Liver transplantation (LT) offers the best chance of survival for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and can be performed using grafts from deceased donors or live donors. In this work, we aimed to assess the differences in survival after live donor LT when compared to deceased donor LT. We studied 219 patients listed for live donor LT and 632 patients listed for deceased donor LT. Patients who had a potential live donor at the time of listing had a higher survival rate. Therefore, being listed for a live donor LT was a protective factor against death.

Multicenter validation of a score to predict prognosis after the development of HCC recurrence following liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: HCC recurrence after LT impacts negatively on survival. A recent study detected late recurrence (≥12 months), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) <100 ng/mL at recurrence and being amenable for curative-intent treatments as good prognostic factors. With these variables a prognostic score was proposed. The objective of this study was to validate the prognostic score for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence following liver transplantation (LT). METHODS: Data from the University of California, San Francisco, the University Hospital of Birmingham and Instituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan including patients with HCC recurrence after LT were analyzed. The previous reported score was applied to this cohort. RESULTS: From June 2002-December 2014, 1328 patients had a confirmed HCC in their explanted liver. The study group comprised 130 patients (9.8%) diagnosed with HCC recurrence after LT. Overall median survival after HCC recurrence was 12.4 (95% CI 10.2-16.3) months. Application of the previously reported score showed a significantly superior survival for the good prognosis group compared to moderate and poor prognosis groups (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The score continues to identify a group of patients who would benefit from aggressive treatment and experience significant improved survival following recurrent HCC after LT.

Current status of liver transplantation for cholangiocarcinoma.

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is the second most common liver cancer, and it is associated with a poor prognosis. CCA can be divided into intrahepatic, hilar, and distal. Despite the subtype, the median survival is 12-24 months without treatment. Liver transplantation (LT) is recognized worldwide as a curative option for hepatocellular carcinoma. On the other hand, the initial results for LT for CCA were very poor mainly due to a lack of adequate patient selection. In the last 2 decades, improvements have been made in the management of unresectable hilar CCA, and the results of LT after neoadjuvant chemoradiation have been shown to be promising. This has prompted a consideration of hilar CCA as an indication for LT in some centers. Furthermore, some recent research has shown promising results after LT for patients with early stages of intrahepatic CCA. A better understanding of the best tools to prognosticate the outcomes of LT for CCA is still needed. Here, we aimed to review the role of LT for the treatment of patients with perihilar and intrahepatic CCA. Also, we will discuss the most recent advances in the field and the future direction of the management of this disease in an era of transplantation oncology. Liver Transplantation 24 294-303 2018 AASLD.