Biliary complications after adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation: An international multicenter study of 3633 cases.

In living-donor liver transplantation, biliary complications including bile leaks and biliary anastomotic strictures remain significant challenges, with incidences varying across different centers. This multicentric retrospective study (2016-2020) included 3633 adult patients from 18 centers and aimed to identify risk factors for these biliary complications and their impact on patient survival. Incidences of bile leaks and biliary strictures were 11.4% and 20.6%, respectively. Key risk factors for bile leaks included multiple bile duct anastomoses (odds ratio, [OR] 1.8), Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (OR, 1.4), and a history of major abdominal surgery (OR, 1.4). For biliary anastomotic strictures, risk factors were ABO incompatibility (OR, 1.4), blood loss >1 L (OR, 1.4), and previous abdominal surgery (OR, 1.7). Patients experiencing biliary complications had extended hospital stays, increased incidence of major complications, and higher comprehensive complication index scores. The impact on graft survival became evident after accounting for immortal time bias using time-dependent covariate survival analysis. Bile leaks and biliary anastomotic strictures were associated with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.7 and 1.8 for graft survival, respectively. The study underscores the importance of minimizing these risks through careful donor selection and preoperative planning, as biliary complications significantly affect graft survival, despite the availability of effective treatments.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Within and Outside Traditional Selection Criteria: A Multicentric North American Experience.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of patients post-living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) within and outside standard transplantation selection criteria and the added value of the incorporation of the New York-California (NYCA) score. BACKGROUND: LDLT offers an opportunity to decrease the liver transplantation waitlist, reduce waitlist mortality, and expand selection criteria for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Primary adult LDLT recipients between October 1999 and August 2019 were identified from a multicenter cohort of 12 North American centers. Posttransplantation and recurrence-free survival were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty LDLTs were identified. Patients within Milan criteria (MC) at transplantation had a 1, 5, and 10-year posttransplantation survival of 90.9%, 78.5%, and 64.1% versus outside MC 90.4%, 68.6%, and 57.7% ( P = 0.20), respectively. For patients within the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) criteria, respective posttransplantation survival was 90.6%, 77.8%, and 65.0%, versus outside UCSF 92.1%, 63.8%, and 45.8% ( P = 0.08). Fifty-three (83%) patients classified as outside MC at transplantation would have been classified as either low or acceptable risk with the NYCA score. These patients had a 5-year overall survival of 72.2%. Similarly, 28(80%) patients classified as outside UCSF at transplantation would have been classified as a low or acceptable risk with a 5-year overall survival of 65.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival is excellent for patients with HCC undergoing LDLT within and outside selection criteria, exceeding the minimum recommended 5-year rate of 60% proposed by consensus guidelines. The NYCA categorization offers insight into identifying a substantial proportion of patients with HCC outside the MC and the UCSF criteria who still achieve similar post-LDLT outcomes as patients within the criteria.

Minimally invasive tools are necessary for the modern practice of liver surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is performed for other gastrointestinal applications. At our centre, all liver resections are systematically performed using a minimally invasive approach. This study aimed to describe our experience in minimising open surgery and emphasised the importance of minimally invasive surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 260 patients who underwent liver surgery and compared the surgical outcomes between the open and MILR groups. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients (68%) underwent MILR. The proportion of patients who underwent prior abdominal surgery and resection was higher in the open surgery group. However, the proportion of patients with liver cirrhosis was similar between the two groups. The MILR group was superior in terms of operative time, blood loss, Pringle manoeuvre rate and mean hospital stay. In addition, major complication and bile leak rates were lower in the MILR group. No significant differences in the tumour size, number of lesions or underlying liver pathology were observed between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Acceptable outcomes can be achieved even when the minimally invasive approach is considered the primary option for all patients who require liver resection. Minimally invasive tools are necessary for the modern practice of liver surgery; therefore, laparoscopic or robotic surgery should be included in the armamentarium of liver surgeons.

Novel Benchmark for Adult-to-Adult Living-donor Liver Transplantation: Integrating Eastern and Western Experiences.

OBJECTIVE: To define benchmark values for adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). BACKGROUND: LDLT utilizes living-donor hemiliver grafts to expand the donor pool and reduce waitlist mortality. Although references have been established for donor hepatectomy, no such information exists for recipients to enable conclusive quality and comparative assessments. METHODS: Patients undergoing LDLT were analyzed in 15 high-volume centers (≥10 cases/year) from 3 continents over 5 years (2016-2020), with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Benchmark criteria included a Model for End-stage Liver Disease ≤20, no portal vein thrombosis, no previous major abdominal surgery, no renal replacement therapy, no acute liver failure, and no intensive care unit admission. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of all centers' medians. RESULTS: Of 3636 patients, 1864 (51%) qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cutoffs, including posttransplant dialysis (≤4%), primary nonfunction (≤0.9%), nonanastomotic strictures (≤0.2%), graft loss (≤7.7%), and redo-liver transplantation (LT) (≤3.6%), at 1-year were below the deceased donor LT benchmarks. Bile leak (≤12.4%), hepatic artery thrombosis (≤5.1%), and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI ® ) (≤56) were above the deceased donor LT benchmarks, whereas mortality (≤9.1%) was comparable. The right hemiliver graft, compared with the left, was associated with a lower CCI ® score (34 vs 21, P < 0.001). Preservation of the middle hepatic vein with the right hemiliver graft had no impact neither on the recipient nor on the donor outcome. Asian centers outperformed other centers with CCI ® score (21 vs 47, P < 0.001), graft loss (3.0% vs 6.5%, P = 0.002), and redo-LT rates (1.0% vs 2.5%, P = 0.029). In contrast, non-benchmark low-volume centers displayed inferior outcomes, such as bile leak (15.2%), hepatic artery thrombosis (15.2%), or redo-LT (6.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Benchmark LDLT offers a valuable alternative to reduce waitlist mortality. Exchange of expertise, public awareness, and centralization policy are, however, mandatory to achieve benchmark outcomes worldwide.

Black patients and women have reduced access to liver transplantation for alcohol-associated liver disease.

Although sex and racial disparities for liver transplantation (LT) are known, it is unclear if disparities exist for patients with alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD). We aimed to compare sex and racial/ethnic differences in mortality, LT listing, and LT rates in patients with and without ALD. We analyzed patients who were listed for LT and/or died of end-stage liver disease (ESLD) between 2014 and 2018 using the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging OnLine Data for Epidemiologic Research databases, respectively. Patients with ALD were compared with non-ALD patients. Our primary outcome was the ratio of listings for LT to deaths from ESLD-listing-to-death ratio (LDR)-a previously derived metric to assess access to the waiting list. Differences between sex and race/ethnicity were analyzed with chi-square tests and multivariable linear regression. There were 65,588 deaths and 16,133 listings for ALD compared with 75,020 deaths and 40,194 listings for non-ALD. LDR was lower for ALD (0.25 vs. 0.54; p < 0.001). Black patients had the lowest LDR in both ALD and non-ALD (0.13 and 0.39 for Black patients vs. 0.26 and 0.54 for White patients; p < 0.001). Women with ALD had a lower LDR (0.21 vs. 0.26; p < 0.001), whereas women without ALD had higher LDR than men (0.69 vs. 0.47; p < 0.001). There were significant negative interactions between women and ALD in LDR and the transplant-to-death ratio. Multivariable analysis and a sensitivity analysis, with more liberal definitions of ALD and non-ALD, confirmed these findings. Patients with ALD have lower access to LT. Among those with ALD, female and Black patients have the lowest access. New initiatives are needed to eliminate these inequities.

National survey of second opinions for hospitalized patients in need of liver transplantation.

Decisions about patient candidacy for liver transplant (LT) can mean the difference between life and death. We surveyed LT centers across the United States to assess their perceptions of and barriers to second-opinion referrals for inpatients declined for transplant. The medical and surgical directors of 100 unique US LT programs that had done >20 LTs in 2021 were surveyed with a 33-item questionnaire including both multiple-choice and free-response questions. The response rate was 60% (60 LT centers) and included 28 larger-volume ( ≥100 LTs in 2021) and 32 smaller-volume (<100 LTs in 2021) programs. The top 3 reasons for inpatient denial for LT included lack of social support (21%), physical frailty (20%), and inadequate remission duration from alcohol use (11%). Twenty-five percent of the programs reported "frequently" facilitating a second opinion for a declined inpatient, 52% of the programs reported "sometimes" doing so, and 7% of the programs reported never doing so. One hundred percent of the programs reported that they receive referrals for second opinions. Twenty-five percent of the programs reported transplanting these referrals frequently (over 20% of the time). Neither program size nor program location statistically impacted the findings. When asked if centers would be in favor of standardizing the evaluation process, 38% of centers would be in favor, 39% would be opposed, and 23% were unsure. The practices and perceptions of second opinions for hospitalized patients evaluated for LT varied widely across the United States. Opportunities exist to improve equity in LT but must consider maintaining individual program autonomy.

Practice patterns of the medical evaluation of living liver donors in the United States.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) can help address the growing organ shortage in the United States, yet little is known about the current practice patterns in the medical evaluation of living liver donors. We conducted a 131-question survey of all 53 active LDLT transplant programs in the United States to assess current LDLT practices. The response rate was 100%. Donor acceptance rate was 0.33 with an interquartile range of 0.33-0.54 across all centers. Areas of high intercenter agreement included minimum age cutoff of 18 years (73.6%) and the exclusion of those with greater than Class 1 obesity (body mass index, 30.0-34.9 m/kg 2 ) (88.4%). Diabetes mellitus was not an absolute exclusion at most centers (61.5%). Selective liver biopsies were performed for steatosis or iron overload on imaging (67.9% and 62.3%, respectively) or for elevated liver enzymes (60.4%). Steatohepatitis is considered an exclusion at most centers (84.9%). The most common hypercoagulable tests performed were factor V Leiden (FVL) (88.5%), protein C (73.1%), protein S (71.2%), antithrombin III (71.2%) and prothrombin gene mutation (65.4%). At 41.5% of centers, donors were allowed to proceed with donation with FVL heterozygote status. Most programs discontinue oral contraceptive pills at least 28 days prior to surgery. At most centers, the need for cardiovascular ischemic risk testing is based on age (73.6%) and the presence of one or more cardiac risk factors (68.0%). Defining areas of practice consensus and variation underscores the need for data generation to develop evidence-based guidance for the evaluation and risk assessment of living liver donors.

The use of nondirected donor organs in living donor liver transplantation: Perspectives and guidance.

Interest in anonymous nondirected living organ donation is increasing in the United States and a small number of transplantation centers are accumulating an experience regarding nondirected donation in living donor liver transplantation. Herein, we review current transplant policy, discuss emerging data, draw parallels from nondirected kidney donation, and examine relevant considerations in nondirected living liver donation. We aim to provide a consensus guidance to ensure safe evaluation and selection of nondirected living liver donors and a schema for just allocation of nondirected grafts.

Advances and innovations in living donor liver transplant techniques, matching and surgical training: Meeting report from the living donor liver transplant consensus conference.

The practice of LDLT currently delivers limited impact in western transplant centers. The American Society of Transplantation organized a virtual consensus conference in October 2021 to identify barriers and gaps to LDLT growth, and to provide evidence-based recommendations to foster safe expansion of LDLT in the United States. This article reports the findings and recommendations regarding innovations and advances in approaches to donor-recipient matching challenges, the technical aspects of the donor and recipient operations, and surgical training. Among these themes, the barriers deemed most influential/detrimental to LDLT expansion in the United States included: (1) prohibitive issues related to donor age, graft size, insufficient donor remnant, and ABO incompatibility; (2) lack of acknowledgment and awareness of the excellent outcomes and benefits of LDLT; (3) ambiguous messaging regarding LDLT to patients and hospital leadership; and (4) a limited number of proficient LDLT surgeons across the United States. Donor-recipient mismatching may be circumvented by way of liver paired exchange. The creation of a national registry to generate granular data on donor-recipient matching will guide the practice of liver paired exchange. The surgical challenges to LDLT are addressed herein and focuses on the development of robust training pathways resulting in proficiency in donor and recipient surgery. Utilizing strong mentorship/collaboration programs with novel training practices under the auspices of established training and certification bodies will add to the breadth and depth of training.

Ex Vivo Liver Resection and Autotransplantation: Should It be Used More Frequently?

OBJECTIVE: We herein advocate for more extensive utilization of ex vivo resection techniques for otherwise unresectable liver tumors by presenting the largest collective American experience. BACKGROUND: Advanced in situ resection and vascular reconstruction techniques have made R0 resection possible for otherwise unresectable liver tumors. Ex vivo liver resection may further expand the limits of resectability but remains underutilized due to concerns about technical complexity and vascular thrombosis. However, we believe that the skillset required for ex vivo liver resection is more widespread and the complications less severe than widely assumed, making ex vivo resection a more attractive option in selected case. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 35 cases performed by surgical teams experienced with ex vivo liver resections (at least 4 cases) between 1997 and 2021. RESULTS: We categorized malignancies as highly aggressive (n=18), moderately aggressive (n=14), and low grade (n=3). All patients underwent total hepatectomy, vascular reconstruction and resection in hypothermia on the backtable, and partial liver autotransplantation. Overall survival was 67%/39%/28%, at 1/3/5 years, respectively, with a median survival of 710 days (range: 22-4824). Patient survival for highly aggressive, moderately aggressive, and low-grade tumors was 61%/33%/23%, 67%/40%/22%, and 100%/100%/100% at 1/3/5 years, respectively, with median survival 577 days (range: 22-3873), 444 days (range: 22-4824), and 1825 days (range: 868-3549). CONCLUSIONS: Ex vivo resection utilizes techniques commonly practiced in partial liver transplantation, and we demonstrate relatively favorable outcomes in our large collective experience. Therefore, we propose that more liberal use of this technique may benefit selected patients in centers experienced with partial liver transplantation.

Practices and Perceptions of Living Donor Liver Transplantation, Nondirected Donation, and Liver Paired Exchange: A National Survey.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains underutilized in the United States. Barriers to LDLT and acceptance of nondirected living liver donation (ND-LLD) and liver paired exchange (LPE) are unclear. The medical and surgical directors of 99 unique transplantation programs (56 LDLT programs and 43 non-LDLT programs) were surveyed to gain insight into perceptions and practices of LDLT and types of donors utilized. The response rate was 84%. Most LDLT programs (65%) reported performing ND-LLD, though opinions regarding allocation and the need for additional evaluation of these donors were mixed. Only a minority of LDLT programs reported performing LPE (12%), but most programs (78%) would be open to cross-institutional LPE barring logistical barriers. There were significant differences between LDLT and non-LDLT programs with regard to perceived barriers to LDLT, with LDLT programs reporting mainly donor and recipient factors and non-LDLT programs reporting institutional factors (P < 0.001). Understanding perceptions and practices of LDLT, ND-LLD, and LPE is important to aid in the growth of LDLT.

Black Patients Have Unequal Access to Listing for Liver Transplantation in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score may have eliminated racial disparities on the waitlist for liver transplantation (LT), but disparities prior to waitlist placement have not been adequately quantified. We aimed to analyze differences in patients who are listed for LT, undergo transplantation, and die from end-stage liver disease (ESLD), stratified by state and race/ethnicity. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We analyzed two databases retrospectively, the Center for Disease Control Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) and the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) databases, from 2014 to 2018. We included patients aged 25-64 years who had a primary cause of death of ESLD and were listed for transplant in the CDC WONDER or UNOS database. Our primary outcome was the ratio of listing for LT to death from ESLD-listing to death ratio (LDR). Our secondary outcome was the transplant to listing and transplant to death ratios. Chi-squared and multivariable linear regression evaluated for differences between races/ethnicities. There were 135,367 patients who died of ESLD, 54,734 patients who were listed for transplant, and 26,571 who underwent transplant. Patients were mostly male and White. The national LDR was 0.40, significantly lowest in Black patients (0.30), P < 0.001. The national transplant to listing ratio was 0.48, highest in Black patients (0.53), P < 0.01. The national transplant to death ratio was 0.20, lowest in Black patients (0.16), P < 0.001. States that had an above-mean LDR had a lower transplant to listing ratio but a higher transplant to death ratio. Multivariable analysis confirmed that Black race is significantly associated with a lower LDR and transplant to death ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Black patients face a disparity in access to LT due to low listing rates for transplant relative to deaths from ESLD.

Sociodemographic characteristics of living liver donors: Few changes over 20 years.

INTRODUCTION: Although there are well-documented challenges in access to living donor liver transplant (LDLT) among recipients, it is unclear whether living liver donors (LLDs) face similar challenges. METHODS: We analyzed the UNOS Standard Transplant Analysis and Research database, including LLDs ≥ 18 years in the United States from 1/1998 to 12/2018. We compared sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, employment status, BMI, and relationship to recipient) of LLDs across three eras-pre-MELD (1998-2002), MELD (2003-2013), and post-direct acting antivirals (DAA) (2014-2018). We also described sociodemographic characteristics of living donor recipients and waitlisted patients. Chi-squared and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: From 1998 to 2018, 4756 LDLTs and 99 765 DDLTs were performed. Across the three eras, LLD age did not change significantly (P = .3), but donors were generally young (mean age 37 ± 11). While men comprised most LLDs in the pre-MELD era (55.2%), women surpassed them in the post-DAA era (52.9%), P < .001. In total, White donors comprised 81.5% of total LLDs, while Black and Asian donors were a small minority of total donors (3.7% and 2.5%, respectively). Most donors had at least a college education and were employed. Educational attainment and employment did not significantly change over the study period. CONCLUSION: During the last 20 years, LLDs have remained White, employed, highly educated, and young with increasing numbers of women LLDs. The relative lack of change in the characteristics of donors is likely attributable largely to socioeconomic factors, which should be assessed in future investigation.

Assessing motivations for non-living and living organ donation among individuals with and without a history of blood donation.

OBJECTIVES: The current study investigated relationships between a history of blood donation, registration as a non-living and living organ donor, and differential motivations. BACKGROUND: Motivational commonalities exist between blood and organ donors, but there is no prior data on the relationships between blood donation history and both living and non-living organ donor registration and motivation. METHODS/MATERIALS: Participants completed online surveys assessing blood donation history, organ donor registration and interest, and motivations related to donation behaviour. RESULTS: Blood donation history was not significantly related to registration as either a non-living organ donor (blood donors = 81.4%; non-blood donors = 76.4%) or as a living organ donor (blood donors = 14.0%; non-blood donors = 10.9%). Further, blood donation history was not related to interest in learning more about being an organ donor. Compared to those not registered as an organ donor, those who were registered reported more positive organ donation motivations, but these relationships were unrelated to prior blood donation history. CONCLUSION: The present findings are consistent with existing research on attitudes, warm glow, and identity as organ donation motivators, and provide novel information regarding the importance of independent assessment of motivations for non-living and living organ donation.

Expert Consensus Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy for Living Donor Liver Transplantation From Innovation to Implementation: A Joint Initiative From the International Laparoscopic Liver Society (ILLS) and the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (A-PHPBA).

OBJECTIVE: The Expert Consensus Guidelines initiative on MIDH for LDLT was organized with the goal of safe implementation and development of these complex techniques with donor safety as the main priority. BACKGROUND: Following the development of minimally invasive liver surgery, techniques of MIDH were developed with the aim of reducing the short- and long-term consequences of the procedure on liver donors. These techniques, although increasingly performed, lack clinical guidelines. METHODS: A group of 12 international MIDH experts, 1 research coordinator, and 8 junior faculty was assembled. Comprehensive literature search was made and studies classified using the SIGN method. Based on literature review and experts opinions, tentative recommendations were made by experts subgroups and submitted to the whole experts group using on-line Delphi Rounds with the goal of obtaining >90% Consensus. Pre-conference meeting formulated final recommendations that were presented during the plenary conference held in Seoul on September 7, 2019 in front of a Validation Committee composed of LDLT experts not practicing MIDH and an international audience. RESULTS: Eighteen Clinical Questions were addressed resulting in 44 recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a 90% consensus among experts and were afterward endorsed by the validation committee. CONCLUSIONS: The Expert Consensus on MIDH has produced a set of clinical guidelines based on available evidence and clinical expertise. These guidelines are presented for a safe implementation and development of MIDH in LDLT Centers with the goal of optimizing donor safety, donor care, and recipient outcomes.

Can Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States Reach Its Potential?

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a vital tool to address the growing organ shortage in the United States caused by increasing numbers of patients diagnosed with end-stage liver disease. LDLT still only makes up a very small proportion of all liver transplantations performed each year, but there are many innovations taking place in the field that may increase its acceptance among both transplant programs and patients. These innovations include ways to improve access to LDLT, such as through nondirected donation, paired exchange, transplant chains, transplant of ABO-incompatible donors, and transplants in patients with high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores. Surgical innovations, such as laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy, and portal flow modulation, are also increasingly being implemented. Policy changes, including decreasing the financial burden associated with LDLT, may make it a more feasible option for a wider range of patients. Lastly, center-level behavior, such as ensuring surgical expertise and providing culturally competent education, will help toward LDLT expansion. Although it is challenging to know which of these innovations will take hold, we are already seeing LDLT numbers improve within the past 2 years.

COVID-19 in solid organ transplant recipients: Initial report from the US epicenter.

Solid organ transplant recipients may be at a high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor associated outcomes. We herein report our initial experience with solid organ transplant recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at two centers during the first 3 weeks of the outbreak in New York City. Baseline characteristics, clinical presentation, antiviral and immunosuppressive management were compared between patients with mild/moderate and severe disease (defined as ICU admission, intubation or death). Ninety patients were analyzed with a median age of 57 years. Forty-six were kidney recipients, 17 lung, 13 liver, 9 heart, and 5 dual-organ transplants. The most common presenting symptoms were fever (70%), cough (59%), and dyspnea (43%). Twenty-two (24%) had mild, 41 (46%) moderate, and 27 (30%) severe disease. Among the 68 hospitalized patients, 12% required non-rebreather and 35% required intubation. 91% received hydroxychloroquine, 66% azithromycin, 3% remdesivir, 21% tocilizumab, and 24% bolus steroids. Sixteen patients died (18% overall, 24% of hospitalized, 52% of ICU) and 37 (54%) were discharged. In this initial cohort, transplant recipients with COVID-19 appear to have more severe outcomes, although testing limitations likely led to undercounting of mild/asymptomatic cases. As this outbreak unfolds, COVID-19 has the potential to severely impact solid organ transplant recipients.

Ex Vivo Resection and Autotransplantation for Conventionally Unresectable Tumors - An 11-year Single Center Experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Ex vivo surgery may provide a chance at R0 resection for conventionally unresectable tumors. However, long-term outcomes have not been well documented. In this study, we analyze our 11-year outcomes to define its role. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively analyzed 46 consecutive patients who underwent ex vivo surgery at our institution 2008-2019. RESULTS: The types of tumors were: carcinoma (n = 20), sarcoma (n = 20) and benign to low grade tumor (n = 6). The type of ex vivo surgery was chosen based on tumor location and vascular involvement. The most commonly performed procedure was ex vivo hepatectomy (n = 18), followed by ex vivo resection and intestinal autotransplantation (n = 12), ex vivo Whipple procedure and liver autotransplantation (n = 8) and multivisceral ex vivo procedure (n = 7). Twenty-three patients (50%) are currently alive with median follow-up of 4.0-years (11 months-11.8 years). The overall survival was 70%/59%/52%, at 1-/3-/5-years, respectively. Patient survival for benign to low grade tumors, sarcoma, and carcinoma was 100%/100%/100%, 65%/60%/50%, and 65%/45%/40%, at 1-/3-/5-years, respectively. Ninety-one percent patients had R0 resection, and 57% had no recurrence to date with median follow-up of 3.1-years. Two patients (4.3%) died within 30 days due to sepsis and gastroduodenal artety (GDA) stump blowout. Two additional patients died between 30 and 90 days due to sepsis. Perioperative mortality in the last 23 consecutive cases was limited to 1 patient who died of sepsis between 30 and 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: For a selected group of patients with conventionally unresectable tumors, ex vivo surgery can offer effective surgical removal with a reasonably low perioperative mortality at experienced centers.

Agree on much, except it is time for change.

The imbalance between supply and demand of organs for transplant will not be fully solved by changes to the allocation system. Improved organ donation and utilization must be accomplished through critical reassessment of organ procurement organization (OPO) performance as a partnership between transplant centers, OPOs, and community hospitals. The continued discussion on changes to the organ distribution system should be based on patient-centeredness, enhanced transparency, improved models, and metrics. Focusing too heavily on geography without consideration for the other factors at play risks oversimplification of this complex issue.