Utilization of older deceased donors for pediatric liver transplant may negatively impact long-term survival.

BACKGROUND: Multiple adult studies have investigated the role of older donors (ODs) in expanding the donor pool. However, the impact of donor age on pediatric liver transplantation (LT) has not been fully elucidated. METHODS: UNOS database was used to identify pediatric (≤18 years) LTs performed in the United States during 2002-22. Donors ≥40 years at donation were classified as older donors (ODs). Propensity analysis was performed with 1:1 matching for potentially confounding variables. RESULTS: A total of 10,024 pediatric liver transplantation (PLT) patients met inclusion criteria; 669 received liver grafts from ODs. Candidates receiving OD liver grafts were more likely to be transplanted for acute liver failure, have higher Model End-Stage Liver Disease/Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD/PELD) scores at LT, listed as Status 1/1A at LT, and be in the intensive care unit (ICU) at time of LT (all p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier (KM) analyses showed that recipients of OD grafts had worse patient and graft survival (p < 0.001) compared to recipients of younger donor (YD) grafts. KM analyses performed on candidates matched for acuity at LT revealed inferior patient and graft survival in recipients of deceased donor grafts (p < 0.001), but not living donor grafts (p > 0.1) from ODs. Cox regression analysis demonstrated that living donor LT, diagnosis of biliary atresia and first liver transplant were favorable predictors of recipient outcomes, whereas ICU stay before LT and transplantation during 2002-12 were unfavorable. CONCLUSION: Livers from ODs were used for candidates with higher acuity. Pediatric recipients of livers from ODs had worse outcome compared to YDs; however, living donor LT from ODs had the least negative impact on recipient outcomes.

Robotic living donor nephrectomy is associated with reduced post-operative opioid use compared to hand-assisted laparoscopic approach.

BACKGROUND: Robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) has emerged as a safe alternative to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). Having previously demonstrated comparable efficacy, this study aims to examine postoperative analgesia use (opioid and non-opioid) in the two groups. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 300 living donor nephrectomies performed at our center, comparing 150 RDN's with a contemporary cohort of 150 hand-assisted LDN's. In addition to clinical and demographic information, data on postoperative inpatient opioid and non-opioid analgesia (from patient's arrival to the surgical floor after surgery till the time of discharge) was collected. Opioid dosages were standardized by conversion to morphine milligram equivalents (MME). All patients were managed post-operatively under a standardized ERAS pathway for living donor nephrectomy patients. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in donor age, gender, and BMI between RDN and LDN groups. Total post-operative opioid use (MME's) was significantly lower in RDN patients (RDN 27.1 vs. LDN 46.3; P < 0.0001). Breakdown of opioid use with post-operative (POD) day demonstrated significantly lower use in RDN group on POD1 (RDN 8.6 vs. LDN 17.0; P < 0.05), and POD2 (RDN 3.9 vs LDN 10; P < 0.05). RDN patients had a shorter post-operative length of stay (LOS) (RDN 1.69 days vs. LDN 1.98; P = 0.0003). There were no differences between groups in non-opioid medication use, complications, and readmission rates. CONCLUSION: RDN has comparable safety to hand-assist LDN and offers additional benefits of lower postoperative opioid requirement and a shorter hospital LOS.

Robotic kidney transplant has superior outcomes compared to open kidney transplant: results of a propensity match analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have demonstrated the feasibility of robotic kidney transplant (RKT) as a safe alternative to open kidney transplant (OKT). However, significant selection bias in RKT patient selection limits meaningful comparison between the two techniques. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective review of a prospectively maintained kidney transplant database (2021-2024). Outcomes after the first 50 "non-selected" RKTs are compared with a contemporary cohort of 100 OKTs after propensity score matching for age, gender, BMI and type of donation (living vs deceased). Data pertinent to recipient demographics, intraoperative parameters, and short-term post-operative outcomes were collected and compared. RESULTS: Both groups were well-matched for recipient age, gender, BMI, and donation type. RKT group had significantly longer total operative time (RKT 258 min vs. OKT 183 min; p < 0.0001) and warm ischemia time (RKT 37 min vs. OKT 31 min; p < 0.0001) but significantly less blood loss (OKT 155 ml vs. RKT 93 ml). Average length of hospital stay for both groups was 5 days, with OKT group demonstrating significantly higher rates of post-operative complications (OKT 31% vs. RKT 14%; p = 0.028), return to OR (OKT 15% vs. RKT 2%; p = 0.021), hematoma (OKT 13% vs. RKT 2%; p = 0.0355), and lymphocele (OKT 25% vs. RKT 6%; p = 0.0039). OKT group also had higher 30-day readmission rate (OKT 31% vs. RKT 14%) and post-operative opioid requirement (OKT 93 MME vs. RKT 65; p = 0.0254). There were no differences in rates of wound infection, urine leaks, delayed graft function, acute rejection, graft loss, and patient death between the two groups. CONCLUSION: RKT is a safe and viable alternative to OKT as a first-choice procedure for all patients with ESRD. RKT offers many advantages over OKT which can lead to its wider adoption in the coming years as the new standard of care for ESRD patients.

Global liver transplantation: emerging trends and ethical challenges.

PURPOSE: Liver transplant (LT) is the only definitive treatment for end-stage liver disease (ESLD). This review aims to explore current global LT practices, with an emphasis on challenges and disparities that limit access to LT in different regions of the world. METHODS: A detailed analysis was performed of present-day liver transplant practices throughout the world, including the etiology of liver disease, patient access to transplantation, surgical costs, and ongoing ethical concerns. RESULTS: Annually, only 10% of the patients needing a liver transplant receive an organ. Currently, the USA performs the highest volume of liver transplants worldwide, followed by China and Brazil. In both North America and Europe, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is becoming the most common indication for LT, compared to hepatitis B and C in most Asian, South American, and African countries. While deceased donor liver transplant remains the most performed type of LT, living donor liver transplant is becoming increasingly popular in some parts of the world where it is often the only option due to a lack of well-developed infrastructure for deceased organ donation. Ethical concerns in liver transplantation fundamentally revolve around the definition of a deceased donor and the exploitation of living donor liver donation systems. CONCLUSION: Globally, liver transplant practices and outcomes are varied, with differences driven by healthcare policies, inequities in healthcare access, and ethical concerns.