Robotic and laparoscopic right lobe living donation compared to the open approach: A multicenter study on 1194 donor hepatectomies.

Due to the success of minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive donor hepatectomies (MIDH) are increasingly performed worldwide. We conducted a retrospective, multicentre, propensity score-matched analysis on right lobe MIDH by comparing the robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches to assess the feasibility, safety, and early outcomes of MIDHs. From January 2016 until December 2020, 1194 donors underwent a right donor hepatectomy performed with a robotic (n = 92), laparoscopic (n = 306), and open approach (n = 796) at 6 high-volume centers. Donor and recipients were matched for different variables using propensity score matching (1:1:2). Donor outcomes were recorded, and postoperative pain was measured through a visual analog scale. Recipients' outcomes were also analyzed. Ninety-two donors undergoing robotic surgery were matched and compared to 92 and 184 donors undergoing laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. Conversions to open surgery occurred during 1 (1.1%) robotic and 2 (2.2%) laparoscopic procedures. Robotic procedures had a longer operative time (493 ± 96 min) compared to laparoscopic and open procedures (347 ± 120 and 358 ± 95 min; p < 0.001) but were associated with reduced donor blood losses ( p < 0.001). No differences were observed in overall and major complications (≥ IIIa). Robotic hepatectomy donors had significantly less pain compared to the 2 other groups ( p < 0.001). Fifty recipients of robotic-procured grafts were matched to 50 and 100 recipients of laparoscopic and open surgery procured grafts, respectively. No differences were observed in terms of postoperative complications, and recipients' survival was similar ( p =0.455). In very few high-volume centers, robotic right lobe procurement has shown to be a safe procedure. Despite an increased operative and the first warm ischemia times, this approach is associated with reduced intraoperative blood losses and pain compared to the laparoscopic and open approaches. Further data are needed to confirm it as a valuable option for the laparoscopic approach in MIDH.

Clinical outcomes after transplantation of domino grafts or standard deceased donor livers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Domino liver transplantation (DLT) utilizes otherwise discarded livers as donor grafts for another recipients. It is unclear whether DLT has less favorable outcomes compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). We aimed to assess the outcomes of DLT compared to DDLT. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science database were searched to identify studies comparing outcomes after DLT with DDLT. Data were pooled using random-effects modeling, evaluating odds ratios (OR) or mean difference (MD) for outcomes including waiting list time, severe hemorrhage, intensive care unit (ICU), length hospital stay (LOS), rejection, renal, vascular, and biliary events, and recipient survival at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years. RESULTS: Five studies were identified including 945 patients (DLT = 409, DDLT = 536). The DLT recipients were older compared to the DDLT group (P = 0.04), and both cohorts were comparable regarding lab MELD, hepatocellular carcinoma, and waitlist time. There were no differences in vascular (OR: 1.60, P = 0.39), renal (OR: 0.62, P = 0.24), biliary (OR: 1.51, P = 0.21), severe hemorrhage (OR: 1.09, P = 0.86), rejection (OR: 0.78, P = 0.51), ICU stay (MD: 0.50, P = 0.21), or LOS (MD: 1.68, P = 0.46) between DLT and DDLT. DLT and DDLT were associated with comparable 1-year (78.9% vs 80.4%; OR: 1.03, P = 0.89), 3-year (56.2% vs 54.1%; OR: 1.35, P = 0.07), and 10-year survival (6.5% vs 8.5%; OR: 0.8, P = 0.67) rates. DLT was associated with higher 5-year survival (41.6% vs 36.4%; OR: 1.70; P = 0.003) compared to DDLT, which was not confirmed at sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis of the best available evidence (Level 2a) demonstrated that DLT and DDLT have comparable outcomes. As indications for liver transplantation expand, future high-quality research is encouraged to increase the DLT numbers in clinical practice, serving the growing waiting list candidates, with the caveat of uncertain de novo disease transmission risks.

Donor Safety and Risk Factors of Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Korean Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify safety and risk factors of living donor after pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy in a Korean multicenter cohort study. BACKGROUND: Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy is not yet a standardized surgical procedure due to lack of data. METHODS: This retrospective study included 543 patients undergoing PLRDH between 2010 and 2018 in 5 Korean transplantation centers. Complication rates were assessed and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors of open conversion, overall complications, major complications, and biliary complications. RESULTS: Regarding open conversion, the incidence was 1.7% and the risk factor was body mass index >30 kg/m 2 [ P =0.001, odds ratio (OR)=22.72, 95% CI=3.56-146.39]. Rates of overall, major (Clavien-Dindo classification III-IV), and biliary complications were 9.2%, 4.4%, and 3.5%, respectively. For overall complications, risk factors were graft weight >700 g ( P =0.007, OR=2.66, 95% CI=1.31-5.41), estimated blood loss ( P <0.001, OR=4.84, 95% CI=2.50-9.38), and operation time >400 minutes ( P =0.01, OR=2.46, 95% CI=1.25-4.88). For major complications, risk factors were graft weight >700 g ( P =0.002, OR=4.01, 95% CI=1.67-9.62) and operation time >400 minutes ( P =0.003, OR=3.84, 95% CI=1.60-9.21). For biliary complications, risk factors were graft weight >700 g ( P =0.01, OR=4.34, 95% CI=1.40-13.45) and operation time >400 minutes ( P =0.01, OR=4.16, 95% CI=1.34-12.88). CONCLUSION: Careful donor selection for PLRDH considering body mass index, graft weight, estimated blood loss, and operation time combined with skilled procedure can improve donor safety.

Efficacy and safety of adhesion barrier in living-donor liver transplantation with right liver graft to prevent delayed gastric emptying.

Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is a common complication of liver transplantation. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy and safety of the application of an adhesion barrier for preventing DGE in living-donor liver transplantation. This retrospective study included 453 patients who underwent living-donor liver transplantation using a right lobe graft between January 2018 and August 2019, and the incidence of postoperative DGE and complications was compared between patients in whom adhesion barrier was used (n=179 patients) and those in whom adhesion barrier was not used (n=274 patients). We performed 1:1 propensity score matching between the 2 groups, and 179 patients were included in each group. DGE was defined according to the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery classification. The use of adhesion barrier was significantly associated with a lower overall incidence of postoperative DGE in liver transplantation (30.7 vs. 17.9%; p =0.002), including grades A (16.8 vs. 9.5%; p =0.03), B (7.3 vs. 3.4%; p =0.08), and C (6.6 vs. 5.5%; p =0.50). After propensity score matching, similar results were observed for the overall incidence of DGE (29.6 vs. 17.9%; p =0.009), including grades A (16.8 vs. 9.5%; p =0.04), B (6.7 vs. 3.4%; p =0.15), and C (6.1 vs. 5.0%; p =0.65). Univariate and multivariate analyses showed a significant correlation between the use of adhesion barrier and a low incidence of DGE. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications between the 2 groups. The application of an adhesion barrier could be a safe and feasible method to reduce the incidence of postoperative DGE in living-donor liver transplantation.

Donor safety of remnant liver volumes of less than 30% in living donor liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the acceptability of donor remnant liver volume (RLV) to total liver volume (TLV) ratio (RLV/TLV) being <30% as safe in living donor liver transplantations (LDLTs). METHODS: Online databases were searched from January 2000 to June 2022. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects model. RESULTS: One prospective and seven retrospective studies comprising 1935 patients (164 RLV/TLV <30% vs. 1771 RLV/TLV ≥30%) were included. Overall (OR = 1.82; 95% CI [1.24, 2.67]; p = .002) and minor (OR = 1.88; 95% CI [1.23, 2.88]; p = .004) morbidities were significantly lower in the RLV/TLV ≥30% group than in the RLV/TLV <30% group (OR = 1.82; 95% CI [1.24, 2.67]; p = .002). No significant differences were noted in the major morbidity, biliary complications, and hepatic dysfunction. Peak levels of bilirubin (SMD = .50; 95% CI [.07, .93]; p = .02) and international normalized ratio (SMD = .68; 95% CI [.04, 1.32]; p = .04) were significantly lower in the RLV/TLV ≥ 30% group than in the RLV/TLV <30% group. No significant differences were noted in the peak alanine transferase and aspartate transaminase levels and hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the safety of the donor as the top priority, the eligibility of a potential liver donor in LDLT whose RLV/TLV is expected to be <30% should not be accepted.

Association between Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence and Graft Size in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review.

The aim of this work was to assess the association between graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence. A search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed until December 2022 for studies comparing different GRWRs in the prognosis of HCC recipients in LDLT. Data were pooled to evaluate 1- and 3-year survival rates. We identified three studies, including a total of 782 patients (168 GRWR < 0.8 vs. 614 GRWR ≥ 0.8%). The pooled overall survival was 85% and 77% at one year and 90% and 83% at three years for GRWR < 0.8 and GRWR ≥ 0.8, respectively. The largest series found that, in patients within Milan criteria, the GRWR was not associated with lower oncological outcomes. However, patients with HCC outside the Milan criteria with a GRWR < 0.8% had lower survival and higher tumor recurrence rates. The GRWR < 0.8% appears to be associated with lower survival rates in HCC recipients, particularly for candidates with tumors outside established HCC criteria. Although the data are scarce, the results of this study suggest that considering the individual GRWR not only as risk factor for small-for-size-syndrome but also as contributor to HCC recurrence in patients undergoing LDLT would be beneficial. Novel perfusion technologies and pharmacological interventions may contribute to improving outcomes.

Salvage living donor liver transplantation versus repeat liver resection for patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh class A liver cirrhosis: A propensity score-matched comparison.

Following curative liver resection (LR), resectable tumor recurrence in patients with preserved liver function leads to deciding between a repeat LR and a salvage liver transplantation (LT), if a donor's liver is available. This retrospective study compared survival outcomes and recurrence pattern following salvage living donor LT (LDLT) and repeat LR in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent repeat LR (n = 163) or LDLT (n = 84) for recurrent HCC following curative resections, between January 2005 and December 2017 at a single institution. A 1:1 propensity score matching led to 42 patients per group. Disease-specific and recurrence-free survival were significantly better in the salvage LDLT group than in the repeat LR group (p = .042; HR = 2.40; 95% CI, 0.69-6.00 and p < .001; HR = 4.23; 95% CI, 2.05-8.71, respectively). Despite significant differences in recurrence patterns between the two groups (p = .019), the patient death rates, after recurrence, were similar for both groups (p = .760). This study indicates that salvage LDLT is superior to repeat LR for treating patients with transplantable, intrahepatic HCC recurrence, even in patients with Child-Pugh class A liver cirrhosis.

Application of Proximal Splenic Vein Embolization to Interrupt Complicated Large Splenorenal Shunts in Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study is to evaluate efficacy and safety of proximal splenic vein embolization (PSVE) for liver transplant recipients having complicated large splenorenal shunts (SRS). BACKGROUND: In adult living donor liver transplantation for a patient who has large splenorenal shunts (SRS), their interruption is utmost important to maintain adequate portal flow by avoidance of portal flow steal through the preexisting SRS. We effectively managed most of the recipients with surgical ligation and/or additional radiologic embolization using by intraoperative cine-portogram. However, when complete interruption is not achieved in a few recipients having complicated large SRS, it may leave a chance of lethal portal flow steal in the recipient afterward. METHODS: PSVE was performed in 13 patients between April 2014 and November 2017. We performed a retrospective analysis of preoperative images, postoperative graft and recipient outcomes, and presence of isolated portal hypertension. RESULTS: Ten patients underwent PSVE as an additional secondary method because of portal steal syndrome through the remaining SRS after surgical interruption and/or embolization, and 3 patients underwent PSVE only as a primary method of SRS interruption. In all 13 patients, portal steal on the final intraoperative cine-portogram completely disappeared after PSVE. All patients recovered with satisfactory regeneration of the partial liver graft without the reappearance of portosystemic collaterals, and there were no procedure-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: PSVE is an effective and safe procedure to secure adequate portal flow without portal steal for patients with complicated large SRS arising from multiple sites of the splenic vein or escaping to multiple terminal ends.

Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: An International, Multi-institutional Evaluation of Safety, Efficacy and Early Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluating the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive (MIV) donor hepatectomy for adult live donor liver transplants in a large multi-institutional series from both Eastern and Western centers. BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection has become standard practice for minor resections in selected patients in whom it provides reduced postoperative morbidity and faster rehabilitation. Laparoscopic approaches in living donor hepatectomy for transplantation, however, remain controversial because of safety concerns. Following the recommendation of the Jury of the Morioka consensus conference to address this, a retrospective study was designed to assess the early postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic donor hepatectomy. The collective experience of 10 mature transplant teams from Eastern and Western countries was reviewed. METHODS: All centers provided data from prospectively maintained databases. Only left and right hepatectomies performed using a MIV technique were included in this study. Primary outcome was the occurrence of complications using the Clavien-Dindo graded classification and the Comprehensive Complication Index during the first 3 months. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for complications. RESULTS: In all, 412 MIV donor hepatectomies were recorded including 164 left and 248 right hepatectomies. Surgical technique was either pure laparoscopy in 175 cases or hybrid approach in 237. Conversion into standard laparotomy was necessary in 17 donors (4.1%). None of the donors died. Also, 108 experienced 121 complications including 9.4% of severe (Clavien-Dindo 3-4) complications. Median Comprehensive Complication Index was 5.2. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows favorable early postoperative outcomes in more than 400 MIV donor hepatectomy from 10 experienced centers. These results are comparable to those of benchmarking series of open standard donor hepatectomy.

Operative and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open major liver resection in patients with a high body mass index (> 25 kg/m2): a propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: With the recent rapid increase in the prevalence of obesity, the number of obese patients requiring liver resection, including laparoscopy, has increased. Accordingly, evaluating the outcome of laparoscopic liver resection in obese patients is increasingly important. This study aimed to compare the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic major liver resection (LMR) and open major liver resection (OMR) in patients with a high body mass index (BMI > 25.0 kg/m2). METHODS: We reviewed 521 patients with high BMI (> 25.0 kg/m2) who underwent major liver resection for various indications between January 2009 and November 2018 at Asan Medical Center. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching of the LMR and OMR groups, with 120 patients subsequently included in each group. RESULTS: LMR was associated with lower blood loss and shorter postoperative hospital stays (p < 0.001). Although there was no significant difference in overall complications (p = 0.080), non-liver-specific complications were observed less frequently after LMR (p = 0.025). American Society of Anesthesiologists class > II, BMI > 30 kg/m2, and malignancy were independent predictors of morbidity. In a subgroup analysis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, there was no significant difference between the two groups in overall survival (hazard ratio 0.225; 95% confidence interval 0.049-1.047; p = 0.057) and recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 0.761; 95% confidence interval 0.394-1.417; p = 0.417). CONCLUSIONS: Obesity should not be considered a contraindication for major liver resection using a laparoscopic approach; however, when applying this approach for resecting malignancies in patients with a BMI > 30 kg/m2 and comorbid diseases, special attention should be paid to the possibility of complications.

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Pure Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy in Pediatric Living Donor Liver Transplantation.

Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy for transplantation has been well established over the past decade. This study aimed to assess its safety and feasibility in pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) by comparing the surgical and long-term survival outcomes on both the donor and recipient sides between open and laparoscopic groups. The medical records of 100 patients (≤17 years old) who underwent ABO-compatible LDLT using a left lateral liver graft between May 2008 and June 2016 were analyzed. A total of 31 donors who underwent pure laparoscopic hepatectomy and their corresponding recipients were included in the study; 69 patients who underwent open living donor hepatectomy during the same period were included as a comparison group. To overcome bias from the different distributions of covariables among the patients in the 2 study groups, a 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was performed. The mean follow-up periods were 92.9 and 92.7 months in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively. The mean postoperative hospital stay of the donors was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (8.1 days) than in the open group (10.6 days; P < 0.001). Overall, the surgical complications in the donors and overall survival rate of recipients did not differ between the groups. Our data suggest that the laparoscopic environment was not associated with long-term graft survival during pediatric LDLT. In addition, the laparoscopic approach for the donors did not adversely affect the corresponding recipient's outcome. Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy for living donors is a safe, feasible, and reproducible procedure for pediatric liver transplantation.

Pure Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy: A Multicenter Experience.

According to recent international consensus conferences, pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH), particularly right and left hepatectomies, is not yet considered a standard practice because studies remain limited. Thus, we present the outcomes of more than 500 PLDH patients, mostly receiving a right hepatectomy. To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date on PLDH. Data from all living liver donors who underwent PLDH at 5 centers in Korea until June 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The outcomes of both donors and recipients were included. Pearson correlation analysis was used to explore the relationship between the duration of surgery and cumulative experience at each center, which reflects the learning curve. Overall, 545 PLDH cases were analyzed, including 481 right hepatectomies, 25 left hepatectomies, and 39 left lateral sectionectomies (LLS). The open conversion was necessary for 10 (1.8%) donors, and none of the donors died or experienced irreversible disability. Notably, there were 25 (4.6%) patients with major complications (higher than Clavien-Dindo grade 3). All centers except one showed a significant decrease in surgery duration as the number of cases accumulated. Regarding recipient outcomes, there were 110 cases (20.2%) of early major complications and 177 cases (32.5%) of late major complications. This study shows the early and late postoperative outcomes of 545 donors and corresponding recipients, including 481 right hepatectomies and 25 left hepatectomies, from 5 experienced centers. Although the results are comparable to those of previously reported open donor hepatectomy series, further studies are needed to consider PLDH a new standard practice.

Long-term perioperative outcomes of pure laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has increased. We retrospectively compared the perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) with those of open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in well-matched patient groups using propensity score matching (PSM). METHODS: We reviewed medical records of patients with HCC who underwent liver resection between July 2007 and April 2016 at our center. In total, 2335 patients were included in this study and divided into LLR (n = 264) and OLR (n = 2071) groups. For group comparisons, 1:2 PSM was used with covariates of baseline characteristics, including tumor characteristics and surgical liver resection procedures. RESULTS: After PSM, there were 217 and 434 patients in the LLR and OLR groups, respectively. The LLR group had shorter hospital stays (8.9 vs. 14.8 days; P < 0.001) and lower postoperative morbidity (6.5% vs. 12.0%; P = 0.022). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 98.1%, 87.0%, and 78.6%, respectively, for the LLR group, and 98.3%, 90.8%, and 84.3%, respectively, for the OLR group (P = 0.570). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 81.0%, 62.0%, and 49.1%, respectively, for the LLR group, and 85.3%, 64.7%, and 56.2%, respectively, for the OLR group (P = 0.563). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term oncological outcomes were comparable between LLR and OLR for selected patients. LLR was associated with multiple benefits, even for selected patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy. LLR for HCC performed by an experienced surgeon could be considered a safe and feasible alternative to OLR for selected patients.

Prognosis of Split Liver Transplantation Compared with Whole Liver Transplantation in Adult Patients: Single-center Results under the Korean MELD Score-based Allocation Policy.

BACKGROUND: Split liver transplantation (SLT) has been occasionally performed in Korea. This study compared the incidence and prognosis of SLT with whole liver transplantation (WLT) in adult patients. METHODS: Between June 2016 and November 2019, 242 adult patients underwent a total of 256 deceased donor liver transplantation operations. SLT was performed in 7 patients (2.9%). RESULTS: The mean age of SLT donors was 29.7 ± 7.4 years, and the mean age of recipients was 55.7 ± 10.6 years, with the latter having a mean model for end-stage liver disease score of 34.6 ± 3.1. Mean split right liver graft weight was 1,228.6 ± 149.7 g and mean graft-recipient weight ratio was 1.97 ± 0.39. Of the seven SLT recipients, Korean Network for Organ Sharing (KONOS) status was one in status 1, one in status 2 and five in status 3. The graft (P = 0.72) and patient (P = 0.84) survival rates were comparable in the SLT and WLT groups. Following propensity score matching, graft (P = 0.61) and patient (P = 0.91) survival rates remained comparable in the two groups. Univariate analysis showed that pretransplant ventilator support and renal replacement therapy were significantly associated with patient survival, whereas KONOS status category and primary liver diseases were not. Multivariate analysis showed that pretransplant ventilator support was an independent risk factor for patient survival. CONCLUSION: Survival outcomes were similar in adult SLT and WLT recipients, probably due to selection of high-quality grafts and low-risk recipients. Prudent selection of donors and adult recipients for SLT may expand the liver graft pool for pediatric patients without affecting outcomes in adults undergoing SLT.

Splenic devascularization can replace splenectomy during adult living donor liver transplantation - a historical cohort study.

Simultaneous splenectomy (SSPX) in adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT) has definitely beneficial roles such as portal flow modulation in small-for-size graft and correction of hypersplenism-related pancytopenia, and so on, but disastrous complications after SSPX often occur. For the first time, we devised unique and innovative splenic devascularization (SDV) procedure to alleviated untoward effects of SSPX but to maintain its benefits for the indicated patients. From April 2013 to December 2014, 520 recipients underwent ALDLT, and the SSPX and SDV were simultaneously performed in 62 (11.9%) and 61 (11.7%) patients, respectively. The most common indication was hypersplenism-related pancytopenia (n = 101), small-for-size graft (n = 14), hepatitis C virus (HCV) (n = 7), and splenic artery aneurysm (n = 1). Postoperative small-for-size graft syndrome (SFSS) was absent in both SSPX and SDV, and preoperative pancytopenia was improved in both groups since postoperative 1 week, although SSPX was more substantial than SDV. Preoperative splenic volume (706.2 ± 282.9 ml) after SDV significantly decreased to 425.5 ± 204.4 ml on 1 month, respectively. In contrast to SDV, SSPX resulted in longer operation time and higher incidence of postoperative complications including mortality. In conclusion, SDV can replace SSPX during ALDLT without hampering its beneficial roles seriously, but get rid of splenectomy-related lethal complication.

Determination of Hepatitis B Immunoglobulin Infusion Interval Using Pharmacokinetic Half-life Simulation for Posttransplant Hepatitis B Prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Prophylaxis for hepatitis B virus (HBV) recurrence is essential after liver transplantation (LT) in HBV-associated recipients. This study established an individualized HBV prophylaxis protocol, through optimization of hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) administration, with application of simulative half-life (SHL). METHODS: This study involved five parts: Part 1 developed the SHL estimation method with 20 patients; Parts 2 and 3 assessed the SHL variability and developed a simulation model to apply SHL in 100 patients; Part 4 validated the simulation model in 114 patients, and Part 5 was a cross-sectional study on the current status of HBIG infusion intervals in 660 patients. RESULTS: In Part 1, infusion of 10,000 IU HBIG induced add-on rise hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) titer of 5,252.5 ± 873.7 IU/L, which was 4.4% lower than actual measurement. Mean SHL of 20.0 ± 3.7 days was 2.2% longer than actual measurement. In Part 2, the medians of the intra- and inter-individual coefficient of variation in SHL were 13.5% and 18.5%, respectively. Pretransplant HBV DNA load and posttransplant antiviral therapy did not affect SHL. In Part 3, a simulation model was developed to determine the interval of HBIG infusion, by using SHL. In Part 4, all 114 patients were successfully managed with regular HBIG infusion intervals of ≥ 8 weeks, and the interval was prolonged to ≥ 12 weeks in 89.4%, with a target trough anti-HBs titer ≥ 200 IU/L. In Part 5, 47.4% of our patients received HBIG excessively, at a target trough titer of 500 IU/L. CONCLUSION: SHL estimation using only clinically available parameters seems to be reliably accurate when compared with actual measurements. We believe that SHL estimation is helpful to establish a personalized HBV prophylaxis protocol for optimizing HBIG administration.

Outcome of ABO-incompatible adult living-donor liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) can simultaneously cure hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and underlying liver cirrhosis, improving long-term results in patients with HCC. ABO-incompatible LDLT could expand the living-donor pool, reduce waiting times for deceased-donor liver transplantation, and improve long-term survival for some patients with HCC. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients undergoing LDLT for HCC from November 2008 to December 2015 at a single institution in Korea. In total, 165 patients underwent ABO-incompatible and 753 patients underwent ABO-compatible LDLT for HCC. ABO-incompatible recipients underwent desensitization to overcome the ABO blood group barrier, including pretransplant plasma exchange and rituximab administration (300-375 mg/m2 /body surface area). RESULTS: We performed 1:1 propensity score matching and included 165 patients in each group. 82.4% of ABO-incompatible and 83.0% of -compatible LDLT groups had HCC within conventional Milan criteria, respectively, and 92.1% and 92.7% of patients in each group had a Child-Pugh score of A or B. ABO-incompatible and -compatible LDLT groups were followed up for 48.0 and 48.7 months, respectively, with both groups showing comparable recurrence-free survival rates (hazard ratio [HR] 1.14; 95% CI 0.68-1.90; p = 0.630) and overall patient-survival outcomes (HR 1.10; 95% CI 0.60-2.00; p = 0.763). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggested that ABO-incompatible liver transplantation is a feasible option for patients with HCC, especially for those with compensated cirrhosis with HCC within conventional Milan criteria. LAY SUMMARY: Despite hypothetical immunological concerns that the desensitization protocol for breaking through the ABO blood group barrier might have a negative impact on the recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma, our experience demonstrated no significant differences in the long-term overall survival and recurrence-free survival rates between patients receiving ABO-compatible or ABO-incompatible liver transplantation. In conclusion, results from our institution indicated that ABO-incompatible living-donor liver transplantation constitutes a potentially feasible option for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, especially those with compensated cirrhosis with hepatocellular carcinoma within conventional Milan criteria.

Comparison of pure laparoscopic versus open left hemihepatectomy by multivariate analysis: a retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: To compare the outcomes of pure laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LLH) versus open left hemihepatectomy (OLH) for benign and malignant conditions using multivariate analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive cases of LLH and OLH between October 2007 and December 2013 in a tertiary referral hospital were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. All surgical procedures were performed by one surgeon. The LLH and OLH groups were compared in terms of patient demographics, preoperative data, clinical perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics in patients with malignancy. Multivariate analysis of the prognostic factors associated with severe complications was then performed. RESULTS: The LLH group (n = 62) had a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay than the OLH group (n = 118) (9.53 ± 3.30 vs 14.88 ± 11.36 days, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that the OLH group had >4 times the risk of the LLH group in terms of developing severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) (odds ratio 4.294, 95% confidence intervals 1.165-15.832, p = 0.029). DISCUSSION: LLH was a safe and feasible procedure for selected patients. LLH required shorter hospital stay and resulted in less operative blood loss. Multivariate analysis revealed that LLH was associated with a lower risk of severe complications compared to OLH. The authors suggest that LLH could be a reasonable treatment option for selected patients.

Long-term results of laparoscopic liver resection for the primary treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: role of the surgeon in anatomical resection.

BACKGROUND: Liver resection is a potentially curative therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). LLR is a newly developed and safe technique associated with shorter hospital stay, less pain, better cosmetic outcomes, and similar complication rates as open surgery; however, data on its long-term outcomes remain scarce. METHODS: We retrospectively examined the clinical and follow-up data of 234 patients who underwent LLR (performed by a single surgeon in all cases) for the primary treatment of HCC between July 2007 and December 2015 at Asan Medical Center. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 55.63 (range 31-76) years; 167 were men. The median follow-up duration was 38 (range 6-116) months. A total of 227 patients (97.0%) had Child-Turcotte-Pugh grade A disease. Of them, 167 (71.4%) underwent anatomical resections and 63 (28.6%) underwent non-anatomical partial hepatectomies. Overall survival rates were 98.3, 91.7, and 87.1%, and recurrence-free survival rates were 82.1, 67.5, and 55.3% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. In Cox regression analysis, anatomical resection was a risk factor for recurrence (univariate analysis: hazard ratio [HR] 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.75; p = 0.001; multivariate analysis: HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.38-0.94; p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: LLR is an acceptable primary treatment for patients with HCC with good hepatic function and with an appropriate anatomical structure, and is associated with improved prognosis. LLR can achieve lower recurrence rates through anatomical resection.

Achieving 400 Living Donor Liver Transplantations Annually During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on liver transplantation (LT) and living donor programs globally. PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to present the principles and strategies of our LT program during the pandemic period and describe its achievements. BASIC PROCEDURES: We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 1417 LTs performed at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea, from 2020 to 2022. Of these, 216 recipients who received transplants from deceased donors were excluded, and 1201 recipients who received transplants from 1268 live donors were included in the study, including 38 children <18 years old. MAIN FINDINGS: Among the 1201 living donor LT (LDLT) recipients, the most common indication for LT was unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (315/1163, 27.1%) in adults and biliary atresia (29/38, 76.3%) in pediatric recipients. Emergency LDLT was performed in 40 patients (3.3%). The median model of end-stage liver disease and pediatric end-stage liver disease scores were 13.9 ± 7.2 and 13.8 ± 7.1, respectively. In-hospital mortality of recipients was higher than usual at 2.2%, but the cause of death was not related to COVID-19 infection. Of the 1268 live donors who underwent hepatectomy for liver donation, 660 (52.1%) underwent hepatectomy using a minimally invasive approach. Although 17 (1.3%) live donors experienced major complications, there were no serious life-threatening complications and no mortality. CONCLUSION: Even in a pandemic era, a team with well-established infection control protocols, patient-tailored surgical strategies, and thorough perioperative care can maintain LDLT at a similar quantitative and qualitative level as in a non-pandemic era.