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.

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.

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.

How Much Is Enough? A Surgical Perspective on Imaging Modalities to Estimate Function and Volume of the Future Liver Remnant before Hepatic Resection.

Liver resection is the first curative option for most hepatic primary and secondary malignancies. However, post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) still represents a non-negligible postoperative complication, embodying the most frequent cause of hepatic-related mortality. In the absence of a specific treatment, the most effective way to deal with PHLF is its prevention through a careful preoperative assessment of future liver remnant (FLR) volume and function. Apart from the clinical score and classical criteria to define the safe limit of resectability, new imaging modalities have shown their ability to assist surgeons in planning the best operative strategy with a precise estimation of the FLR amount. New technologies leading to liver and tumor 3D reconstruction may guide the surgeon along the best resection planes combining the least liver parenchymal sacrifice with oncological appropriateness. Integration with imaging modalities, such as hepatobiliary scintigraphy, capable of estimating total and regional liver function, may bring about a decrease in postoperative complications. Magnetic resonance imaging with hepatobiliary contrast seems to be predominant since it simultaneously integrates hepatic function and volume information along with a precise characterization of the target malignancy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The short- and long-term outcomes in living-donor liver transplantation using small-for-size graft: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A standard graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) ≥0.8% is widely accepted in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT); however, the potential donor pool is expanded to patients adopting small-for-size graft (SFSGs) with GRWR <0.8%. This study aimed to investigate the effect of SFSG on short- and long-term outcomes following LDLT. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from January 1995 to January 2022 for studies comparing short- or long-term outcomes between patients with SFSG (GRWR <0.8%, SFSG group) and sufficient volume graft (GRWR ≥0.8%, non-SFSG group). The primary outcomes were one-, three-, and five-year overall survival (OS) and graft survival (GS), while the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies comprising 7996 patients were included. In terms of OS, SFSG group had poor three-year OS (HR: 1.48, 95% CI [1.01, 2.15], p = 0.04), but there were no significant differences between two groups in one-year OS (HR: 1.50, 95% CI [0.98, 2.29], p = 0.06) and five-year OS (HR: 1.40, 95% CI [0.95, 2.08], p = 0.02). In GS, there were no significant differences in one-year (HR 1.31, 95% CI [1.00, 1.72], p = 0.05), three-year (HR 1.33, 95% CI [0.97, 1.82], p = 0.07), and five-year GS (HR 1.17, 95% CI [0.95, 1.44], p = 0.13). The SFSG group had comparable postoperative complications, except for a high incidence of vascular complications and small-for-size syndromes. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding the potential donor pool in LDLT to SFSG with GRWR <0.8% can be acceptable in terms of comparable long-term OS and GS, despite the risk for vascular complications and small-for-size syndrome.

Twenty-year longitudinal follow-up after liver transplantation: a single-center experience with 251 consecutive patients.

Background: The outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) have improved, but actual 20-year survival data have rarely been presented. Methods: Longitudinal follow-up data of 20-year LT survivors were retrospectively analyzed. The LT database of our institution was searched to identify patients who underwent primary LT from January 2000 to December 2001. The study cohort of 251 patients was divided into three groups 207 adults who underwent living donor LT (LDLT), 22 adults who underwent deceased donor LT (DDLT), and 22 pediatric patients who underwent LT. Results: Hepatitis B virus-associated liver cirrhosis and biliary atresia were the most common indications for adult and pediatric LT, respectively. Seven patients required retransplantation, including six who underwent DDLT and one who underwent LDLT. Twenty-two patients died within 3 months after LT and 69 died at later intervals. The overall survival rates at 1, 3, 5, 10, and 20 years were 86.4%, 79.6%, 77.7%, 72.8%, and 62.6%, respectively, in the adult LDLT group; 86.4%, 72.7%, 72.7%, 72.7%, and 68.2%, respectively, in the adult DDLT group; and 86.4%, 86.4%, 81.8%, 81.8%, and 77.3%, respectively, in the pediatric LT group (P=0.545). Common immunosuppressive regimens at 20 years included tacrolimus monotherapy, tacrolimus-mycophenolate dual therapy, cyclosporine monotherapy, and mycophenolate monotherapy. Conclusions: The present study is the first report of actual 20-year survival data from a Korean high-volume LT center. The graft and patient survival outcomes reflected the early experiences of LT in our institution, with long-term outcomes being similar regardless of graft type and patient age.

An International Retrospective Observational Study of Liver Functional Deterioration after Repeat Liver Resection for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Whether albumin and bilirubin levels, platelet counts, ALBI, and ALPlat scores could be useful for the assessment of permanent liver functional deterioration after repeat liver resection was examined, and the deterioration after laparoscopic procedure was evaluated. For 657 patients with liver resection of segment or less in whom results of plasma albumin and bilirubin levels and platelet counts before and 3 months after surgery could be retrieved, liver functional indicators were compared before and after surgery. There were 268 patients who underwent open repeat after previous open liver resection, and 224 patients who underwent laparoscopic repeat after laparoscopic liver resection. The background factors, liver functional indicators before and after surgery and their changes were compared between both groups. Plasma levels of albumin (p = 0.006) and total bilirubin (p = 0.01) were decreased, and ALBI score (p = 0.001) indicated worse liver function after surgery. Laparoscopic group had poorer preoperative performance status and liver function. Changes of liver functional values before and after surgery and overall survivals were similar between laparoscopic and open groups. Plasma levels of albumin and bilirubin and ALBI score could be the indicators for permanent liver functional deterioration after liver resection. Laparoscopic group with poorer conditions showed the similar deterioration of liver function and overall survivals to open group.

Pure laparoscopic versus open left lateral sectionectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis.

Backgrounds/Aims: Anatomical resection has superior oncologic outcomes over non-anatomical resection in hepatocellular carcinoma, and left lateral sectionectomy is the simplest and easiest perform anatomical resection procedure among liver resections. The purpose of this study was to find out the safety and feasibility of pure laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (PLLLS) for hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods: Patients who underwent left lateral sectionectomy at a tertiary referral hospital, from August 2007 to April 2019 were enrolled in this retrospective study. After matching the 1 : 3 propensity score, 17 open and 51 pure laparoscopic cases were selected out of 102 cases of total left lateral resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. The group was analyzed in terms of patient demographics, preoperative data, and postoperative outcomes. Results: During the study period, there was no open conversion case. The mean operative time and complication were not statistically significant different between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in disease-free survival and overall survival had no statistical between the two groups. There were no mortality cases, and postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the PLLLS group than in the open left lateral sectionectomy (OLLS) group. Conclusions: The oncologic outcomes and complication rate were the same in the PLLLS and OLLS groups. However, the hospital stay was shorter in the PLLLS group than in the OLLS group. The present study findings demonstrate that the PLLLS is a safe and feasible procedure for hepatocellular carcinoma.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy and Safety Evaluation After Conversion From Twice-Daily to Once-Daily Tacrolimus in Stable Liver Transplant Recipients: A Phase 4, Open-Label, Single-Center Study.

BACKGROUND: Simplifying immunosuppressive therapy after liver transplant may improve patient compliance, thereby preventing acute rejection and graft loss. This phase 4, open-label, single-center study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of twice-daily to once-daily tacrolimus conversion in stable liver transplant recipients. METHODS: Between May 2017 and January 2019, twice-daily tacrolimus was converted to once-daily tacrolimus in 101 stable recipients at least 12 months post-liver transplant in Asan Medical Center. The doses of both drugs was converted to 1:1, and the target trough level was 5 to 10 ng/mL. We prospectively analyzed graft function, drug compliance, and adverse reactions after switching regimen for 24 weeks. RESULTS: There was no acute rejection confirmed histologically within 24 weeks, which was the primary endpoint, and there was no chronic rejection, fatal deterioration of liver function, or death in any patient during this period. After conversion, the trough level of tacrolimus decreased, and the mean ± standard deviation differences between the trough level and baseline level were 1.46 (±2.41) ng/mL, 0.43 (±2.08) ng/mL, and 0.07 (±2.73) ng/mL at 3, 12, and 24 weeks after conversion, respectively. Despite transient fluctuations of the trough level, there was no evidence of rejection or graft dysfunction. There were 37 adverse reactions after conversion; most of them were mild, and thrombocytopenia developed in 1 patient as an adverse drug response. Drug compliance improved after conversion according to questionnaire responses. CONCLUSIONS: The conversion to once-daily tacrolimus in stable liver transplant recipients is an effective and safe therapeutic strategy improving drug compliance.

Multicenter Propensity Score-Based Study of Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Subgroup Analysis of Cases with Tumors Far from Major Vessels.

Less morbidity is considered among the advantages of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for HCC patients. However, our previous international, multi-institutional, propensity score-based study of emerging laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) failed to prove this advantage. We hypothesize that these results may be since the study included complex LRLR cases performed during the procedure's developing stage. To examine it, subgroup analysis based on propensity score were performed, defining the proximity of the tumors to major vessels as the indicator of complex cases. Among 1582 LRLR cases from 42 international high-volume liver surgery centers, 620 cases without the proximity to major vessels (more than 1 cm far from both first-second branches of Glissonian pedicles and major hepatic veins) were selected for this subgroup analysis. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed based on their patient characteristics, preoperative liver function, tumor characteristics and surgical procedures. One hundred and fifteen of each patient groups of LRLR and open repeat liver resection (ORLR) were earned, and the outcomes were compared. Backgrounds were well-balanced between LRLR and ORLR groups after matching. With comparable operation time and long-term outcome, less blood loss (283.3±823.0 vs. 603.5±664.9 mL, p = 0.001) and less morbidity (8.7 vs. 18.3 %, p = 0.034) were shown in LRLR group than ORLR. Even in its worldwide developing stage, LRLR for HCC patients could be beneficial in blood loss and morbidity for the patients with less complexity in surgery.

Fates of retained hepatic segment IV and its prognostic impact in adult split liver transplantation using an extended right liver graft.

PURPOSE: When splitting a liver for adult and pediatric graft recipients, the retained left medial section (S4) will undergo ischemic necrosis and the right trisection graft becomes an extended right liver (ERL) graft. We investigated the fates of the retained S4 and its prognostic impact in adult split liver transplantation (SLT) using an ERL graft. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 25 adult SLT recipients who received split ERL grafts. RESULTS: The mean model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was 27.3 ± 10.9 and graft-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) was 1.98 ± 0.44. The mean donor age was 26.5 ± 7.7 years. The split ERL graft weight was 1,181.5 ± 252.8 g, which resulted in a mean GRWR of 1.98 ± 0.44. Computed tomography of the retained S4 parenchyma revealed small ischemic necrosis in 16 patients (64.0%) and large ischemic necrosis in the remaining 9 patients (36.0%). No S4-associated biliary complications were developed. The mean GRWR was 1.87 ± 0.43 in the 9 patients with large ischemic necrosis and 2.10 ± 0.44 in the 15 cases with small ischemic necrosis (P = 0.283). The retained S4 parenchyma showed gradual atrophy on follow-up imaging studies. The amount of S4 ischemic necrosis was not associated with graft (P = 0.592) or patient (P = 0.243) survival. A MELD score of >30 and pretransplant ventilator support were associated with inferior outcomes. CONCLUSION: The amount of S4 ischemic necrosis is not a prognostic factor in adult SLT recipients, probably due to a sufficiently large GRWR.

Outcomes of deceased donor liver transplantation from elderly donors.

Background: Favorable outcomes achieved after deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) suggest that use of elderly donors may be an effective way to expand donor pool. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of adult DDLT using elderly donors. It was a double-arm study that compared posttransplant outcomes to ascertain whether use of elderly donors (aged ≥76 years) has adverse effects on outcome of DDLT. Elderly donor study group included 14 donors aged ≥76 years and elderly donor control group comprised 39 donors aged 66-75 years. Results: Mean donor age of the study and control groups was 78.2±3.1 years and 68.9±2.7 years, respectively (P<0.001). Other clinical parameters were comparable between these two donor groups. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival rates in the elderly study group were 83.6%, 59.7%, and 59.7%, respectively, and those in the elderly control group were 79.4%, 68.1%, and 59.6%, respectively (P=0.97). The overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates after donation from elderly study group were 83.6%, 59.7%, and 59.7%, respectively, and those after donation from control group were 79.3%, 72.1%, and 64.1%, respectively (P=0.74). Regarding overall patient survival, univariate analysis identified pretransplant requirement for ventilator support (P=0.021) and pretransplant renal replacement therapy (P=0.025) as statistically significant risk factors; however, neither was significant on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that using an elderly donor graft might not worsen the posttransplant outcomes significantly; thus, advanced age per se may not be an exclusion criterion for organ donation.