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

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

Simultaneous split liver/kidney transplantation: A national and single center experience report.

BACKGROUND: End-stage liver disease (ESLD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are prevalent diseases for which the definitive treatment is transplantation. With limited organ supply, strategies to maximize organ availability has led to increasing rates of split liver transplantations for ESLD patients. Therefore, simultaneous split liver and kidney transplantations (SSLK) for patients with ESLD and ESRD could represent a treatment option for comorbid patients. However, current practice and outcomes after SSLK are unknown. METHODS: We aim to report national trends and our experience with patients undergoing SSLK. We performed a retrospective review of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Standard Transplant Analysis and Research file from January 2011-April 2022. Descriptive analysis of preoperative characteristics, postoperative outcomes and actuarial graft and patient survivals are reported. RESULTS: National review of the UNOS transplant registry from 2011-2021 of adult patients undergoing initial transplantation via SSLK demonstrates that this procedure remains uncommon, with only 76 such cases captured in that time. Nevertheless, survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years remains robust, at 94%, 92%, and 90% for patients overall, 90%, 88%, 88%, for the liver graft, and 93%, 91%, 88% for the kidney graft, respectively. Review of a single center experience with three such patients from 2019-2021 has shown a safe, enduring transplant option with no graft complications seen. CONCLUSIONS: SSLK is both safe and a feasible option to optimize organ supply while allowing recipients to receive quality liver and kidney grafts and should be considered more often by transplant centers going forward.

Management of Established Small-for-size Syndrome in Post Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Medical, Radiological, and Surgical Interventions: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference.

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) following living donor liver transplantation is a complication that can lead to devastating outcomes such as prolonged poor graft function and possibly graft loss. Because of the concern about the syndrome, some transplants of mismatched grafts may not be performed. Portal hyperperfusion of a small graft and hyperdynamic splanchnic circulation are recognized as main pathogenic factors for the syndrome. Management of established SFSS is guided by the severity of the presentation with the initial focus on pharmacological therapy to modulate portal flow and provide supportive care to the patient with the goal of facilitating graft regeneration and recovery. When medical management fails or condition progresses with impending dysfunction or even liver failure, interventional radiology (IR) and/or surgical interventions to reduce portal overperfusion should be considered. Although most patients have good outcomes with medical, IR, and/or surgical management that allow graft regeneration, the risk of graft loss increases dramatically in the setting of bilirubin >10 mg/dL and INR>1.6 on postoperative day 7 or isolated bilirubin >20 mg/dL on postoperative day 14. Retransplantation should be considered based on the overall clinical situation and the above postoperative laboratory parameters. The following recommendations focus on medical and IR/surgical management of SFSS as well as considerations and timing of retransplantation when other therapies fail.

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

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

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

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

Survival after LDLT in recipients ≥70 years old in the United States. An OPTN/UNOS liver transplant registry analysis.

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the elderly population is currently not well studied. There are single-center studies indicating that patient age should not be a barrier to LDLT, with similar outcomes compared to younger recipients. METHODS: Using UNOS/STAR data from 2010 to 2022 we retrospectively analyzed patients ≥70 years old receiving a living donor graft (LDLT ≥70y group) versus a deceased donor graft (DDLT ≥70y group). In addition, we compared recipients ≥70 years old undergoing LDLT versus patients 18-69 years old also undergoing LDLT. Donor and recipient baseline characteristics, as well as postoperative outcomes including graft and patient survival were analyzed and compared between groups. RESULTS: Recipients in the LDLT ≥70y group showed less disease burden and spent significantly less time on the waitlist when compared to recipients in the DDLT ≥70y group (102 [49-201] days versus 170 [36-336] days) respectively; p = .004. With the exception of a longer length of stay (LOS) in the LDLT ≥70y group (p ≤ .001), postoperative outcomes were comparable with recipients in the DDLT ≥70y group, including similar graft and patient survival rates at 1-, 3-, and 5-years. When compared to younger recipients of a graft from a living donor, patients in the LDLT ≥70y group had similar post-transplant functional status, re-transplant rates and similar causes contributing to graft failure. However, significantly lower graft and patient survival rates were observed. CONCLUSION: LDLT for recipients aged 70 or greater represents a faster access to transplantation in a safe and feasible manner when compared to similar- aged recipients undergoing DDLT.

Proceedings of the 27th Annual Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society.

After a virtual congress in 2021 and a previous absence in 2020 because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the 27th Annual Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society was held from May 4 to 7, 2022, in a hybrid format in Istanbul, with 1123 (58% on-site) liver transplant professionals from 61 countries attending the meeting. The hybrid format successfully achieved a balance of much yearned-for "in-person interaction" and global online participation. Almost 500 scientific abstracts were presented. In this report, the Vanguard Committee aims to present a summary of key invited lectures and selected abstracts for the liver transplant community.

Technical challenges in LDLT - Overcoming small for size syndrome and venous outflow reconstruction.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT) emerged as an alternative treatment option for patients with end-stage liver disease waiting for an organ from a deceased donor. In addition to allowing for a faster access to transplantation, LDLT provides improved recipient outcomes when compared to deceased donor LT. However, it represents a more complex and demanding procedure for the transplant surgeon. In addition to a comprehensive preoperative donor assessment and stringent technical considerations during the donor hepatectomy to ensure upmost donor safety, the recipient procedure also comes with intrinsic challenges during LDLT. A proper approach during both procedures will result in favorable donor and recipient's outcomes. Hence, it is critical for the transplant surgeon to know how to overcome such technical challenges and avoid deleterious complications. One of the most feared complications following LDLT is small-for-size syndrome (SFSS). Although, surgical advances and deeper understanding of the pathophysiology behind SFSS has allowed for a safer implementation of LDLT, there is currently no consensus on the best strategy to prevent or manage this complication. Therefore, we aim to review current practices in technically challenging situations during LDLT, with a particular focus on management of small grafts and venous outflow reconstructions, as they possess one of the biggest technical challenges faced during LDLT.

Living donor liver transplant candidate and donor selection and engagement: Meeting report from the living donor liver transplant consensus conference.

INTRODUCTION: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a promising option for mitigating the deceased donor organ shortage and reducing waitlist mortality. Despite excellent outcomes and data supporting expanding candidate indications for LDLT, broader uptake throughout the United States has yet to occur. METHODS: In response to this, the American Society of Transplantation hosted a virtual consensus conference (October 18-19, 2021), bringing together relevant experts with the aim of identifying barriers to broader implementation and making recommendations regarding strategies to address these barriers. In this report, we summarize the findings relevant to the selection and engagement of both the LDLT candidate and living donor. Utilizing a modified Delphi approach, barrier and strategy statements were developed, refined, and voted on for overall barrier importance and potential impact and feasibility of the strategy to address said barrier. RESULTS: Barriers identified fell into three general categories: 1) awareness, acceptance, and engagement across patients (potential candidates and donors), providers, and institutions, 2) data gaps and lack of standardization in candidate and donor selection, and 3) data gaps regarding post-living liver donation outcomes and resource needs. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to address barriers included efforts toward education and engagement across populations, rigorous and collaborative research, and institutional commitment and resources.

Split liver transplantation with extended right grafts on adult recipients: A propensity score matching analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Split liver transplantation (SLT) emerged due to its potential to contribute to the organ pool and reduce organ shortage. However, SLT is technically challenging and has been associated with higher rates of postoperative complications leading to concerns about graft and patient survival. Moreover, there are few studies on matched-pair adult recipients of SLT and whole-liver transplant (WLT), with conflicting results. METHODS: This retrospective study analyze outcomes among adults who underwent SLT at our institution from 2010 to 2019. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was performed based on important donor and recipient variables. Baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes were analyzed and compared between groups. Actuarial graft and patient survival were analyzed by KM curves. RESULTS: Out of 592 adults receiving a LT in our institution, 21 SLT adult recipients were identified and matched with 21 adults undergoing WLT. As expected donor age was significantly lower in SLT recipients (16 (15-22) vs. 32 (17-47), P = .012). Additional donor characteristics, including anthropometrics, and ischemic times were similar between groups. Baseline recipient characteristics and postoperative outcomes, including length of stay, vascular complications, biliary complications, and re-transplantation were comparable between SLT and WLT recipients. Graft (95/95/95 vs. 100/94/94, P = .98) and patient (100/100/100 vs. 100/94/94, P = .30) survival at 1-, 3-, 5-years, were similar between the SLT- and WLT group, respectively. CONCLUSION: Split liver transplantation has the potential to increase the availability of organs for adult recipients without compromising individual outcomes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Living Donor Liver Transplantation vs. Split Liver Transplantation Using Left Lateral Segment Grafts in Pediatric Recipients: An Analysis of the UNOS Database.

Split and LDLT in pediatric patients have the potential to decrease wait times and waitlist mortality. Using UNOS-STAR data, we compared outcomes of pediatric patients undergoing LDLT and SLT using LLS grafts. The baseline characteristics and post-operative outcomes were compared between groups. Actuarial graft and patient survival were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves. Between 2010 and 2019, 911 pediatric LT were included in the analysis (LD graft group, n = 508, split graft group, n = 403). LD graft recipients spent more time on the waitlist vs. the split graft group (60 (22-138) days vs. 46 (16-108) days; p = 0.007). LD recipients had a lower rate of graft failure, found in 9.8% of patients compared with 14.6% in the split graft group (p = 0.02). HAT was the most common graft failure cause, with similar rates. Graft and patient survival at 1-, 3-, and 5-years was comparable between LDLT and SLT. In subgroup analyses, patients with biliary atresia, those ≤10 kg or ≤10 years old receiving an LD graft showed improved graft survival. In conclusion, LDLT is associated with a lower rate of graft failure in pediatric patients. The use of LLS regardless of the type of donor is a safe way to facilitate access to transplantation to pediatric patients with acceptable short and long-term outcomes.

Outcomes in Adult Liver Transplant Recipients Using Pediatric Deceased Donor Liver Grafts.

Background: The use of pediatric grafts for liver transplantation (LT) into adult recipients is rare, and reported outcomes are conflicting. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes in adult recipients following LT with grafts from deceased pediatric donors. Methods: A retrospective study identifying adult LT between 2010 and 2020 using pediatric deceased donor liver grafts was conducted. Adults undergoing LT with deceased donor pediatric grafts (age ≤ 12) were identified and matched 1:2 with adults receiving adult grafts (age ≥ 18) based on recipient age (±10 y), model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score at transplant (±5 points) and etiology of liver disease. To assess real liver size differences between the pediatric-donor and adult-donor groups, patients receiving a graft from a donor between 13 and 17 y were excluded from the main analysis and studied independently. Outcomes between the groups were compared. Complication rates were identified and graded using Clavien-Dindo classification. Graft and patient survival were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: Twelve adult LT recipients with whole liver grafts from deceased pediatric donors were matched with 24 adult recipients of adult donors. Recipient age and MELD score were similar between groups. Recipients of pediatric grafts were more likely to be female (66.7% versus 16.7%, P = 0.007) and leaner (body mass index = 24.4 versus 29.9, P = 0.013). Alcohol-related cirrhosis was the most prevalent liver disease etiology in both groups (P = 0.96). There was no significant difference in length of stay, readmissions, early complications, or major complications between groups. Vascular and biliary complication rates were similar. Actuarial graft and patient survival at 1, 3, and 5 y were 100/100/100 versus 96/96/96 (P = 0.48). Conclusions: Excellent patient and graft survival is achievable with LT using young pediatric deceased donor grafts in smaller adult recipients. Outcomes are comparable with recipients of age and MELD-matched adult donors. Careful donor MELD-score recipient matching and close monitoring for potential biliary and vascular complications are crucial to achieve acceptable outcomes.