Which recipient pretransplant factors, such as MELD, renal function, sarcopenia, and recent sepsis influence suitability for and outcome after living donor liver transplantation? A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations

Outcomes of Fully Robotic Recipient Living Donor Liver Transplant in Relation to the Open Approach

BACKGROUND

Over the past 20 y, robotic surgery has entered nearly all surgical disciplines, aiming to improve patient outcomes. Liver transplantation has evolved with these advancements, and fully robotic liver transplants represent the latest innovation in this field. This study reports on the world's first series of fully robotic recipient liver transplants from robotic living donors, comparing them with matched cases from the standard open transplant approach.

METHODS

A case-control study was conducted at our center from August to December 2023. Patient selection criteria for robotic recipient liver transplantation included a Model for End-stage Liver Disease score of ≤25, specific anatomical characteristics, and logistics. A propensity score analysis with a 1:4 matching ratio was used.

RESULTS

The study analyzed 10 fully robotic living donor and robotic recipient liver transplant pairs with a median donor age of 29 y and a recipient age of 61 y. The main indication for transplantation was nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (6/10). There was 1 robotic to open conversion, and the median operation time was 10 h, with a median hospital stay of 13 d, shorter than the 18 d in the open group. Three recipients experienced a complication, and there was no mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The first-ever series of fully robotic living donor recipient liver transplants showed encouraging initial results with a markedly reduced hospital stay. The ultimate goal is to refine the technique to offer robotic liver transplants to the majority of recipients, overcoming the current selection criteria. Further research and a planned randomized controlled trial will aim to confirm these results.

Impact of preoperative infection on the outcomes of liver transplant recipients: a national propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study in China

BACKGROUND

Impact of preoperative infection on liver transplantation (LT) needs further investigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2022, 24 122 eligible patients receiving LT were enrolled from the China Liver Transplant Registry database. The outcomes of LT were compared after using the propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

Compared to the noninfection group, patients in the infection group were more likely to have postoperative effusion, infection, abdominal bleeding, and biliary complications (all P <0.01), and they had shorter 30-day, 90-day survival, and overall survival (all P <0.01). Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed that MELD score and cold ischemia time were risk factors for the overall survival in the infection group (both P <0.05). Besides, compared to the nonpulmonary group, patients in the pulmonary group were more likely to have postoperative effusion and infection (both P <0.0001), and less likely to have postoperative abscess and early allograft dysfunction (both P <0.05). Patients in the nonabdominal group also had a higher proportion of postoperative infection than those in the abdominal group ( P <0.05). Furthermore, compared to the number=1 group, patients in the number ≥2 group were more prone to postoperative effusion and infection (both P <0.01), and they also had shorter 30-day and 90-day survival (both P <0.05).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative infection can result in a higher incidence of early postoperative complications and shorter survival in liver transplant recipients. The types and number of infection sites will also influence the prognosis of liver transplant recipients.

Predicted Impact of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease 3.0 in a Region Suffering Severe Organ Shortage

BACKGROUND

The model for end-stage liver disease 3.0 (MELD3.0) is expected to address the flaws of the current allocation system for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). We aimed to validate MELD3.0 in the Korean population where living donor liver transplantation is predominant due to organ shortages.

METHODS

Korean large-volume single-centric waitlist data were merged with the Korean Network for Organ Sharing (KONOS) data. The 90-day mortality was compared between MELD and MELD3.0 using the C-index in 2,353 eligible patients registered for liver transplantation. Patient numbers and outcomes were compared based on changes in KONOS-MELD categorization using MELD3.0. Possible gains in MELD points and reduced waitlist mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

MELD3.0 performed better than MELD (C-index 0.893 for MELD3.0 vs. 0.889 for MELD). When stratified according to the KONOS-MELD categories, 15.9% of the total patients and 35.2% of the deceased patients were up-categorized using MELD3.0 versus MELD categories. The mean gain of MELD points was higher in women (2.6 ± 2.1) than men (2.1 ± 1.9, P < 0.001), and higher in patients with severe ascites (3.3 ± 1.8) than in controls (1.9 ± 1.8, P < 0.001); however, this trend was not significant when the MELD score was higher than 30. When the possible increase in DDLT chance was calculated via up-categorizing using MELD3.0, reducible waitlist mortality was 2.7%.

CONCLUSION

MELD3.0 could predict better waitlist mortality than MELD; however, the merit for women and patients with severe ascites is uncertain, and reduced waitlist mortality from implementing MELD3.0 is limited in regions suffering from organ shortage, as in Korea.

Early allograft dysfunction after living donor liver transplantation-current concepts and future directions

Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) after liver transplantation is a significant clinical problem that negatively impacts graft and patient outcomes. The rising incidence of EAD and what it means concerning living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an area of great interest. However, EAD after LDLT is a complex research topic yet to be reviewed comprehensively. Most of the literature on EAD is based on experience in deceased donor liver transplantation, and limited information is available in the context of LDLT. Thus, in this review, we present an overview of EAD after LDLT and have attempted to present balanced points of view on all its aspects, such as definitions, pathogenesis, risk factors, predictive markers, and management. The review aims to broadly overview the nature and extent of ongoing research evidence on this complex topic and inform practice in the field by identifying key concepts and knowledge gaps and highlighting areas that require further inquiry.

Analysis of Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Patients with a High Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score

BACKGROUND

The Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scoring system can predict short-term survival among patients awaiting liver transplantation and is used to allocate organs prioritizing liver transplantation. Patients with high MELD scores have been reported to have worse early graft dysfunction and survival. However, recent studies have shown that patients with high MELD scores had satisfactory graft survival, although they showed more postoperative complications. In this study, we examined the effect of the MELD score on the short-term and long-term prognosis of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

This study included 102 patients who underwent LDLT in our institution between 2005 and 2020. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to MELD score (low MELD group: ≤20, moderate MELD group: 21-30, and high MELD group: ≥31). Perioperative factors were compared among the 3 groups, and cumulative overall survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

The patients' characteristics were comparable, and the median age was 54 years. Hepatitis C virus cirrhosis was the most common primary disease (n = 40), followed by hepatitis B virus (n = 11). The low MELD group consisted of 68 patients (median score: 16, 10-20); the moderate MELD group, 24 patients (median score: 24, 21-30); and the high MELD group, 10 patients (median score: 35, 31-40). The mean operative time (1241 min versus 1278 min versus 1158 min, P = .19) and mean blood loss (7517 mL vs 11162 mL vs 8808 mL, P = .71) were not significantly different among the 3 groups. The vascular and biliary complication rates were similar. The periods of intensive care unit and hospital stay tended to be longer in the high MELD group, but the difference was insignificant. The 1-year postoperative survival rate (85.3 % vs 87.5 % vs 90.0 %, P = .90) and overall survival rate were also not significantly different among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that LDLT patients with high MELD scores do not have a worse prognosis than those with low scores.

Enhanced recovery for liver transplantation: recommendations from the 2022 International Liver Transplantation Society consensus conference

There is much controversy regarding enhanced recovery for recipients of liver transplants from deceased and living donors. The objectives of this Review were to summarise current knowledge on individual enhanced recovery elements on short-term outcomes, identify key components for comprehensive pathways, and create internationally accepted guidelines on enhanced recovery for liver-transplant recipients. The ERAS4OLT.org collaborative partnered by the International Liver Transplantation Society performed systematic literature reviews on the effect of 32 relevant enhanced perioperative recovery elements on short-term outcomes, and global specialists prepared expert statements on deceased and living donor liver transplantation. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach was used for rating of quality of evidence and grading of recommendations. A virtual international consensus conference was held in January, 2022, in which results were presented, voted on by the audience, and discussed by an independent international jury of eight members, applying the Danish model of consensus. 273 liver transplantation specialists from 30 countries prepared expert statements on elements of enhanced recovery for liver transplantation based on the systematic literature reviews. The consensus conference yielded 80 final recommendations, covering aspects of enhanced recovery for preoperative assessment and optimisation, intraoperative surgical and anaesthetic conduct, and postoperative management for the recipients of liver transplants from both deceased and living donors, and for the living donor. The recommendations represent a comprehensive overview of the relevant elements and areas of enhanced recovery for liver transplantation. These internationally established guidelines could direct the development of enhanced recovery programmes worldwide, allowing adjustments according to local resources and practices.