Citations 2
Living liver donor safety: Intraoperative considerations in living liver donation—Guidelines from the ILTS–iLDLT group consensus conference 2025
Bhangui, Prashant , Hakeem, Abdul Rahman , Maira, Tommaso Di , Rammohan, Ashwin, Sayed, Blayne A. , Soejima, Yuji , Shingina, Alexandra , Cheah, Yee Lee , McCluskey, Stuart, Spiro, Michael , Ganesh, Swaytha , Rajalingam, Rajesh , Gupta, Subash , Findlay, James Y. , Chieh, Alfred Kow Wei, Sakamoto, Seisuko, Xia, Qiang, Kim, Ki-Hun , Polak, W., Soin, A G, Pomposelli, James J. , Vyas, Mary, Wiggins, Chantal, Mas, Valeria, Taner, Timucin, Broering, Dieter, Chen, Chao-Leng, Burra, Patrizia, Ascher, N. L., Lerut, Jan, Rela, Mohamed, Selzner, Nazia, Balci, Deniz, Olthoff, Kim M. , Polak, Wojciech G. , Hakeem, Abdul , Rammohan, Ashwin , Sayed, Blayne A , McCluskey, Stuart , Findlay, James, Sakamoto, Seisuko , Xia, Qiang , Polak, Wojciech G , Sapisochin, Gonzalo , Pomposelli, James , Selzner, Nazia , Balci, Deniz , Bhangui, Prashant , Di Maira, Tommaso , Gupta, Amar C. , Xia, Qiang , Sapisochín, Gonzalo , Soin, Arvinder S., Taner, Timuçin , Bröering, Dieter C. , Terrault, Norah A. , Burra, Patrizia , Hirschfield, Gideon M. , Lerut, Jan , Rela, Mohamed , Heimbach, Julie K. , Selzner, Nazia
Liver Transplantation | January 5, 2026 | Volume: 32 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 592-608
The success of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has bridged the growing gap between organ demand and availability in patients with liver failure or liver cancer. Safety of the living liver donor (LLD) is paramount, and astute intraoperative management plays a critical role in ensuring optimal outcomes for them. Given that intraoperative surgical and anesthesia practices vary widely across centers, the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS) and the International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group (iLDLT Group) convened a global consensus conference in Toronto in March 2025 to develop guidelines for intraoperative management of the LLD. This manuscript details the recommendations on intraoperative considerations for the safety of LLD developed by Working Group II of the Consensus Scientific Committee, using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system for assessment of recommendations, and the Danish model of consensus. Working Group II focused on intraoperative monitoring, fluid and ventilation strategies, surgical techniques for vascular and biliary division, surgeon and center-specific experience, and intraoperative crises planning. These guidelines aim to support both established and emerging LDLT teams to ensure high-quality and safe intraoperative care for the LLD.
Influence of surgical technique in donor hepatectomy on immediate and short‐term living donor outcomes – A systematic review of the literature, meta‐analysis, and expert panel recommendations
Cheah, Yee Lee , Kwon, Choon Hyuck David , Pomposelli, James J. , Rudow, Dianne LaPointe , Bröering, Dieter C. , Spiro, Michael , Roberts, John P. , Group, the ERAS4OLT.org Working, Rudow, Dianne LaPointe , Roberts, John P , Heimbach, Julie K. , Raptis, Dimitri , Group, the ERAS4OLT.org Working
Clinical Transplantation | May 11, 2022 | Volume: 36 | Issue: 10 | Pages: No page available
AbstractBackgroundThere are currently no guidelines pertaining to ERAS pathways in living donor hepatectomy.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to identify whether surgical technique influences immediate and short‐term outcomes after living liver donation surgery.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.MethodsSystematic review and meta‐analysis following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel (CRD42021260707). Endpoints were mortality, overall complications, serious complications, bile eaks, pulmonary complications, estimated blood loss and length of stay.ResultsOf the 2410 screened articles, 21 articles were included for final analysis; three observational, 13 retrospective cohort, four prospective cohort studies, and one randomized trial. Overall complications were higher with right versus left hepatectomy (26.8% vs. 20.8%; OR 1.4, P = .010). Donors after left hepatectomy had shorter length of stay (MD 1.4 days) compared to right hepatectomy. There was no difference in outcomes after right donor hepatectomy with versus without middle hepatic vein. We had limited data on the influence of incision type and minimally invasive approaches on living donor outcomes, and no data on the effect of operative time on donor outcomes.ConclusionsLeft donor hepatectomy should be preferred over right hepatectomy, as it is related to improved donor short‐term outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Right donor hepatectomy with or without MHV has equivalent outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong); no preference is recommended, decision should be based on program's experience and expertise. No difference in outcomes was observed related to incision type, minimally invasive vs. open (QOE; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Weak); no preference can be recommended.