Scatton, Olivier

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a life-saving procedure for patients with end-stage liver disease. As its use expands worldwide, ensuring the safety and well-being of live liver donors (LLD) is of paramount importance. Published evidence on early postoperative complications after living donor hepatectomy—those occurring within 90 days of surgery—is limited, and standardized postoperative care protocols are lacking. The International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS) and the International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group (iLDLT Group) convened a consensus conference in Toronto in March 2025 to develop guidelines for the safe care of the LLDs. This manuscript details the recommendations on early postoperative considerations for the safety of LLDs developed by Working Group III (WGIII) 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. WGIII addressed four key areas: (1) standardized postoperative care, (2) early biliary complications, (3) early postoperative liver dysfunction, and (4) early postdischarge follow-up. This report emphasizes the need for vigilant postoperative monitoring in specialized units, with access to experienced providers and defined clinical pathways. Structured clinical and psychosocial follow-up protocols, perioperative prophylaxis for surgical site infections and venous thromboembolism, and management of early biliary and vascular complications are discussed. These may help standardize care, reduce complications and improve short-term outcomes in LLDs.

Objective: To establish benchmark cutoffs for robotic liver resection (R-LR), encompassing both major and minor resections, and to determine the impact of patient selection on outcomes. Background: R-LR is a key advancement in minimally invasive liver surgery but lacks standardized benchmarks, especially for minor resections. While guidelines endorse R-LR, its role in optimizing outcomes remains unclear. This study establishes the first benchmarks for R-LR, enabling comparisons across surgical modalities and refining patient selection. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study analyzed consecutive adult patients undergoing R-LR at 30 international centers (2020–2023). Benchmark centers had an annual case volume of ≥15 R-LR. Benchmark criteria included ASA ≤2, no major comorbidities, no prior liver resections, and Child-Pugh A status. Benchmark cutoffs for 14 key outcomes were set at the 50th and 75th percentiles of median values across benchmark centers. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of textbook outcomes. Results: Eighteen high-volume centers contributed 4028 cases with 2632 (65.3%) meeting benchmark criteria. Malignancy was the indication in 29.6%, most commonly hepatocellular carcinoma followed by colorectal liver metastases. Major liver resection was performed in 42.6%. The distribution of Iwate difficulty scores was low (25.4%), intermediate (53.9%), advanced (15.9%), and expert (4.9%). Benchmark cutoffs were established for minor and major resection, and stratified by Iwate low (0-3), intermediate (4-6) and high (7-12): Open conversion (≤6.5% minor, ≤10.5% major), major complications within 90 days (≤5.2% minor, ≤16.7% major), R1 resection (≤9.2% minor, ≤6.7% major). Benchmark cases performed at low-volume centers were able to achieve outcomes within the corresponding benchmark cutoffs. In fact, patient selection reflected by the proportion of benchmark patients, rather than case volume, was associated with textbook outcomes. Conclusions: This study defines R-LR benchmarks, emphasizing patient selection over center volume for optimal outcomes. Benchmark cutoffs guide training and support the expansion of R-LR.

Objective: This study aims at establishing benchmark values for best achievable outcomes following open major anatomic hepatectomy for liver tumors of all dignities. Background: Outcomes after open major hepatectomies vary widely lacking reference values for comparisons among centers, indications, types of resections, and minimally invasive procedures. Methods: A standard benchmark methodology was used covering consecutive patients, who underwent open major anatomic hepatectomy from 44 high-volume liver centers from 5 continents over a 5-year period (2016–2020). Benchmark cases were low-risk non-cirrhotic patients without significant comorbidities treated in high-volume centers (≥30 major liver resections/year). Benchmark values were set at the 75th percentile of median values of all centers. Minimum follow-up period was 1 year in each patient. Results: Of 8044 patients, 2908 (36%) qualified as benchmark (low-risk) cases. Benchmark cutoffs for all indications include R0 resection ≥78%; liver failure (grade B/C) ≤10%; bile leak (grade B/C) ≤18%; complications ≥grade 3 and CCI ® ≤46% and ≤9 at 3 months, respectively. Benchmark values differed significantly between malignant and benign conditions so that reference values must be adjusted accordingly. Extended right hepatectomy (H1, 4-8 or H4-8) disclosed a higher cutoff for liver failure, while extended left (H1-5,8 or H2-5,8) were associated with higher cutoffs for bile leaks, but had superior oncologic outcomes, when compared to formal left hepatectomy (H1-4 or H2-4). The minimal follow-up for a conclusive outcome evaluation following open anatomic major resection must be 3 months. Conclusion: These new benchmark cutoffs for open major hepatectomy provide a powerful tool to convincingly evaluate other approaches including parenchymal-sparing procedures, laparoscopic/robotic approaches, and alternative treatments, such as ablation therapy, irradiation, or novel chemotherapy regimens.

AbstractBackgroundHepatectomy is standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases; however, it is unclear whether liver metastases from other primary cancers should be resected or not. The Japanese Society of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Surgery therefore created clinical practice guidelines for the management of metastatic liver tumors.MethodsEight primary diseases were selected based on the number of hepatectomies performed for each malignancy per year. Clinical questions were structured in the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) format. Systematic reviews were performed, and the strength of recommendations and the level of quality of evidence for each clinical question were discussed and determined. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.ResultsThe eight primary sites were grouped into five categories based on suggested indications for hepatectomy and consensus of the guidelines committee. Fourteen clinical questions were devised, covering five topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) operative treatment, (3) ablation therapy, (4) the eight primary diseases, and (5) systemic therapies. The grade of recommendation was strong for one clinical question and weak for the other 13 clinical questions. The quality of the evidence was moderate for two questions, low for 10, and very low for two.A flowchart was made to summarize the outcomes of the guidelines for the indications of hepatectomy and systemic therapy.ConclusionsThese guidelines were developed to provide useful information based on evidence in the published literature for the clinical management of liver metastases, and they could be helpful for conducting future clinical trials to provide higher‐quality evidence.

Background. Critically ill cirrhotic patients are increasingly transplanted, but there is no consensus about futile liver transplantation (LT). Therefore, the decision to delay or deny LT is often extensively debated. These debates arise from different opinions of futility among transplant team members. This study aims to achieve a multinational and multidisciplinary consensus on the definition of futility in LT and to develop well-articulated criteria for not proceeding with LT due to futility. Methods. Thirty-five international experts from anesthesiology/intensive care, hepatology, and transplant surgery were surveyed using the Delphi method. More than 70% of similar answers to a question were necessary to define agreement. Results. The panel recommended patient and graft survival at 1 year after LT to define futility. Severe frailty and persistent fever or <72 hours of appropriate antimicrobial therapy in case of ongoing sepsis were considered reasons to delay LT. A simple assessment of the number of organs failing was considered the most appropriate way to decide whether LT should be delayed or denied, with respiratory, circulatory and metabolic failures having the most influence in this decision. The thresholds of severity of organ failures contraindicating LT for which a consensus was achieved were a Pa o 2 /FiO2 ratio<150 mm Hg, a norepinephrine dose >1 μg/kg per minute and a serum lactate level >9 mmol/L. Conclusions. Our expert panel provides a consensus on the definition of futile LT and on specific criteria for postponing or denying LT. A framework that may facilitate the decision if a patient is too sick for transplant is presented.

Objective: The European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery was held in Southampton on February 10 and 11, 2017 with the aim of presenting and validating clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery. Background: The exponential growth of laparoscopic liver surgery in recent years mandates the development of clinical practice guidelines to direct the speciality's continued safe progression and dissemination. Methods: A unique approach to the development of clinical guidelines was adopted. Three well-validated methods were integrated: the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology for the assessment of evidence and development of guideline statements; the Delphi method of establishing expert consensus, and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument for the assessment of the methodological quality and external validation of the final statements. Results: Along with the committee chairman, 22 European experts; 7 junior experts and an independent validation committee of 11 international surgeons produced 67 guideline statements for the safe progression and dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery. Each of the statements reached at least a 95% consensus among the experts and were endorsed by the independent validation committee. Conclusion: The European Guidelines Meeting for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery has produced a set of clinical practice guidelines that have been independently validated for the safe development and progression of laparoscopic liver surgery. The Southampton Guidelines have amalgamated the available evidence and a wealth of experts’ knowledge taking in consideration the relevant stakeholders’ opinions and complying with the international methodology standards.