Citations

Abstract Background Machine perfusion represents the most significant breakthrough in liver transplantation (LT) since the discovery of cyclosporin. Yet, the optimal perfusion strategy remains unsettled. Randomized trials demonstrate that hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) improves graft survival and function and reduces ischemic cholangiopathy, whereas normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) decreases post-transplant injury. Real-world comparisons are lacking and challenging due to heterogeneity in donor-recipient risk profiles and regional differences. Aims To compare real-world outcomes of HOPE and NMP in LT. Methods We analyzed consecutive NMP-preserved LTs from seven North American centers between 2021 and 2024. We compared NMP to the European HOPE-REAL cohort, comprising HOPE-treated LTs from 22 centers between 2012 and 2021. Analyses were stratifyied by graft type and risk category and adjusted for donor age, donor risk index, and balance of risk score using entropy balancing. Results A total of 470 NMP and 1202 HOPE-treated grafts were analyzed, revealing major differences in risk profiles (Figure 1). In NMP, death-censored graft survivals at 1, 2, and 3 years were >95% in donation after brain death (DBD) and >94% in donation after circulatory death (DCD) grafts. Comparable outcomes were observed in the HOPE cohort with >93%, in DBD, and >87% in DCD after up to 3 years, despite significantly higher donor age and longer functional warm ischemia in the HOPE DCD cohort (Figure 2). After risk adjustment, death-censored graft survival remained similar between both modalities (Table 1). Non-anastomotic biliary stricture rates after DCD-LT were comparable (8.5% vs. 12.4%), independent of whether continuous or end-ischemic NMP was performed. Conclusion This first transatlantic real-world report demonstrates excellent outcomes with both NMP and HOPE despite higher graft risk in Europe. Machine perfusion is the new standard of care in LT, while further understanding is needed regarding the distinct benefits of each modality across risk profiles.Figure 1.Graft risk in NMP and HOPE stratified by graft type. Benchmark case was defined as primary transplant with MELD <20 and BAR score <9, extended criteria as either BMI >30kg/m2, donor age >65 years, CIT >12h. DCD grafts were categorized as definedFor image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text. Figure 2.Death-censored graft survival in liver transplantation following NMP and HOPE stratified by graft type. Abbreviations: NMP (Normothermic Machine Perfusion), HOPE (Hypothermic Oxygenated Perfusion), DBD (Donation after Brain Death), DCD (Donation after circulatory death)For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text. Table 1.Risk-adjusted comparison of death-censored graft survival between NMP and HOPE.For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.

Abstract Background Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging is increasingly incorporated into robotic liver resections (RLR), yet clinical practice regarding timing, dosage, and staining techniques is divergent. Aims This international expert survey aimed to characterize current practices for ICG in RLR. Methods Experts in RLR were invited to participate based on surgical volume (experience of 50 RLR and 30 annual RLR). A 74-item questionnaire was developed following a literature search and reviewed by a steering committee. The survey addressed indications, timing, dosage, imaging technology, benefits, limitations, training, and future directions of ICG use. Responses collected between September and October 2025 were analyzed. Results Seventy experts from 19 countries completed the survey, corresponding to an 88% response rate. Centers performed a median of 180 annual liver resections, including 55 RLR. Most experts used ICG (96%) during RLR. Anatomical demarcation (91%), tumor localization (60%), and biliary anatomy assessment (60%) were the most frequent indications. 60% of experts use preoperative ICG, while intraoperative ICG is mainly administered for demarcation (67%) and biliary tract visualization (40%). Considerable heterogeneity exists in dosage, timing, and staining techniques, particularly in cirrhotic livers and for tumor localization. Only half of the experts had standard operating procedures, whereas 64% expressed the need for a higher degree of standardization. Reported benefits of ICG use included improved anatomical orientation, margin assessment, lesion detection, and support during complex resections. Perceived limitations included background fluorescence, tissue penetration and variable staining in diseased parenchyma. 80% anticipated improved outcomes with combined ICG and three-dimensional image-guidance. Conclusion ICG fluorescence is widely used in RLR and is an important cornerstone for precision-guided robotic liver surgery. Standardized clinical practice guidelines, structured training, and technological improvements in imaging and navigation systems are claimed to optimize its clinical use.

Early allograft failure (EAF) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains a clinical challenge. Existing prediction models developed for deceased donor transplantation poorly apply to LDLT due to distinct surgical and physiological factors. This study identifies clinical determinants of EAF and develops an LDLT-specific prediction model. We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study from 17 high-volume LDLT centers (January 2016–December 2020) with external validation at a tertiary center in Saudi Arabia (January 2015–December 2022). The primary outcome was EAF (graft loss or patient death ≤90 d). Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression identified preoperative/intraoperative risk factors. The EAGLE-LDLT model was constructed using postoperative laboratory values. Performance was compared against established models (EAD, MEAF, A2ALL) using ROC analysis and decision curve analysis. The development cohort included 2944 adult LDLT recipients (67.7% male; median age 55 y; median MELD 14) with a 5.5% EAF rate. External validation included 1020 recipients (median MELD 21, 6.7% EAF). Independent risk factors for EAF were MELD (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04–1.08), donor BMI (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00–1.10), portal vein thrombosis (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.13–2.63), and hepaticojejunostomy (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06–2.36). The EAGLE-LDLT model incorporating peak ALT (>468 U/L), peak INR (>1.9), and bilirubin (>3.5 mg/dL) and INR (>1.3) at POD7, demonstrated superior discrimination (AUC=0.81) compared with MEAF (AUC=0.77, p =0.004), EAD (AUC=0.67, p <0.001), and A2ALL (AUC=0.65, p <0.001). EAGLE-LDLT achieved balanced sensitivity (75.0%) and specificity (73.7%), effectively stratifying patients into high-risk (15% of patients; 40.4% EAF incidence) and low-risk groups. Preoperative and intraoperative clinical factors predict EAF in LDLT. The EAGLE-LDLT model accurately identifies LDLT recipients at the highest risk for EAF postoperatively.

Importance Total pancreatectomy (TP) is indicated for advanced pancreatic cancer or multifocal tumors. Furthermore, TP may be performed to avoid the risk of pancreatic fistula in selected patients to improve the perioperative risk profile. Objective To define reference values for TP based on a low-risk cohort treated at expert centers. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter study analyzed outcomes from patients undergoing primary TP for malignant or benign lesions from 25 international expert centers from January 2017 to November 2023. Low-risk patients undergoing TP (LR-TP) were without vascular resections or significant comorbidities. Exposures TP. Main Outcomes and Measures Twenty reference values were derived from the 75th or the 25th percentile of the median values of all centers. Outcomes of LR-TP were compared with a cohort of TP with vascular resection, TP due to high-risk pancreatic anastomosis, and the benchmark values for low-risk pancreatoduodenectomy. Results Of 994 patients, 333 (33.5%; median [IQR] age, 66 [58-72] years; 171 male [51.4%]) qualified as the LR-TP cohort. Reference values included blood loss (≤1000 mL), major complications (≤37%), 3-month postoperative mortality (&amp;lt;6%), and retrieved lymph nodes (≥29). Compared with TP with vascular resections, reference cutoffs were not met for major complications (51% vs LR-TP ≤37%) and 90-day mortality (11% vs LR-TP ≤6%). For TP due to high-risk anastomosis, failure to rescue rate (38% vs ≤6%) and 90-day mortality (11% vs LR-TP ≤6%) were not met. Compared with pancreatoduodenectomy, reference values for postoperative mortality were 3 times higher for LR-TP (≤2% vs ≤6%) and less for resected lymph nodes (≥16 vs ≥29). Conclusions and Relevance This case-control study provided global reference values for TP, indicating significantly higher postoperative morbidity and mortality compared with pancreatoduodenectomy. Perioperative morbidity of TP was especially increased in patients with vascular resections. These reference values can serve for quality control of pancreatic surgery.

Background. Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) affects outcomes in liver transplantation (LT). Existing risk models developed for deceased-donor LT depend on posttransplant factors and fall short in living-donor LT (LDLT), where pretransplant evaluations are crucial for preventing EAD and justifying the donor’s risks. Methods. This retrospective study analyzed data from 2944 adult patients who underwent LDLT at 17 centers between 2016 and 2020. We developed a logistic regression model to predict EAD based on this development cohort. We used data from 1020 patients at the King Faisal Transplant Center for external validation. Results. In the development cohort, 321 patients (10.9%) experienced EAD. These patients had poorer health status, more liver decompensation, and higher requirements of hospitalization than those without EAD. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent pretransplant predictors of EAD: laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.09), the necessity for hospitalization at the time of transplant (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 2.00-3.30), and graft weight in kilogram (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.17-0.45). Using these predictors, we developed the model for EAD after LDLT, which demonstrated strong discriminative ability in the development cohort with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.68-0.74). The model maintained high discrimination during internal validation (AUC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.73) and showed a modest reduction in discriminative power in external validation (AUC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.61-0.68). Conclusions. EAD post-LDLT is influenced by the recipient’s pretransplant health condition and the graft weight. Integrating the model for EAD after LDLT into the pretransplant process of pairing donors and recipients can enhance the safety and efficacy of LDLT.

Objective: To define benchmark values for adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Background: LDLT utilizes living-donor hemiliver grafts to expand the donor pool and reduce waitlist mortality. Although references have been established for donor hepatectomy, no such information exists for recipients to enable conclusive quality and comparative assessments. Methods: Patients undergoing LDLT were analyzed in 15 high-volume centers (≥10 cases/year) from 3 continents over 5 years (2016–2020), with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Benchmark criteria included a Model for End-stage Liver Disease ≤20, no portal vein thrombosis, no previous major abdominal surgery, no renal replacement therapy, no acute liver failure, and no intensive care unit admission. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of all centers’ medians. Results: Of 3636 patients, 1864 (51%) qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cutoffs, including posttransplant dialysis (≤4%), primary nonfunction (≤0.9%), nonanastomotic strictures (≤0.2%), graft loss (≤7.7%), and redo-liver transplantation (LT) (≤3.6%), at 1-year were below the deceased donor LT benchmarks. Bile leak (≤12.4%), hepatic artery thrombosis (≤5.1%), and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI ® ) (≤56) were above the deceased donor LT benchmarks, whereas mortality (≤9.1%) was comparable. The right hemiliver graft, compared with the left, was associated with a lower CCI ® score (34 vs 21, P < 0.001). Preservation of the middle hepatic vein with the right hemiliver graft had no impact neither on the recipient nor on the donor outcome. Asian centers outperformed other centers with CCI ® score (21 vs 47, P < 0.001), graft loss (3.0% vs 6.5%, P = 0.002), and redo-LT rates (1.0% vs 2.5%, P = 0.029). In contrast, non-benchmark low-volume centers displayed inferior outcomes, such as bile leak (15.2%), hepatic artery thrombosis (15.2%), or redo-LT (6.5%). Conclusions: Benchmark LDLT offers a valuable alternative to reduce waitlist mortality. Exchange of expertise, public awareness, and centralization policy are, however, mandatory to achieve benchmark outcomes worldwide.

Background: In patients with neuroendocrine liver metastasis (NELM), liver transplantation (LT) is an alternative to liver resection (LR), although the choice of therapy remains controversial. In this multicenter study, we aim to provide novel insight in this dispute. Methods: Following a systematic literature search, 15 large international centers were contacted to provide comprehensive data on their patients after LR or LT for NELM. Survival analyses were performed with the Kaplan-Meier method, while multivariable Cox regression served to identify factors influencing survival after either transplantation or resection. Inverse probability weighting and propensity score matching was used for analyses with balanced and equalized baseline characteristics. Results: Overall, 455 patients were analyzed, including 230 after LR and 225 after LT, with a median follow-up of 97 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 85–110 months]. Multivariable analysis revealed G3 grading as a negative prognostic factor for LR [hazard ratio (HR)=2.22, 95% CI: 1.04–4.77, P=0.040], while G2 grading (HR=2.52, 95% CI: 1.15–5.52, P=0.021) and LT outside Milan criteria (HR=2.40, 95% CI: 1.16–4.92, P=0.018) were negative prognostic factors in transplanted patients. Inverse probability-weighted multivariate analyses revealed a distinct survival benefit after LT. Matched patients presented a median overall survival (OS) of 197 months (95% CI: 143–not reached) and a 73% 5-year OS after LT, and 119 months (95% CI: 74–133 months) and a 52.8% 5-year OS after LR (HR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.3–0.9, P=0.022). However, the survival benefit after LT was lost if patients were transplanted outside Milan criteria. Conclusions: This multicentric study in patients with NELM demonstrates a survival benefit of LT over LR. This benefit depends on adherence to selection criteria, in particular low-grade tumor biology and Milan criteria, and must be balanced against potential risks of LT.

Objective: To define benchmark values for liver transplantation (LT) in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) enabling unbiased comparisons. Background: Transplantation for PHC is used with reluctance in many centers and even contraindicated in several countries. Although benchmark values for LT are available, there is a lack of specific data on LT performed for PHC. Methods: PHC patients considered for LT after Mayo-like protocol were analyzed in 17 reference centers in 2 continents over the recent 5-year period (2014–2018). The minimum follow-up was 1 year. Benchmark patients were defined as operated at high-volume centers (≥50 overall LT/year) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, with a tumor diameter <3 cm, negative lymph nodes, and with the absence of relevant comorbidities. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th to 25th percentiles of the median values of all benchmark centers. Results: One hundred thirty-four consecutive patients underwent LT after completion of the neoadjuvant treatment. Of those, 89.6% qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cutoffs were 90-day mortality ≤5.2%; comprehensive complication index at 1 year of ≤33.7; grade ≥3 complication rates ≤66.7%. These values were better than benchmark values for other indications of LT. Five-year disease-free survival was largely superior compared with a matched group of nodal negative patients undergoing curative liver resection (n=106) (62% vs 32%, P<0.001). Conclusion: This multicenter benchmark study demonstrates that LT offers excellent outcomes with superior oncological results in early stage PHC patients, even in candidates for surgery. This provocative observation should lead to a change in available therapeutic algorithms for PHC.

The presence of an intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) in a cirrhotic liver is a contraindication for liver transplantation in most centers worldwide. Recent investigations have shown that “very early” iCCA (single tumors ≤2 cm) may have acceptable results after liver transplantation. This study further evaluates this finding in a larger international multicenter cohort. The study group was composed of those patients who were transplanted for hepatocellular carcinoma or decompensated cirrhosis and found to have an iCCA at explant pathology. Patients were divided into those with “very early” iCCA and those with “advanced” disease (single tumor >2 cm or multifocal disease). Between January 2000 and December 2013, 81 patients were found to have an iCCA at explant; 33 had separate nodules of iCCA and hepatocellular carcinoma, and 48 had only iCCA (study group). Within the study group, 15/48 (31%) constituted the “very early” iCCA group and 33/48 (69%) the “advanced” group. There were no significant differences between groups in preoperative characteristics. At explant, the median size of the largest tumor was larger in the “advanced” group (3.1 [2.5‐4.4] versus 1.6 [1.5‐1.8]). After a median follow‐up of 35 (13.5‐76.4) months, the 1‐year, 3‐year, and 5‐year cumulative risks of recurrence were, respectively, 7%, 18%, and 18% in the very early iCCA group versus 30%, 47%, and 61% in the advanced iCCA group, P = 0.01. The 1‐year, 3‐year, and 5‐year actuarial survival rates were, respectively, 93%, 84%, and 65% in the very early iCCA group versus 79%, 50%, and 45% in the advanced iCCA group, P = 0.02. Conclusion: Patients with cirrhosis and very early iCCA may become candidates for liver transplantation; a prospective multicenter clinical trial is needed to further confirm these results. (H epatology 2016;64:1178‐1188)