Citations

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.

Background. When a partial liver graft is unable to meet the demands of the recipient, a clinical phenomenon, small-for-size syndrome (SFSS), may ensue. Clear definition, diagnosis, and management are needed to optimize transplant outcomes. Methods. A Consensus Scientific committee (106 members from 21 countries) performed an extensive literature review on specific aspects of SFSS, recommendations underwent blinded review by an independent panel, and discussion/voting on the recommendations occurred at the Consensus Conference. Results. The ideal graft-to-recipient weight ratio of ≥0.8% (or graft volume standard liver volume ratio of ≥40%) is recommended. It is also recommended to measure portal pressure or portal blood flow during living donor liver transplantation and maintain a postreperfusion portal pressure of <15 mm Hg and/or portal blood flow of <250 mL/min/100 g graft weight to optimize outcomes. The typical time point to diagnose SFSS is the postoperative day 7 to facilitate treatment and intervention. An objective 3-grade stratification of severity for protocolized management of SFSS is proposed. Conclusions. The proposed grading system based on clinical and biochemical factors will help clinicians in the early identification of patients at risk of developing SFSS and institute timely therapeutic measures. The validity of this newly created grading system should be evaluated in future prospective studies.

Background. During the perioperative period of living donor liver transplantation, anesthesiologists and intensivists may encounter patients in receipt of small grafts that puts them at risk of developing small for size syndrome (SFSS). Methods. A scientific committee (106 members from 21 countries) performed an extensive literature review on aspects of SFSS with proposed recommendations. Recommendations underwent a blinded review by an independent expert panel and discussion/voting on the recommendations occurred at a consensus conference organized by the International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplantation Society of India. Results. It was determined that centers with experience in living donor liver transplantation should utilize potential small for size grafts. Higher risk recipients with sarcopenia, cardiopulmonary, and renal dysfunction should receive small for size grafts with caution. In the intraoperative phase, a restrictive fluid strategy should be considered along with routine use of cardiac output monitoring, as well as use of pharmacologic portal flow modulation when appropriate. Postoperatively, these patients can be considered for enhanced recovery and should receive proactive monitoring for SFSS, nutrition optimization, infection prevention, and consideration for early renal replacement therapy for avoidance of graft congestion. Conclusions. Our recommendations provide a framework for the optimal anesthetic and critical care management in the perioperative period for patients with grafts that put them at risk of developing SFSS. There is a significant limitation in the level of evidence for most recommendations. This statement aims to provide guidance for future research in the perioperative management of SFSS.

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) is a well-recognized complication following liver transplantation (LT), with up to 20% developing this following living donor LT (LDLT). Preventing SFSS involves consideration of factors before the surgical procedure, including donor and recipient selection, and factors during the surgical procedure, including adequate outflow reconstruction, graft portal inflow modulation, and management of portosystemic shunts. International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplant Society of India Consensus Conference was convened in January 2023 to develop recommendations for the prediction and management of SFSS in LDLT. The format of the conference was based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. International experts in this field were allocated to 4 working groups (diagnosis, prevention, anesthesia, and critical care considerations, and management of established SFSS). The working groups prepared evidence-based recommendations to answer-specific questions considering the currently available literature. The working group members, independent panel, and conference attendees served as jury to edit and confirm the final recommendations presented at the end of the conference by each working group separately. This report presents the final statements and evidence-based recommendations provided by working group 2 that can be implemented to prevent SFSS in LDLT patients.

Abstract Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a growing indication for liver transplant whether the primary or secondary cause of liver disease, and it is expected to be the leading indication in the years to come. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis recurs after transplant but the impact of the recurrence on allograft and patient outcomes is unclear. A group of multidisciplinary transplant practice providers convened at the International Liver Transplantation Society NASH consensus conference with the purpose of determining the current knowledge and future directions for understanding the recurrence rates, risk and management of NASH in the transplant allograft. Specific questions relating to posttransplant NASH were proposed and reviewed in detail with recommendations on future actions to fill the knowledge gaps.

Abstract Background Progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis (PFIC) results in liver cirrhosis during the disease course, although the etiology includes unknown mechanisms. Some PFIC patients require liver transplantation (LT). Methods In this study, 11 patients with PFIC type 1 (PFIC1) and 3 patients with PFIC type 2 (PFIC2) who underwent living‐donor LT (LDLT) were evaluated. Results Digestive symptoms after LDLT were confirmed in 10 PFIC1 recipients (90.9%); 8 PFIC1 recipients showed steatosis after LDLT (72.7%), which began during the early postoperative period (71.5 ± 55.1 days). Seven of the eight steatosis‐positive PFIC1 recipients (87.5%) showed a steatosis degree of ≥80%, which was complicated with steatohepatitis and resulted in fibrosis. Cirrhotic findings persisted in six PFIC1 recipients even after LDLT (54.5%), and three PFIC1 recipients finally died. The survival rates of the PFIC1 recipients at 5, 10, and 15 years were 90.9%, 72.7%, and 54.5%, respectively. In contrast, the PFIC2 recipients showed good courses and outcomes without any steatosis after LDLT. Conclusions The clinical courses and outcomes after LDLT are still not sufficient in PFIC1 recipients owing to steatosis/steatohepatitis and subsequent fibrosis, in contrast to PFIC2 recipients. PFIC2 is good indication for LDLT. PFIC1 patients require LT during the disease course; therefore, we suggest that the therapeutic strategies for PFIC1 patients, including the timing of LDLT, under the donor limitation should be reconsidered. The establishment of more advanced treatments for PFIC1 patients is required to improve the long‐term prognosis of these patients.