Citations

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.

Objective: To establish international benchmark values for relevant outcome parameters in robotic Whipple. Summary Background Data: For safe adoption of surgical innovation, robust quality control is essential. Benchmarking is a validated tool for assessing surgical performance. Recent international consensus identified establishing benchmark values for robotic Whipple as top priority. Methods: We analyzed consecutive patients undergoing robotic Whipple between 2020-2023 with a minimum one-year follow-up. Reference centers were required to perform ≥15 cases/year, be scientifically active in the field, and maintain a prospective database. Benchmark criteria included benign or resectable malignant disease without neoadjuvant therapy, arterial resection, major co-morbidities, or significant previous abdominal surgery. Benchmarks were established for 13 outcome parameters. Result: The benchmark cohort comprised 418 patients from 12 centers across four continents. Benchmark values were: conversion rate ≤4.3%, transfusion rate ≤2.1%, 6-month mortality ≤2.2%, major complications ≤23.2%, and CCI® ≤20.9. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) and hemorrhage (grade B/C) rates were ≤23.6% and ≤12.7%, respectively. For pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (n=123), the benchmark for lymph node yield was ≥20. Higher surgical difficulty was associated with increased overall postoperative morbidity (R 2 =0.38, P =0.019), higher center caseload with reduced pancreas-specific complications (R 2 =0.28, P =0.044). Independent POPF predictors included duct diameter ≤4 mm (OR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.82), anticoagulation (OR 2.45, 95% CI: 1.47, 3.99), and indication other than PDAC (OR 2.33, 95% CI: 1.68, 3.27). Conclusions: This study establishes the first international benchmarks for robotic Whipple, demonstrating oncologic outcomes and morbidity comparable to open surgery with the benefits of minimally invasive surgery.

Objective: To establish comprehensive recommendations on the management of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) and to identify areas in need of future investigation. Summary Background Data: The lack of consensus in management of pCCA across institutions worldwide impairs optimal patient care and best-achievable oncological outcome. A holistic and critical assessment of the body of evidence and collaborative guidance are required. Methods: The Consensus4pCCA conference developed unbiased consensus using the Zurich-Danish model. An impartial and multidisciplinary jury adopted comprehensive recommendations grounded on the work of eight expert panels answering predefined clinical questions and considering the best-quality evidence through a systematic review. The development of recommendations complied with GRADE and SIGN50 methodologies. Results: Seventy-one international experts considered 570 studies. Ten jury members concluded 71 recommendations covering definition and diagnosis, preoperative assessment and optimization, surgical resection, liver transplantation, and outcome reporting for pCCA patients. The consensus underscored that making patients amenable to high-quality curative resection and reducing its associated morbidity must be of highest priority. As such, multidisciplinary expertise and centralized care at all stages of disease management are critical to ensure both safety and oncological adequacy. To overcome the evidence-gap for rare diseases like pCCA, the jury urged large-scale registries to address open questions across the disease continuum and highlighted priorities for future investigation. Conclusion: The Consensus4pCCA represents an unprecedented commitment to collectively harmonize global treatment strategies for pCCA. This collective effort bridges the gap between expert opinions and clinical evidence and holds great promise to improve patient outcomes in the future.

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.

Abstract Background Robotic Whipple holds the promise to overcome safety concerns associated with laparoscopy, paving the way for widespread implementation of minimal-invasive surgery in this complex procedure. However, randomized data comparing robot vs. open Whipple demonstrate more pancreas-specific complications and R1-resections in the robotic arm. Recent international consensus identified establishing benchmarks as critical to ensure safe adoption of the robot. Benchmarking is a validated quality improvement tool, enabling comparison of surgical performance. Aims The aim was to define benchmarks for outcome parameters in robotic Whipple. Methods We analyzed consecutive patients undergoing robotic Whipple from January 2020 until December 2023 in 11 centers across 4 continents, with a minimum one-year follow-up. Centers had to perform ≥15 cases/year and have mounted their learning curve. Benchmark criteria included benign or resectable malignant disease without neoadjuvant therapy, arterial resection, major co-morbidities, or significant previous abdominal surgery. Medians across centers represented benchmark cutoffs. Results Eleven centers performed 1’037 Whipple procedures, of which 603 (58%) were benchmark cases. One third (n=192) were pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients. Key benchmarks at 6 months included ≤1.2% mortality, ≤24.2% major complications, and ≤ 8.7 points Comprehensive Complication Index®. Pancreas-specific cutoffs included ≤13.0% postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) B/C and ≤3.4% post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage B/C, with 100% R0-resection and ≥19 harvested lymph nodes in PDAC patients. One-year actuarial overall and recurrence-free survival was 87% and 77%. In the entire cohort POPF B/C occurred in 16% (n=195). Independent POPF predictors included duct diameter ≤4mm (OR 1.79 95%CI [1.27-2.55]), anticoagulation (OR 3.68 95%CI [2.14-6.24]), and indication other than PDAC (OR 3.17, 95%CI [2.13-4.85]). Conclusion This study establishes benchmarks for key outcomes in robotic Whipple, demonstrating oncologic adequacy and morbidity comparable to open surgery. Risk factors for POPF in open surgery also hold true in the robotic approach.

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: The REDISCOVER consensus conference aimed at developing and validating guidelines on the perioperative care of patients with borderline-resectable (BR-) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Background: Coupled with improvements in chemotherapy and radiation, the contemporary approach to pancreatic surgery supports the resection of BR-PDAC and, to a lesser extent, LA-PDAC. Guidelines outlining the selection and perioperative care for these patients are lacking. Methods: The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used to develop the REDISCOVER guidelines and create recommendations. The Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus (agreement ≥80%) among experts. Recommendations were approved after a debate and vote among international experts in pancreatic surgery and pancreatic cancer management. A Validation Committee used the AGREE II-GRS tool to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Moreover, an independent multidisciplinary advisory group revised the statements to ensure adherence to nonsurgical guidelines. Results: Overall, 34 recommendations were created targeting centralization, training, staging, patient selection for surgery, possibility of surgery in uncommon scenarios, timing of surgery, avoidance of vascular reconstruction, details of vascular resection/reconstruction, arterial divestment, frozen section histology of perivascular tissue, extent of lymphadenectomy, anticoagulation prophylaxis, and role of minimally invasive surgery. The level of evidence was however low for 29 of 34 clinical questions. Participants agreed that the most conducive means to promptly advance our understanding in this field is to establish an international registry addressing this patient population (https://rediscover.unipi.it/). Conclusions: The REDISCOVER guidelines provide clinical recommendations pertaining to pancreatectomy with vascular resection for patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC, and serve as the basis of a new international registry for this patient population.

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.