Citations

ABSTRACT Background Implementation of remote robotic‐assisted surgery (rRAS) has the potential to significantly improve access to high‐quality surgical care for patients worldwide. Advances in robotic systems and telecommunications now enable highly reliable, low latency, and cybersecure connectivity. These technological developments, together with the broader adoption of telemedicine, have driven an increasing interest in the implementation of rRAS. Methods The Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (CRSA) convened a conference to develop international clinical recommendations for rRAS using the Danish Model of Consensus. The society identified five key issue categories and invited a panel of experts to address specific questions for each. Panel members and a jury of 10 unbiased, non‐expert in rRAS professionals participated in a day‐long conference on November 19, 2025 (Los Angeles, USA). During the conference, participants presented, discussed, and reached consensus on specific guidelines relevant to each category. Immediately after the conference, the jury reviewed and approved the recommended guidelines. Results Multiple recommendations were approved for each of the following categories: Operating Models, Roles and Responsibilities (2 recommendations), Clinical Pathway (2 recommendations), Emergency Management (8 recommendations), Technical Considerations (5 recommendations), and Medico‐legal and Ethical Considerations (4 recommendations). Conclusions There was consensus that with recent advances in telecommunication and robotic technologies, rRAS can be offered safely and effectively if the identified safeguards are realized. Adoption of rRAS is expected to continue advancing rapidly.

Background. The adoption of technical variant grafts has expanded the donor pool for pediatric liver transplantation, but it also poses a risk of portal vein thrombosis (PVT). This study evaluated risk and prognostic factors of PVT in children undergoing liver transplantation with technical variant grafts. Methods. A total of 3137 pediatric patients from 19 centers were included: 470 received split/reduced deceased donor grafts and 2667 received living donor grafts. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors, whereas time-dependent Cox models were used to assess the impact on survival. Results. PVT occurred in 102 patients (3.3%) and was associated with increased mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-7.25; P = 0.027) and graft loss (adjusted hazard ratio, 9.97; 95% CI, 4.90-20.3; P < 0.001). Risk factors included younger age, lower weight, higher Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease score, longer cold ischemia and operation times, higher graft-to-recipient weight ratio, increased red blood cell transfusions, and biliary atresia. After adjusting for center, lower weight (odds ratio, 0.84 per kg; 95% CI, 0.71-1.00; P = 0.047) and biliary atresia (odds ratio, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.10-5.00; P = 0.027) remained predictors. Five-year patient (88.4% versus 93.1%) and graft survival (82.7% versus 96.3%) were significantly inferior in patients with PVT. Conclusions. Low-weight children with biliary atresia constituted a high-risk group, highlighting the necessity for early detection and management.

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 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.

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.

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.

AbstractBackgroundMalnutrition is a known risk factor for postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT). Malnutrition is a potentially reversible risk factor, though there are no clear guidelines on the best mechanism for an improvement. It also remains unclear if preoperative nutritional interventions have benefits to post‐transplant outcomes for transplant recipients.ObjectivesPrimary objective: To identify if preoperative optimization of nutritional status is associated with improved short‐term outcomes after LT. Secondary Objectives: To determine if preoperative improvement of malnutrition improves short‐term outcomes after LT, as well as if weight loss in obese patients affects short‐term outcomes after LT.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.MethodsSystematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. POSPERO Protocol ID: CRD42021237450Results3851 records were identified in searching the databases, 3843 records were excluded by not fulfilling eligibility criteria. Seven full‐text articles were included for the final analysis of which three were randomized controlled trials, one was prospective observational studies, and three were retrospective observational studies. No appreciable difference in mortality, post‐transplant complication rate was noted across the studies. Length of stay (LOS) was noted to be shorter in two observational studies of Vitamin D deficiency in liver transplant patients.ConclusionsWe have made a weak recommendation supporting pre‐transplant nutritional supplementation due to possible benefit in reducing LOS as well as the lack of harm (Quality of Evidence low | Grade of Recommendation; Weak). No effective conclusions were reached for the secondary objectives due to the conflicting evidence.

AbstractBackgroundThe optimal analgesic strategy for patients undergoing donor hepatectomy is not known and the potential short‐ and long‐term physical and psychological consequences of complications are significant.ObjectivesTo identify whether a multimodal approach to pain of the donor intraoperatively enhances immediate and short‐term outcomes after living liver donation, and to provide international expert panel recommendations.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.MethodsSystematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021260699.ResultsNine studies assessing multi‐modal analgesia strategies were included in a qualitative assessment. Interventions included local, regional, and neuro‐axial anesthetic techniques, pharmacological intervention (NSAIDs, COX‐2 inhibitors, ketamine, dexmedetomidine, and lidocaine), and acupuncture. Overall, there was a significant (40%) reduction in opioid requirement on day 1 and a significant reduction in pain scores in the intervention vs control groups. Significant reductions in either length of stay or post‐operative complications were demonstrated in four of nine studies.ConclusionsOpioid use for patients undergoing donor hepatectomy is likely to impact both their short‐ and long‐term outcomes. To reduce post‐operative pain scores, shorten length of hospital stay, and promote earlier post‐operative return of bowel function, we recommend that multi‐modal analgesia be offered to patients undergoing living donor hepatectomy. Further research is required to confirm which multi‐modal techniques are most associated with enhanced recovery in living liver donors.

AbstractBackgroundIn the era of enhanced recovery after surgery, there is significant discussion regarding the impact of intraoperative anesthetic management on short‐term outcomes following liver transplantation (LT), with no clear consensus in the literature.ObjectivesTo identify whether or not intraoperative anesthetic management affects short‐term outcomes after liver transplantation.Data SourcesOvid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.MethodsA systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was undertaken. The systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021239758). An international expert panel made recommendations for clinical practice using the GRADE approach.ResultsAfter screening, 14 studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Six were prospective randomized clinical trials, three were prospective nonrandomized clinical trials, and five were retrospective studies. These manuscripts were reviewed to look at five questions regarding anesthetic care and its impact on short term outcomes following liver transplant. After review of the literature, the quality of evidence according to the following outcomes was as follows: intraoperative and postoperative morbidity and mortality (low), early allograft dysfunction (low), and hospital and ICU length of stay (moderate).ConclusionsFor optimal short term outcomes after liver transplantation, the panel recommends the use of volatile anesthetics in preference to total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) (Level of Evidence: Very low; Strength of Recommendation: Weak) and minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) versus bispectral index (BIS) for depth of anesthesia monitoring (Level of Evidence: Very low; Strength of Recommendation: Weak). Regarding ventilation and oxygenation, the panel recommends a restrictive oxygenation strategy targeting a PaO2 of 70–120 mmHg (10–14 kPa), a tidal volume of 6–8 ml/kg ideal body weight (IBW), administration of positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) tailored to patient intraoperative physiology, and recruitment maneuvers. (Level of evidence: Very low; Strength of Recommendation: Strong). Finally, the panel recommends the routine use of antiemetic prophylaxis. (Level of evidence: low; Strength of Recommendation: Strong).