Citations

Purpose of review Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is the extreme manifestation of acute renal dysfunction in patients with cirrhosis, resulting from systemic vasodilation and renal vasoconstriction, leading to a reduction in the glomerular filtration rate. Recent findings The diagnostic criteria redefined diagnostic criteria for HRS-AKI (Hepatorenal syndrome -Acute kidney injury) as our understanding of disease progression has improved. This understanding of the HRS disease process guides current management, with the combination of intravascular volume expansion and vasoconstrictor therapy being the cornerstone of treatment. In addition to treatment selection, timing of treatment initiation, duration, dosage, and monitoring during treatment are decisive factors in HRS outcomes. Pathogenesis of HRS-AKI may be different in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) in comparison to decompensated cirrhosis. Unfortunately, outcomes remain poor with medical therapies alone and a high risk of disease recurrence exists for HRS-AKI with persistence of the cirrhotic milieu. Liver transplantation remains the only definitive treatment of HRS-AKI. Given the critical nature of HRS-AKI, a multidisciplinary approach involving hepatologists, nephrologists, and intensive care physicians is essential for optimal clinical management. Summary Patients with HRS-AKI should be managed ideally in tertiary care centers and referred for liver transplantation promptly when eligible.

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.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an established therapy with curative intent for pediatric and adult patients with acute liver failure and end-stage liver disease. Donor safety remains paramount and commences during preoperative evaluation and assessment. Given the importance of the topic, the International Liver Transplantation Society and International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group consensus conference on Living Liver Donor Safety was convened in March 2025 (Toronto, Canada). Recommendations were based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system for assessment of recommendations, and the Danish model of consensus was followed. This report presents 28 recommendations from the working group focused on addressing clinically relevant questions related to the preoperative aspects of living donor safety including assessment of donor acceptability (age, body mass index and hepatic steatosis; medical conditions and contraindications), medical and surgical workup (liver function and procoagulant workup; anatomical considerations and safe remnant), and psychosocial evaluation (timing and team; underlying conditions; non-directed, paired, and anonymous directed donors; urgent living donor workups for acute liver failure).

The success of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has bridged the growing gap between organ demand and availability in patients with liver failure or liver cancer. Safety of the living liver donor (LLD) is paramount, and astute intraoperative management plays a critical role in ensuring optimal outcomes for them. Given that intraoperative surgical and anesthesia practices vary widely across centers, the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS) and the International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group (iLDLT Group) convened a global consensus conference in Toronto in March 2025 to develop guidelines for intraoperative management of the LLD. This manuscript details the recommendations on intraoperative considerations for the safety of LLD developed by Working Group II 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. Working Group II focused on intraoperative monitoring, fluid and ventilation strategies, surgical techniques for vascular and biliary division, surgeon and center-specific experience, and intraoperative crises planning. These guidelines aim to support both established and emerging LDLT teams to ensure high-quality and safe intraoperative care for the LLD.

Living liver donation is a critical component for addressing organ shortage and improving outcomes for patients with end-stage liver disease. As the prevalence of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) increases worldwide, understanding and optimizing long-term donor health is paramount. The 2025 International Liver Transplantation Society and International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS-iLDLT) Consensus Conference convened experts in the field of liver transplantation to establish evidence-based guidelines focused on the long-term medical, psychological, and social considerations following living liver donation. The aim of this working group was to integrate current evidence and expert consensus on donor follow-up protocols, risk assessment, and management strategies to promote long-term donor health, quality of life, and living liver donor programs globally to safeguard the welfare of this unique population.

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.

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.