Citations

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.

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.

After a virtual congress in 2021 and a previous absence in 2020 because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the 27th Annual Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society was held from May 4 to 7, 2022, in a hybrid format in Istanbul, with 1123 (58% on-site) liver transplant professionals from 61 countries attending the meeting. The hybrid format successfully achieved a balance of much yearned-for “in-person interaction” and global online participation. Almost 500 scientific abstracts were presented. In this report, the Vanguard Committee aims to present a summary of key invited lectures and selected abstracts for the liver transplant community.

After a 1-y absence due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the 26th Annual Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society was held from May 15 to 18, 2021, in a virtual format. Clinicians and researchers from all over the world came together to share their knowledge on all the aspects of liver transplantation (LT). Apart from a focus on LT in times of coronavirus disease 2019, featured topics of this year’s conference included infectious diseases in LT, living donation, machine perfusion, oncology, predictive scoring systems and updates in anesthesia/critical care, immunology, radiology, pathology, and pediatrics. This report presents highlights from invited lectures and a review of the select abstracts. The aim of this report, generated by the Vanguard Committee of International Liver Transplantation Society, is to provide a summary of the most recent developments in clinical practice and research in LT.

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).

The 25th Annual Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society was held in Toronto, Canada, from May 15 to 18, 2019. Surgeons, hepatologists, anesthesiologists, critical care intensivists, radiologists, pathologists, and research scientists from all over the world came together with the common aim of improving care and outcomes for liver transplant recipients and living donors. Some of the featured topics at this year’s conference included multidisciplinary perioperative care in liver transplantation, worldwide approaches to organ allocation, donor steatosis, and updates in pediatrics, immunology, and radiology. This report presents excerpts and highlights from invited lectures and select abstracts, reviewed and compiled by the Vanguard Committee of International Liver Transplantation Society. This will hopefully contribute to further advances in clinical practice and research in liver transplantation.