Recipient death, donation in emergency setting, age above 50, higher BMI, and prolonged hospital stay are factors that lead to impaired HRQOL following live liver donation. Despite this, 99% donors did not repent the decision to donate.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Acute liver failure caused by the ingestion of yellow phosphorus-containing rodenticide has been increasing in incidence over the last decade and is a common indication for emergency liver transplantation in Southern and Western India and other countries. Clear guidelines for its management are necessary, given its unpredictable course, potential for rapid deterioration and variation in clinical practice. Methods: A modified Delphi approach was used for developing consensus guidelines under the aegis of the Liver Transplantation Society of India. A detailed review of the published literature was performed. Recommendations for three areas of clinical practice, assessment and initial management, intensive care unit (ICU) management and liver transplantation, were developed. Results: The expert panel consisted of 16 clinicians, 3 nonclinical specialists and 5 senior advisory members from 11 centres. Thirty-one recommendations with regard to criteria for hospital admission and discharge, role of medical therapies, ICU management, evidence for extracorporeal therapies such as renal replacement therapy and therapeutic plasma exchange, early predictors of need for liver transplantation and perioperative care were developed based on published evidence and combined clinical experience. Conclusion: Development of these guidelines should help standardise care for patients with yellow phosphorus poisoning and identify areas for collaborative research.

Background: Robotic right donor hepatectomy (RDH) has been reported from experienced centers with reduced morbidity when compared to open RDH. However, outcomes in donors with large grafts/complex biliovascular anatomy are unknown.Methods: Out of 170 robotic RDH, 100 had one or more of the following: graft weight ≥800 g, type 2/3 portal vein, >1 bile duct or hepatic artery and inferior hepatic veins >5 mm requiring reconstruction (extended criteria donors [ExRDH]), while the remaining 70 had standard anatomy (SRDH). After propensity score matching, 66 ExRDH were compared with 66 SRDH. Additionally, all robotic RDH performed were analyzed in three temporal phases (60, 60, and 50).Results: Peak AST and ALT were higher amongst donors and recipients in the ExRDH arm compared to SRDH. Other intraoperative parameters and postoperative complications were similar between the two groups. During the last phase, donors demonstrated reduction in duration of surgery, postoperative complications, and hospital stay while recipients showed decreased blood loss and hospital stay. Conclusion:Robotic right hepatectomy performed in donors with extended criteria have similar perioperative outcomes as standard donors. However, a significant learning curve needs to be traversed. Further studies are required before safely recommending robotic RDH for all donors.

No abstract

Background In adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), venous drainage of the anterior sector is usually reconstructed on the bench to form a neo-middle hepatic vein (MHV). Reconstruction of the MHV for drainage of the anterior sector is crucial for optimal graft function. The conduits used for reconstruction include cryopreserved allografts, synthetic grafts, or the recipient portal vein. However, the ideal choice remains a matter of debate. This study compares the efficacy of the native recipient portal vein (RPV) with PTFE grafts for reconstruction of the neo-MHV. Methods Patients in this equivalence-controlled, parallel-group trial were randomized to either RPV (62 patients) or PTFE (60 patients) for use in the reconstruction of the neo-MHV. Primary endpoint was neo-MHV patency at 14 days and 90 days. Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality and post-transplant parameters as scored by predefined scoring systems. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of neo-MHV thrombosis at 14 days (RPV 6.5 per cent versus PTFE 10 per cent; P = 0.701) and 90 days (RPV 14.5 per cent versus PTFE 18.3 per cent; P = 0.745) between the two groups. Irrespective of the type of graft used for reconstruction, 90-day all-cause and sepsis-specific mortality was significantly higher among patients who developed neo-MHV thrombosis. Neo-MHV thrombosis and sepsis were identified as risk factors for mortality on Cox proportional hazards analysis. No harms or unintended side effects were observed in either group. Conclusion In adult LDLT using modified right lobe graft, use of either PTFE or RPV for neo-MHV reconstruction resulted in similar early patency rates. Irrespective of the type of conduit used for reconstruction, neo-MHV thrombosis is a significant risk factor for mortality. Registration number CTRI/2018/11/016315 (www.ctri.nic.in).

Robotic right live donor hepatectomy (r‐LDRH) has been reported with reduced morbidity compared to open donor right hepatectomy (o‐LDRH) in few recent series. Nevertheless, its routine use is debated. We present a large series comparing pure r‐LDRH with o‐LDRH. Consecutive r‐LDRH performed from June 2018 to June 2020 (n = 102) were compared with consecutive donors undergoing o‐LDRH (n = 152) from February 2016 to February 2018, a period when r‐LDRH was not available at this center. Propensity score matched (PSM) analysis of 89 case‐control pairs was additionally performed. Primary endpoints were length of high dependency unit (HDU) and hospital stay and Clavien‐Dindo graded complications among donors. Although r‐LDRH took longer to perform (540 vs. 462 min, P < .001), the postoperative peak transaminases levels (P < .001), the length of HDU (3 vs. 4 days, P < .001), and hospital stay (8 vs. 9 days, P < .001) were lower in in donors undergoing r‐LDRH. Clavien‐Dindo graded complications were similar (16.67% in r‐LDRH and 13.16% in o‐LDRH). The rates of early allograft dysfunction (1.6% vs. 3.3%), bile leak (14.7% vs. 10.7%), and 1‐year mortality (13.7% vs. 11.8%) were comparable between r‐LDRH and o‐LDRH recipients. PSM analysis yielded similar results between the groups. These data support the safety and feasibility of r‐LDRH in select donors.