There is a paucity of Indian data on long-term survival after living donor liver transplant (LDLT) or the need for retransplant (re-LT). In this article, we report the first series of retransplants from India with focus on indications, technical challenges and results.

A retrospective study on 29 patients undergoing a liver retransplant (re-LT) was analysed with respect to survival outcomes and postoperative complications. Patients were divided into early and late retransplant groups based on whether re-LT was performed within or beyond 30 days of primary transplant.

Liver retransplant was performed in 29 (0.81%) patients out of a total of 3563 liver transplants (28 living donor and one deceased donor liver transplant). The primary transplant was an LDLT in 27 (93%) patients. Retransplant was performed at a median of 26 days after the first transplant. Re-LT was performed early (within 30 days) in 17 (59%) patients and late (beyond 30 days) in 12 (41%). Hepatic artery thrombosis (53%) and early graft dysfunction (47%) were the indications for early retransplant, while biliary complications (50%) and chronic rejection (33%) were primary indications for late retransplant. Postretransplant complications occurred in 22 (75%) patients, the commonest being gram-negative bacterial sepsis. The 30-day mortality after retransplant was 27% (8/29). The primary cause of mortality was gram-negative septicaemia. The mortality in the late retransplant group (2, 16.6%) was lower than in the early retransplant group (6, 35%).

Retransplant using living donors is a viable option in properly selected patients with prior LDLT.

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) remains a critical challenge in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), characterized by graft insufficiency due to inadequate liver volume, leading to significant postoperative morbidity and mortality. As the global adoption of LDLT increases, the ability to predict and manage SFSS has become paramount in optimizing recipient outcomes. This review provides a comprehensive examination of the pathophysiology, risk factors, and strategies for managing SFSS across the pre-, intra-, and postoperative phases. The pathophysiology of SFSS has evolved from being solely volume-based to incorporating portal hemodynamics, now recognized as small-for-flow syndrome. Key risk factors include donor-related parameters like age and graft volume, recipient-related factors such as MELD score and portal hypertension, and intraoperative factors related to venous outflow and portal inflow modulation. Current strategies to mitigate SFSS include careful graft selection based on graft-to-recipient weight ratio and liver volumetry, surgical techniques to optimize portal hemodynamics, and novel interventions such as splenic artery ligation and hemiportocaval shunts. Pharmacological agents like somatostatin and terlipressin have also shown promise in modulating portal pressure. Advances in 3D imaging and artificial intelligence-based volumetry further aid in preoperative planning. This review emphasizes the importance of a multifaceted approach to prevent and manage SFSS, advocating for standardized definitions and grading systems. Through an integrated approach to surgical techniques, hemodynamic monitoring, and perioperative management, significant strides can be made in improving the outcomes of LDLT recipients. Further research is necessary to refine these strategies and expand the application of LDLT, especially in challenging cases involving small-for-size grafts.

The indication of living donor liver retransplantation (re-LDLT) for retransplant candidates with chronic allograft failure (CAF) is increasing because of the high mortality rate of patients on the waiting list. However, evidence supporting re-LDLT for CAF remains scarce because of technical difficulties. We aimed to examine the feasibility based on our significant case experience.

A total of 95 retransplant cases (adult: 53, pediatric: 42) between 2000 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Graft survival after re-LDLT and deceased donor liver retransplantation (re-DDLT) was compared among recipients with CAF and acute allograft failure (AAF).

Re-LDLTs for CAF were performed in 58 (61.1%) cases, re-DDLTs for CAF in 16 (16.8%) cases, re-LDLTs for AAF in 13 (13.7%) cases, and re-DDLTs for AAF in 8 (8.4%) cases. Re-DDLTs have become increasingly prevalent over time. Retransplantation for AAF results in lower graft survival than that for CAF in both adult and pediatric cases. All adult recipients who underwent re-LDLT for AAF died within 1 y after retransplantation. The 5-y graft survival between re-LDLT and re-DDLT for CAF was not significantly different (73.8% versus 75.0%, P  = 0.84). Operation time and blood loss were not significantly different.

The survival rate of re-LDLT for recipients with CAF is permissible. Re-LDLT may be another treatment option for recipients with CAF.

The need for retransplantation after living donor liver transplantation can occur early, mainly because of technical difficulties such as hepatic artery thrombosis or as a result of early allograft dysfunction as a symptom of small-for-size syndrome. Patients with autoimmune diseases may develop progressive graft failure from recurrent disease. The ethics of retransplantation can be complicated by the cause of the initial liver disease, which may be self-inflicted or the outcome of malignancy. This is especially true in countries without the availability of deceased donors for salvage, and a second living donor would be needed. Nevertheless, patients who experience early or late graft failure should be considered for retransplant if they are deemed acceptable candidates. When a living donor is required for retransplant, the equipoise between donor risk and autonomy and recipient outcome should be considered.

There is no recent update on the clinical course of retransplantation (re-LT) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the US using recent national data. The UNOS database (2002-2023) was used to explore patient characteristics in initial LT, comparing deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and LDLT for graft survival (GS), reasons for graft failure, and GS after re-LT. It assesses waitlist dropout and re-LT likelihood, categorizing re-LT cohort based on time to re-listing as acute or chronic (≤ or > 1 mo). Of 132,323 DDLT and 5955 LDLT initial transplants, 3848 DDLT and 302 LDLT recipients underwent re-LT. Of the 302 re-LT following LDLT, 156 were acute and 146 chronic. Primary nonfunction (PNF) was more common in DDLT, although the difference was not statistically significant (17.4% vs. 14.8% for LDLT; p = 0.52). Vascular complications were significantly higher in LDLT (12.5% vs. 8.3% for DDLT; p < 0.01). Acute re-LT showed a larger difference in primary nonfunction between DDLT and LDLT (49.7% vs. 32.0%; p < 0.01). Status 1 patients were more common in DDLT (51.3% vs. 34.0% in LDLT; p < 0.01). In the acute cohort, Kaplan-Meier curves indicated superior GS after re-LT for initial LDLT recipients in both short-term and long-term ( p = 0.02 and < 0.01, respectively), with no significant difference in the chronic cohort. No significant differences in waitlist dropout were observed, but the initial LDLT group had a higher re-LT likelihood in the acute cohort (sHR 1.40, p < 0.01). A sensitivity analysis focusing on the most recent 10-year cohort revealed trends consistent with the overall study findings. LDLT recipients had better GS in re-LT than DDLT. Despite a higher severity of illness, the DDLT cohort was less likely to undergo re-LT.

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) is a well-recognized complication following liver transplantation (LT), with up to 20% developing this following living donor LT (LDLT). Preventing SFSS involves consideration of factors before the surgical procedure, including donor and recipient selection, and factors during the surgical procedure, including adequate outflow reconstruction, graft portal inflow modulation, and management of portosystemic shunts. International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplant Society of India Consensus Conference was convened in January 2023 to develop recommendations for the prediction and management of SFSS in LDLT. The format of the conference was based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. International experts in this field were allocated to 4 working groups (diagnosis, prevention, anesthesia, and critical care considerations, and management of established SFSS). The working groups prepared evidence-based recommendations to answer-specific questions considering the currently available literature. The working group members, independent panel, and conference attendees served as jury to edit and confirm the final recommendations presented at the end of the conference by each working group separately. This report presents the final statements and evidence-based recommendations provided by working group 2 that can be implemented to prevent SFSS in LDLT patients.

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) following living donor liver transplantation is a complication that can lead to devastating outcomes such as prolonged poor graft function and possibly graft loss. Because of the concern about the syndrome, some transplants of mismatched grafts may not be performed. Portal hyperperfusion of a small graft and hyperdynamic splanchnic circulation are recognized as main pathogenic factors for the syndrome. Management of established SFSS is guided by the severity of the presentation with the initial focus on pharmacological therapy to modulate portal flow and provide supportive care to the patient with the goal of facilitating graft regeneration and recovery. When medical management fails or condition progresses with impending dysfunction or even liver failure, interventional radiology (IR) and/or surgical interventions to reduce portal overperfusion should be considered. Although most patients have good outcomes with medical, IR, and/or surgical management that allow graft regeneration, the risk of graft loss increases dramatically in the setting of bilirubin >10 mg/dL and INR>1.6 on postoperative day 7 or isolated bilirubin >20 mg/dL on postoperative day 14. Retransplantation should be considered based on the overall clinical situation and the above postoperative laboratory parameters. The following recommendations focus on medical and IR/surgical management of SFSS as well as considerations and timing of retransplantation when other therapies fail.

Patients with liver graft failures have an extremely low chance of finding a cadaveric graft in countries with a scarcity of deceased donors. We compared the outcomes of liver re-transplantation with living-donor liver grafts (re-LDLT) and deceased-donor liver grafts (re-DDLT) in adult patients (>18 years).

The medical records of 1513 (1417 [93.6%] LDLT and 96 [6.3%] DDLT) patients who underwent liver transplantation at Memorial Hospital between January 2011 and October 2022 were reviewed. Forty patients (24 adults and 16 pediatric) were re-transplanted (2.84%); 24 adult patients (2.72%: 25 re-LDLT, 1 patient with second re-LDLT) were divided into 2 groups: re-DDLT (n = 6) and re-LDLT (n = 18). The groups were compared in demographics, pre-, peri-, postoperative characteristics, and outcomes.

The overall survival rates were 91.7%, 79.2%, 75.0%, and 75% for <30 days, 31 to 90 days, 1, and 3 years, respectively. The LDLT group was significantly younger (P = .022), had smaller graft weight (P = .03), shorter mechanical ventilation (P = .036) but longer operation time (P = .019), and hospitalization period (P = .003). The groups were otherwise comparable. There was no statistically significant difference in survival rates between the groups (P = .058), although the re-LDLT group had an evidently higher survival rate (88.9% and 83.3 % vs 50.0%).

Re-LDLT has shown comparable outcomes to re-DDLT, if not better (even not far from significance P = .058). These results may encourage performing re-LDLTs in patients with indications for re-LT without worrying about low chances of survival, especially in countries with limited sources of deceased donors.

The use of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for primary liver transplantation (LT) may quell concerns about allocating deceased donor organs if the need for retransplantation (re-LT) arises because the primary LT did not draw from the limited organ pool. However, outcomes of re-LT after LDLT are poorly studied. The purpose of this study was to analyze the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study (A2ALL) data to report outcomes of re-LT after LDLT, with a focus on long-term survival after re-LT.

A retrospective review of A2ALL data collected between 1998 and 2014 was performed. Patients were excluded if they received a deceased donor LT. Demographic data, postoperative outcomes and complications, graft and patient survival, and predictors of re-LT and patient survival were assessed.

Of the 1065 patients who underwent LDLT during the study time period, 110 recipients (10.3%) required re-LT. In multivariable analyses, hepatitis C virus, longer length of stay at LDLT, hepatic artery thrombosis, biliary stricture, infection, and disease recurrence were associated with an increased risk of re-LT. Patient survival among re-LT patients was significantly inferior to those who underwent primary transplant only at 1 (86% versus 92%), 5 (64% versus 82%), and 10 years (44% versus 68%).

Approximately 10% of A2ALL patients who underwent primary LDLT required re-LT. Compared with patients who underwent primary LT, survival among re-LT recipients was worse at 1, 5, and 10 years after LT, and re-LT was associated with a significantly increased risk of death in multivariable modeling (hazard ratios, 2.29; P < 0.001).

Liver retransplant is considered the only hope for patients with irreversible graft failure after primary transplant. In most Western centers, retransplantis done mainly from deceased donors; so far, only few published studies have reported on outcomes of liver retransplant with living donors. In this study, our aim was to analyze the outcomes of living-donor liver retransplant.

Patients who underwent liver retransplant between February 2011 and February 2019 were included in the study. Preoperative, operative, and postoperative data were analyzed. Results from 2 patient groups were compared: liver retransplant with living donors and liver retransplant with deceased donors.

Thirty-two patients underwent liver retransplant (21 adult and 11 pediatric patients). The most common indications for liver retransplant were hepatic artery thrombosis (28.5%) and primary graft nonfunction (23.8%) in adults and hepatic artery thrombosis (45.5%) and chronic rejection (36.4%) in pediatric patients. Seventeen retransplant patients (53.1%) required early retransplant (within 1 mo), mainly due to hepatic artery thrombosis (52.9%) and primary graft nonfunction (35.3%). Late retransplant was mainly due to chronic rejection (40%) and recurrence of primary disease (26.7%). Seventeen patients (53.1%) underwent living-donor retransplant, and 5 donors underwent robotic right hepatectomy. Graft and patient survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 81.3% for living-donor and 51.4% for deceased-donor liver retransplant recipients (P = .08). On multivariate analyses, we observed significant differences between both groups in pretransplant Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease scores (P = .05), preoperative international normalized ratio (P = .012), and cold ischemia time (P = .046).

The use of living donors for liver retransplant, despite its technical demand, was shown to be a safe and feasible option, especially when there is scarcity of deceased donors.