The conventional incision for donor hepatectomy is a right subcostal incision with a midline extension. With increased experience in both donor hepatectomy and laparoscopy, the conventional incision can be shortened to a significant extent. Laparoscopic mobilization of the liver coupled with a hand port allows the insertion of one hand inside the abdomen for control; this makes small-incision donor hepatectomy a technically feasible alternative. We compared 26 right lobe donor hepatectomies performed with a laparoscopy-assisted technique (the laparoscopy-assisted donor hepatectomy group) to 24 donor hepatectomies performed with the conventional open technique (the conventional donor hepatectomy group). The donors in both groups and their recipients were followed for 6 months. Pain, discomfort related to the scar [including abdominal wall sensorineural deficits (numbness and differences in tactile and temperature sensations) and tightness around the scar], and donor quality of life (assessed with the International Quality of Life Assessment Short Form 8 scoring system) were compared between the 2 groups. In conclusion, laparoscopy-assisted surgery can be a technically feasible alternative in experienced hands, and as with other minimally invasive surgeries, it has advantages such as significantly less pain, reduced incision-related complications, and better donor quality of life during the early postoperative period without compromising donor safety.

Background Transfusion management during liver transplantation (LT) is aimed at reducing blood loss and allogeneic transfusion requirements. Although prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) has been used satisfactorily in various bleeding disorders, studies on its safety, and efficacy during LT are limited. Methods A retrospective chart review of adult patients who underwent living donor LT at a single institute between October 2016 and January 2018 was carried out. The safety and efficacy of PCC in reducing transfusion requirements intraoperatively in patients who received PCC were compared with patients who did not receive PCC. A propensity score‐matching technique was used, at a 1:1 ratio, to remove selection bias. Results After completing the 1:1 propensity score‐matched analysis, 60 pairs of patients were identified. The use of PCC was associated with significantly decreased red blood cell transfusion requirements (6.2 ± 4.1 vs 8.23 ± 5.18, P < 0.001) and fresh frozen plasma transfusion requirements (2.6 ± 2 vs 6.18 ± 4.1, P < 0.001). The number of patients developing postoperative hemorrhagic complications was higher in the non‐PCC group. Conclusions During LT, the use of PCC led to decreased transfusion requirements. No thromboembolic complications related to PCC were noted in this series.

Biliary complications are regarded as the Achilles' heel of liver transplantation, especially for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) due to smaller, multiple ducts and difficult ductal anatomy. Overall biliary complications reported in most series are between 10% and 30%. This study describes our modified technique of biliary anastomosis and its effects on incidence of biliary complications. This was a single‐center retrospective study of 148 adult LDLT recipients between December 2011 and June 2014. Group 1 (n = 40) consisted of the first 40 patients for whom the standard technique of biliary anastomosis (minimal hilar dissection during donor duct division, high hilar division of the recipient bile duct, and preservation of the recipient duct periductal tissue) was used. Group 2 (n = 108) consisted of 108 patients for whom biliary anastomosis was done with the addition of corner‐sparing sutures and mucosal eversion of the recipient duct to the standard technique. Primary outcome measures included biliary complications (biliary leaks and strictures). Biliary complications occurred in 7/40 patients in group 1 (17.5%) and in 4/108 patients in group 2 (3.7%). The technical factors mentioned above are aimed at preserving the blood supply of the donor and recipient ducts and hold the key for minimizing biliary complications in adult‐to‐adult LDLT. Liver Transpl 22:14‐23, 2016. © 2015 AASLD.

It is believed that antiviral prophylaxis decreases the incidence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation and disease. There are few data regarding weekly assays for CMV DNA after transplantation and the subsequent management of CMV. Here we report a cohort of living related liver transplantation (LRLT) patients who were treated for invasive CMV disease or for CMV infections if they were receiving steroids for rejection. Patients who underwent liver transplantation at our center between September 2006 and August 2010 and were recipient-positive/donor-positive (R þ /D þ ) were prospectively included. Patients were tested for CMV DNA 3 weeks after transplantation. CMV DNA-positive patients underwent weekly DNA monitoring until there were 2 consecutive negative reports. Those who developed CMV disease or had rising DNA titers while they were on treatment for rejection were treated. A Cox regression analysis was performed for factors predicting survival. Two hundred sixty-six of the 306 R þ /D þ patients were CMV DNA-negative 3 weeks after transplantation, and 40 had detectable DNA. One of the DNA-negative patients developed CMV disease after treatment for rejection with methylprednisolone. Thirty patients had <500 copies/mL, and 10 had !500 copies/mL. Two of the 30 patients with DNA levels < 500 copies/mL developed CMV disease. Six of the 10 patients with DNA levels !500 copies/mL developed disease. CMV disease occurred in 9 of the 306 patients (2.9%). One patient received treatment for a rise in DNA titers while he was receiving steroids. There was a significant correlation between steroid administration for acute cellular rejection (ACR) and CMV reactivation (P ¼ 0.003) and disease (P ¼ 0.002). A multivariate analysis showed that CMV reactivation/disease did not predict survival. There was no difference in survival between CMV DNA-positive patients and CMV DNA-negative patients (P ¼ 0.68). In conclusion, CMV reactivation is common after LRLT (13%), but the disease is rare (2.9%) without prophylaxis in CMV immunoglobulin G-positive recipients. The administration of steroids for ACR strongly correlates with CMV reactivation and disease. CMV reactivation and disease did not affect survival in our patient cohort. Liver Transpl 18:1448-1455, 2012. V C 2012 AASLD.Received March 17, 2012; accepted August 12, 2012.Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is regarded as a major problem after liver transplantation. Therefore, patients are routinely tested for CMV serology and CMV viremia before and after transplantation, respectively. It is believed that antiviral prophylaxis significantly decreases the incidence of CMV infection/reactivation and disease.1-4 Many transplant centers routinely administer antiviral prophylaxis to all patients at risk for CMV disease after organ transplantation. The 2 basic approaches to preventing CMV disease are universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy. With the prophylactic approach, antiviral Address reprint requests to Subash Gupta, M.S