The liver possesses the unique ability to regenerate within a short period of time, a feature that has led to the development of innovative strategies in liver surgery and transplantation. This review presents both established and novel methods for manipulating liver volume to attain improved liver surgery and transplantation.

The use of laparoscopy for liver surgery is increasing rapidly. The Second International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resections (LLR) was held in Morioka, Japan, from October 4 to 6, 2014 to evaluate the current status of laparoscopic liver surgery and to provide recommendations to aid its future development. Seventeen questions were addressed. The first 7 questions focused on outcomes that reflect the benefits and risks of LLR. These questions were addressed using the Zurich-Danish consensus conference model in which the literature and expert opinion were weighed by a 9-member jury, who evaluated LLR outcomes using GRADE and a list of comparators. The jury also graded LLRs by the Balliol Classification of IDEAL. The jury concluded that MINOR LLRs had become standard practice (IDEAL 3) and that MAJOR liver resections were still innovative procedures in the exploration phase (IDEAL 2b). Continued cautious introduction of MAJOR LLRs was recommended. All of the evidence available for scrutiny was of LOW quality by GRADE, which prompted the recommendation for higher quality evaluative studies. The last 10 questions focused on technical questions and the recommendations were based on literature review and expert panel opinion. Recommendations were made regarding preoperative evaluation, bleeding controls, transection methods, anatomic approaches, and equipment. Both experts and jury recognized the need for a formal structure of education for those interested in performing major laparoscopic LLR because of the steep learning curve.

Widespread application of cadaveric split or living donor liver transplantation bears considerable potential to increase the pool of available organs and thus alleviate the problem of organ shortage. Although splitting of a cadaveric liver into two grafts for adult recipients can be performed successfully, sufficient function of undersized grafts is a major concern. To minimize the risk for living donors, transplant surgeons aim at procuring the least necessary liver volume, also leading to potentially small grafts. When small partial grafts are unable to meet the functional demands, the recipients can develop a so-called small-for-size syndrome (SFSS). There is currently limited data on the pathogenesis of SFSS, with clinical studies mainly focusing on portal hyperperfusion. Additional aspects include graft-related factors such as functional and regenerative capacity, as well as recipient-related factors, such as overall health status and severity of cirrhosis. However, there is currently no consensus on the definition of SFSS. We propose a novel definition, based on simple clinical criteria, which divides the syndrome into either nonfunction or dysfunction of a small graft after the exclusion of other causes. This definition should ease comparability of future clinical trials, and thus improve understanding of the pathogenesis of SFSS.

Objectives: To design a new score on risk assessment for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) based on both donor and recipient parameters. Background: The balance of waiting list mortality and posttransplant outcome remains a difficult task in the era of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD). Methods: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, a risk analysis was performed in adult recipients of OLT in the United States of America between 2002 and 2010 (n = 37,255). Living donor-, partial-, or combined-, and donation after cardiac death liver transplants were excluded. Next, a risk score was calculated (balance of risk score, BAR score) on the basis of logistic regression factors, and validated using our own OLT database (n = 233). Finally, the new score was compared with other prediction systems including donor risk index, survival outcome following liver transplantation, donor-age combined with MELD, and MELD score alone. Results: Six strongest predictors of posttransplant survival were identified: recipient MELD score, cold ischemia time, recipient age, donor age, previous OLT, and life support dependence prior to transplant. The new balance of risk score stratified recipients best in terms of patient survival in the United Network for Organ Sharing data, as in our European population. Conclusions: The BAR system provides a new, simple and reliable tool to detect unfavorable combinations of donor and recipient factors, and is readily available before decision making of accepting or not an organ for a specific recipient. This score may offer great potential for better justice and utility, as it revealed to be superior to recent developed other prediction scores.