Background: Liver transplantation (LT) continues to evolve with techniques aimed at minimizing perioperative complications associated with caval and portal vein clamping. Caval-sparing approaches, such as the piggyback technique, preserve hemodynamic stability; however, portal clamping remains necessary and may trigger postreperfusion syndrome, endotoxemia, and hepatic microcirculatory disturbances. Temporary portocaval shunts (PCSs) have been developed to maintain portal flow during LT, mitigating these adverse effects and allowing for hemodynamic stability and a reduced intraoperative bleeding. Portocaval Shunts: Various PCS techniques—including end-to-side, right-branch, portosaphenous, mesenterico-saphenous, iliac-venous conduit interposition, portoumbilical, and Rex-saphenous shunts—allow an individualized approach based on patient anatomy and surgical complexity. Review of Evidence: Available evidence demonstrates that PCS improves intraoperative hemodynamic stability, reduces blood transfusion requirements, and preserves renal function, particularly in patients with high portal flow or severe portal hypertension. PCS may also shorten warm ischemia time, facilitate hepatectomy, and enhance outcomes in extended criteria donor grafts or marginal organs. Meta-analyses and randomized studies support its role in reducing intraoperative blood loss, improving early graft function, and accelerating postoperative recovery. However, the effect of PCS on long-term survival and major postoperative morbidity remains variable, likely due to heterogeneity in patient populations, donor types, and perioperative management. Conclusions: Overall, PCS represents a safe and feasible adjunct in LT, offering significant hemodynamic and technical advantages. Its use should be individualized based on patient risk factors, intraoperative hemodynamics, and anticipated intraoperative challenges. PCS provides a practical strategy to preserve portal flow, minimizing intraoperative complications and facilitating the hepatectomy. However, the decision to create a PCS during LT still depends on the surgeon’s preference. Postoperative outcomes and impact on long-term survival require further investigation.

Background: Lymphadenectomy in the operative management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial, with no recommendation for routine practice. Our study aimed to assess the effects of lymphadenectomy in addition to hepatic resection (HR) compared to HR alone for adults with HCC. Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines until March 2023, searching and selecting the relevant literature comparing lymph node dissection or sampling, combined with HR, and with no lymph node removal. Critical appraisal of the included studies was performed using the ROBINS-I tool. Fixed- or random-effect meta-analysis models were carried out, and inter-studies were assessed for heterogeneity. Results: Fourteen studies were selected during the screening process. Data from eight studies containing 32,041 HCC patients were included in the quantitative synthesis. In total, 12,694 patients underwent lymph node dissection (LND), either selectively for preoperatively diagnosed or intraoperatively suspected lymph node metastasis (LNM) or unselectively (i.e., regardless of suspected LNM). According to LN status, 1-, 3- and 5-year mortality rates were higher in the LNM group with respect to both clinically negative LN (OR 3.25, 95% CI 2.52–4.21; p < 0.001; OR 3.79, 95% CI 2.74–5.24; p < 0.001; OR 3.92, 95% CI 2.61–5.88; p < 0.001) and proven LN0 (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.0–3.04; p = 0.05; OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.79–4.63; p < 0.001; OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.33–4.84; p < 0.001). Moreover, the summary estimates of two controlled trials showed no significant difference in overall survival between LND groups and those without LND for negative LN patients. Conclusions: Lymph node dissection does not appear to improve overall survival, according to the available literature; thus, this does not support its routine adoption as part of standard liver resection for HCC. A case-by-case decision remains advisable.