Background/Objectives: Liver retransplantation (reLT) is the only option for pediatric patients experiencing graft loss. Despite recent advancements in surgical techniques and perioperative management, it remains a high-risk procedure. Our aim is to describe our experience in pediatric reLT, focusing on the technical aspects and surgical challenges. Methods: We systematically analyzed surgical reports from pediatric reLT performed at our center between 2006 and 2023 to identify recurrent intraoperative findings and specific surgical techniques. We focused on challenges encountered during different phases of reLT, including hepatectomy, vascular, and biliary reconstruction. Additionally, we compared patient and graft survival rates among different groups. Results: During the study period, 23 children underwent 25 reLT procedures at our center. Major surgical challenges included complex hepatectomy and vascular reconstructions, necessitating tailored approaches. Our analysis shows that patient and graft survival were significantly lower for reLT compared to primary transplantation (p = 0.002). Early reLT had a significantly lower graft survival compared to late reLT (p = 0.002), although patient survival was comparable (p = 0.278). Patient and graft survival rates were comparable between the first and second reLT (p = 0.300, p = 0.597). Patient survival tended to be higher after living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) compared to deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT), although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.511). Conclusions: Pediatric reLT involves significant technical challenges and lower survival rates. Advances in perioperative management are crucial for improving outcomes. Further research is needed to optimize surgical strategies and evaluate the long-term benefits of LDLT in pediatric reLT.

Introduction: Esophageal replacement surgery in children is sometimes necessary for long-gap esophageal atresia. Ileocolic esophagoplasty in the retrosternal space can serve as a good alternative technique in case of hostile posterior mediastinum. We present two cases of successful ileocolic transposition performed at 6 months of age.Methods: Esophageal replacement was performed through a midline laparotomy incision associated with a left cervical approach. The ileocolic transplant was pediculized on the right superior colic artery after ligating the right colic and ileocolic vessels. A retrosternal tunnel was created, and the ileocolic transplant pulled through it to reach the cervical region. Proximally, esophageal-ileal anastomosis and, distally, colonic–gastric anastomosis were performed. Ileocolic continuity was repaired.Results: There were no early postoperative complications. In both cases, the patients presented oral feeding difficulties during the first 6 postoperative months. Thereafter, full oral feeding was achieved, and both patients were clinically asymptomatic during the following 18 and 20 years, respectively, with satisfactory oral radiological assessments, showing no redundancy or inappropriate growth of the graft and no anastomotic stricture. Currently, these patients do not complain of dysphagia, pathological reflux, or respiratory symptoms.Conclusion: When native esophagus preservation in long-gap esophageal atresia is estimated unfeasible, ileocolic transposition in the retrosternal space might be considered a good and safe option, particularly in those difficult cases after multiple previous surgical attempts and mediastinitis. This technique is putatively associated with a beneficial anti-reflux effect, thanks to the presence of the ileocecal valve, in preventing cervical peptic esophagitis. Long-term follow-up confirms that the transposed colon in the retrosternal space did not suffer any abnormal modification in size and growth.