Background/Objectives: Acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) with secondary infection of necrotic tissue is associated with a high rate of complications and mortality. The optimal approach is still debatable, but the minimally invasive modality has gained great attention in the last decade as it follows the principle of applying minimal surgical trauma to achieve a satisfying therapeutic objective. We compared clinical outcomes between the step-up approach (SUA) and open necrosectomy (ON) in the treatment of acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Methods: A prospective cohort study over the period of 2011–2021 in a university teaching hospital was performed. Results of 99 consecutive patients with ANP who required surgical/radiological intervention were collected. A case match analysis (2:1) was performed, and the final groups comprised 40 patients in the OA group and 20 patients in the SUA group. Demographic, clinicopathologic, and treatment data were reviewed. Results: Baseline characteristics and disease severity were comparable between the two groups. The patients from the SUA group had a significantly lower morbidity rate and rate of pancreatic insufficiency. Death occurred in 4 of 20 patients (20%) in the SUA group and in 11 of 40 patients (27.5%) in the ON group (risk ratio with the step-up approach, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 1.99; p = 0.53). Conclusions: A minimally invasive step-up approach provides comparable outcomes to open necrosectomy in the treatment of ANP with infected pancreatic necrosis. While mortality and hospital stay were comparable between the groups, morbidity and pancreatic insufficiency were significantly lower in the SUA group. Further studies on a larger number of patients are required to define the place of SUA in the modern treatment of ANP.

Liver transplantation represents the only curative method for end-stage liver disorders and certain liver malignancies. Over the last three decades, advancements in immunosuppression, surgical technique, and intensive care measures have resulted in improved patient and graft survival outcomes, but a deficit of donor organs is constantly the major issue that limits our ability to reduce the mortality on the liver transplant waiting list. To address this, marginal grafts and those from donors after cardiac death are increasingly employed, but these strategies necessitated novel methods to improve the preservation and quality of liver grafts and the most promising one is liver machine perfusion (LMP). LMP evolved significantly in the past 10 years, and consequently, it is gradually establishing itself as a standard protocol at many transplant centers. However, many unresolved questions remain concerning the indications, types, and protocols associated with LMP. Therefore, continuous research is necessary to determine optimal guidelines and recommendations for its clinical application. This review aims to analyze the development of liver machine perfusion, including its different modalities underlying mechanisms of operation, and provide an overview of its historical evolution, current status, and future prospects.

Portopulmonary hypertension (PoPH) and hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) present two vascular complications of portal hypertension, which make opposite extremes occur against the same pathophysiological background. In PoPH, vasoconstriction predominates, along with gradual remodeling of pulmonary arteries, while HPS develops due to pathological vasodilation and creation of intrapulmonary shunts. Even though they come about by different mechanisms, both disorders significantly affect quality of life, survival, and the possibility of liver transplant. In the early phases, in clinical practice, symptoms are mainly mild and nonspecific, and overlapping with symptoms of advanced liver disease often delays forming a diagnosis. In PoPH, elevated pressures in pulmonary arteries and increased vascular resistance are observed, while HPS exhibits arterial hypoxemia with normal or lowered pulmonary pressure. Standard diagnostic workup includes echocardiography, right-heart catheterization, and analysis of the arterial gases. In patients with severe PoPH, pronounced pulmonary hypertension can represent absolute contraindication for liver transplantation due to risk of acute right heart failure during operation. Conversely, HPS usually resolves itself after a successful transplant, which confirms that the transplant is an indication of being potentially curative. Therapeutic possibilities for both states are still limited. In PoPH, specific vasodilators and supportive measures are applied, while HPS treatment is mostly supportive, directed at maintaining oxygenation until the transplant. Future research should be focused on the development of targeted therapies that address vascular remodeling, angiogenesis, and oxidative stress, as well as on the standardization of diagnostic criteria and multicentric cooperation. This approach would facilitate earlier recognition, a precise assessment of transplantability, and a better long-term outcome for patients with portal hypertension and lung vascular complications. Key Points: Portopulmonary hypertension (PoPH) and hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) represent two opposite vascular complications of portal hypertension, posing distinct challenges for liver transplantation. This review summarizes their pathophysiology, diagnostic pathways, and therapeutic strategies, emphasizing the importance of hemodynamic profiling and multidisciplinary management to optimize transplant outcomes.

Background: Major liver resections that include the removal of four or more Couinaud segments require precise assessment of the future liver remnant (FLR) to prevent post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). Volumetry, although standard in surgical planning, does not always reflect true functional reserve, especially in steatotic, fibrotic or chemotherapy-damaged liver. Methods: This review proposes an integrative physiological framework of functional liver recovery after a major hepatectomy that connects preoperative functional assessments—indocyanine clearance (ICG-PDR), Liver Maximum Function Capacity test (LiMAx) and 99mTc-mebrofenin SPECT/CT—with perioperative hemodynamic, oxidative and metabolic parameters. A narrative literature review was performed using PubMed and Web of Science, covering publications from January 2000 to January 2025. The search combined keywords and MeSH terms such as major hepatectomy, liver regeneration, hemodynamic optimization, oxidative stress and post-hepatectomy liver failure. We focused on clinically relevant studies, including randomized controlled studies and consensus guidelines, and complemented the search by screening the reference lists of selected articles. When direct clinical evidence was limited, a physiologically grounded interpretation was used to support a pragmatic framework for perioperative management. Results: The framework integrates three complementary physiological domains that together determine functional liver recovery. The first relates to hemodynamic stability, including optimal maintenance of arterial and venous pressures as well as portal-splanchnic gradients, which support adequate perfusion and oxygenation of hepatocytes. The second addresses the balance between oxidative stress and antioxidant defense, where the key indicators are the level of lipid peroxidation and endogenous antioxidant capacity. The third domain evaluates the functional ability of the liver through dynamic tests of synthesis and metabolism, such as factor V, indocyanine clearance (ICG-PDR), and the LiMAx test. With the integration of these three domains, a functional profile of liver recovery can be defined, facilitating monitoring of the physiological response in real time and guiding individualized perioperative support to the individual needs of the patient. Conclusions: Functional recovery follows a dynamic continuum, progressing from early reperfusion stress through hemodynamic stabilization to progressive hepatocellular regeneration. Integration of functional FLR assessment with perioperative physiological monitoring may support more individualized prediction of the regenerative capacity and therapeutic decision-making. This physiology-guided perspective extends assessment beyond remnant volume alone to include functional recovery.