Background: A systematic evaluation of potential living liver donors is essential to ensure donor safety and optimize recipient outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aimed to assess donor acceptance rates and reasons for disqualification among individuals evaluated for LDLT at a high-volume transplant center over a one-year period. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1,087 potential living liver donors who presented for LDLT evaluation in 2023. Of these, 991 candidates advanced beyond the initial screening (Stage 1) and underwent comprehensive clinical, imaging, and pathological assessments (Stages 2 and 3). Candidates who discontinued after Stage 1 were excluded due to the absence of documented reasons for non-progression. Results: Among the 991 candidates who proceeded beyond initial screening, 473 (47.7%) completed the full donor evaluation, of whom 466 were judged to be suitable donors. Among suitable donors, 384 (82.4%) proceeded to donor hepatectomy, whereas 82 did not, primarily due to recipient-related factors such as clinical deterioration or withdrawal of consent. Donor ineligibility was determined in 422 candidates (42.6%), most commonly due to inadequate remnant liver volume (52.8%), hepatic steatosis (20.6%), and insufficient graft size (10.2%). Among candidates undergoing Stage 2 evaluation, 162 (16.3%) failed to meet steatosis criteria; 126 were excluded solely for steatosis and advised weight reduction, and 39 subsequently became eligible and successfully donated. Conclusion In this high-volume LDLT center, donor disqualification was primarily driven by remnant liver volume and hepatic steatosis. Targeted interventions such as weight reduction enabled successful donation in a subset of initially ineligible candidates, underscoring the importance of individualized donor evaluation and pre-donation optimization.

Background: We developed a simplified variant of the ADV score, the AFP-PIVKAII (AP) score for post-transplant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prognosis, which considers only AFP and PIVKA-II levels excluding morphometric tumor size information from the ADV score. This study investigated the prognostic performance of the AP score in predicting HCC recurrence and overall survival (OS) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Methods: We analyzed 843 patients with HCC who underwent LDLT between 2006 and 2015, assessing HCC recurrence and OS in relation to AP score. Results: The median pretransplant AFP and PIVKA-II levels were 12.8 ng/mL and 27 mAU/mL, respectively. The median and mean AP scores were 2.6 log (range: 0.6–9.2 log) and 2.9±1.1 log, respectively. The 5-year time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the AP score in predicting post-transplant HCC recurrence was 0.672 (p<0.001). HCC recurrence and OS curves along AP score intervals of 1.0 log showed statistical differences in accordance with the AP scores (both p<0.001). Using a Youden index J-derived AP score cutoff of 4.0 log, two-tiered groups (ADV <4.0 log vs. ADV ≥4.0 log) showed statistically significant differences in HCC recurrence and OS (both p<0.001). Harrell’s c-indices for AP score with cutoff of 4.0 log and ADV scores with cutoff of 5.0 log regarding HCC recurrence and OS were similar. Conclusion The AP score functions as an integrated surrogate marker for predicting post-transplant outcomes in patients with HCC undergoing LDLT. It may serve as a simplified alternative to the ADV score, particularly in patients with small HCCs.

Background: Studies on whether donor-to-recipient sex match status affects long-term survival after liver transplantation (LT) have yielded contradictory results. This study evaluated whether donor-to-recipient sex match status influenced long-term survival after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) or deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) at a high-volume center. Methods: The study included 6,664 patients who underwent primary LT between January 2000 and December 2022 at our institution. Patients were divided into four groups according to donor-to-recipient sex match status: male-to-male (n=3,427 [51.4%]), male-to-female (n=1,152 [17.3%]), female-to-male (n=1,385 [20.8%]), and female-to-female (n=700 [10.5%]). Results: Regarding clinical characteristics, the four groups differed significantly regarding background liver disease (P<0.001), model for end-stage liver disease score (P<0.001), serum protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist II level (P=0.003), presence of concurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; P<0.001), and type of LT (P=0.003). Overall survival (OS) of all LT recipients did not differ significantly among the groups (P=0.377). Donor-to-recipient sex match status did not affect long-term OS in either LDLT (P=0.176) or DDLT (P=0.220) groups. In addition, sex match status did not significantly influence posttransplant OS among patients who underwent LDLT without HCC (P=0.464), LDLT with HCC (P=0.236), DDLT without HCC (P=0.338), or DDLT with HCC (P=0.818). Conclusions Donor-to-recipient sex match status does not significantly affect posttransplant patient survival or HCC prognosis after LDLT or DDLT.

Purpose: Huge (≥10 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) poses significant treatment and prognosis challenges. This study aimed to determine whether preoperative transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for huge HCC is necessary. Methods: This single-center, retrospective cohort study evaluated 435 patients with huge HCC who underwent upfront hepatectomy or hepatectomy after preoperative TACE from January 2009 to December 2018. TACE’s impact on survival and prognostic factors, including microvascular invasion (MVI) and satellite nodules (SNs), was analyzed. Results: The preoperative TACE group (n = 33) had a lower incidence of MVI (P = 0.009) and higher postoperative morbidity (P = 0.001), particularly pleural effusion (P = 0.004) and Clavien-Dindo class III–IV complications (P = 0.033), compared with the upfront hepatectomy group (n = 402). Short-term mortality (P = 0.828) and recurrence within 6 months (P = 0.654) were comparable between groups. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival curves showed no significant between-group differences in recurrence-free survival (RFS) (P = 0.172) and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.450). Local regional therapy for intrahepatic recurrences and surgical resection for extrahepatic recurrences were associated with better OS. MVI, SN, and hepatic vein tumor thrombosis were identified as significant risk factors for poorer RFS and OS. In patients without SN, preoperative TACE improved RFS (P = 0.039) but not OS. Conclusion Preoperative TACE for huge HCC was associated with reduced MVI but did not improve RFS and OS. Survival outcomes were more significantly influenced by SN, suggesting that upfront hepatectomy without TACE should be prioritized.

Purpose: This study aimed to describe adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for acute liver failure and evaluate its clinical significance by comparing its surgical and survival outcomes with those of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 267 consecutive patients (161 LDLT recipients and 106 DDLT recipients) aged 18 years or older who underwent liver transplantation between January 2006 and December 2020. Results: The mean periods from hepatic encephalopathy to liver transplantation were 5.85 days and 8.35 days for LDLT and DDLT, respectively (P = 0.091). Among these patients, 121 (45.3%) had grade III or IV hepatic encephalopathy (living, 34.8% vs. deceased, 61.3%; P < 0.001), and 38 (14.2%) had brain edema (living, 16.1% vs. deceased, 11.3%; P = 0.269) before liver transplantation. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality (living, 11.8% vs. deceased, 15.1%; P = 0.435), 10-year overall survival (living, 90.8% vs. deceased, 84.0%; P = 0.096), and graft survival (living, 83.5% vs. deceased, 71.3%;P = 0.051). However, postoperatively, the mean intensive care unit stay was shorter in the LDLT group (5.0 days vs. 9.5 days, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was associated with vasopressor use (odds ratio [OR], 3.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45–7.96; P = 0.005) and brain edema (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.16–6.52; P = 0.022) of recipient at the time of transplantation. However, LDLT (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.59–2.66; P = 0.553) was not independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Conclusion LDLT is feasible for acute liver failure when organs from deceased donors are not available.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to analyze the outcomes of Fontan surgery in the Republic of Korea, as there were only a few studies from Asian countries. Methods: The medical records of 1,732 patients who underwent Fontan surgery in 10 cardiac centers were reviewed. Results: Among them, 1,040 (58.8%) were men. The mean age at Fontan surgery was 4.3±4.2 years, and 395 (22.8%) patients presented with heterotaxy syndrome. According to the types of Fontan surgery, 157 patients underwent atriopulmonary (AP) type; 303, lateral tunnel (LT) type; and 1,266, extracardiac conduit (ECC) type. The overall survival rates were 91.7%, 87.1%, and 74.4% at 10, 20, and 30 years, respectively. The risk factors of early mortality were male, heterotaxy syndrome, AP-type Fontan surgery, high mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) in pre-Fontan cardiac catheterization, and early Fontan surgery year. The risk factors of late mortality were heterotaxy syndrome, genetic disorder, significant atrioventricular valve regurgitation (AVVR) before Fontan surgery, high mPAP in pre-Fontan cardiac catheterization, and no fenestration. Conclusions In Asian population with a high incidence of heterotaxy syndrome, the heterotaxy syndrome was identified as the poor prognostic factors for Fontan surgery. The preoperative low mPAP and less AVVR are associated with better early and long-term outcomes of Fontan surgery.