Systematic review evaluates indications and outcomes of living donor intestinal transplantation, suggesting it as a viable treatment option.
Background Living donor intestinal transplantation (LDITx) is an alternative option to cadaveric transplants as a last resort in treating intestinal failure. There are limited data on LDITx outcomes. This systematic review evaluates LDITx in terms of indications, contraindications, surgical complications, and patient outcomes. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, Virtual Health Library, and Web of Science databases following the PRISMA guidelines. After filtration, data were systematically extracted from all relevant observational studies, case series, and case reports. Quality assessments were performed using the CARE guideline for case reports and case series, while STROBE was used for observational studies. Results Fifty‐four studies were included, comprising 11 observational studies, 9 case series, and 34 case reports. The main indications of LDITx were the availability of a compatible donor and the urgency of the recipient’s clinical condition. The standard surgical technique involves segmental ileal resection and transplantation. Postoperative complications included infections, ischemic events, and vascular complications. Recipients had either manageable complications or no complications. About 21.2% of the population experienced at least one episode of rejection, with an overall mortality rate of 23%. Many cases reported successful TPN weaning and good outcomes for the recipients and donors. Conclusion In patients with chronic IF complicated by severe TPN‐related morbidity or underlying pathologies causing SBS, LDITx represents an effective treatment option and an alternative to the more conventional cadaveric intestinal transplantation, bypassing problematic time sensitivity and donor availability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nusair et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: