<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
    <rss version="2.0">
      <channel xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
        <title>Transplant International | New and Recent Articles</title>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/journals/transplant-international</link>
        <description>RSS Feed for Transplant International | New and Recent Articles</description>
        <language>en-us</language>
        <generator>Frontiers Feed Generator,version:1</generator>
        <pubDate>2026-07-30T01:09:11.151+00:00</pubDate>
        <ttl>60</ttl>
        <item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.17395</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.17395</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Correction: Establishing standards for controlled donation after circulatory determination of death in adults: the Bucharest international European Society for Organ Transplantation consensus]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-29T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Correction</category>
        <author>Helen Opdam</author><author>Alicia Pérez-Blanco</author><author>Dale Gardiner</author><author>Richard Hasz</author><author>Nichon Esther Jansen</author><author>Matthieu Le Dorze</author><author>Alberto Sandiumenge</author><author>Giuliano Testa</author><author>Shih-Ning Then</author><author>Marinella Zanierato</author><author>Beatriz Domínguez-Gil</author><author>Gabriel C. Oniscu</author><author>Umberto Cillo</author><author>Dominique E. Martin</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.15958</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.15958</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Prepared or at-risk? Evaluating live viral vaccine coverage and vaccine immunogenicity before pediatric solid organ transplantation]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-29T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Benhur Sirvan Cetin</author><author>Caitlin Brammer</author><author>William Otto</author><author>Kerrigan Perkins</author><author>Teresa Ambrosino</author><author>Hilary Miller-Handley</author><author>Mark Murphy</author><author>Grant Paulsen</author><author>Emily Cain</author><author>Kathleen Campbell</author><author>Lara Danziger-Isakov</author>
        <description><![CDATA[Pediatric solid organ transplant recipients are at high risk for complications from vaccine-preventable diseases, yet pre-transplant vaccination coverage is often inconsistent. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 421 pediatric transplant recipients between 2018 and 2024 to evaluate vaccination status and serologic immunity for varicella and measles at the time of initial evaluation, listing, and transplantation. At the time of transplant, 19.2% of patients for varicella and 21.6% for measles were under-vaccinated, with infants having the highest rates of incomplete vaccination. A portion of patients (7.1% for varicella, 8.6% for measles) transitioned from full to incomplete vaccination status during the pre-transplant period, a change associated with a shorter time from evaluation to listing. Kidney recipients had the highest completed vaccination rates (>94%), whereas rates for liver and heart recipients were substantially lower (58%–72%). Among fully vaccinated patients, seronegativity was observed for varicella (23.6%) and measles (13.0%). In conclusion, many pediatric transplant candidates, particularly infants and those awaiting liver or heart transplant, are incompletely vaccinated. A dynamic change in vaccination status from evaluation to transplant highlights an urgent need for continuous monitoring and improved strategies to protect these vulnerable children.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16491</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16491</link>
        <title><![CDATA[“A shared enemy to confront“: the experience and needs of the partners of kidney transplant patients - a qualitative study]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-29T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Katerina Kyriakouli</author><author>Anna Yakinthou</author><author>Smaragdi Marinaki</author><author>Christina Papachristou</author>
        <description><![CDATA[Kidney disease and transplantation affect not only the patients but also their partners, requiring couples and families to adapt to and to cope with complex and ongoing psychosocial and practical demands. Despite playing a crucial role in caregiving and transplant success, partners’ experiences and needs often remain overlooked. This study aimed to explore the lived experiences and needs of partners of kidney transplant recipients in the specific socio-cultural context of the study. Twelve in-depth interviews with partners of kidney transplant patients were conducted and analyzed using thematic analysis. The following themes were identified: 1) The secondary presence: Partners in the background, 2) From Illness to a New Normal, 3) The Need for Support and Clearer Communication from Healthcare Professionals, 4) Redefining the “We” and 5) Transplantation as a Life-Changing Lesson. Findings indicate that partners overtake emotionally complex roles supporting their spouses, yet their difficulties and needs often remain invisible. While going through significant challenges during critical phases of kidney disease, they experience transplantation relationally, through dyadic coping. The shared couple’s experience necessitates a focus on partner’s voices and needs as well as a holistic approach aiming at managing and adapting couples to the transplantation process.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.17398</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.17398</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Retraction: ABO-incompatible liver transplantation for severe hepatitis B patients]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-27T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Retraction</category>
        
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16964</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16964</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Imputed HLA typing as a practical approach to molecular mismatch risk stratification in kidney transplantation]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-23T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Letter to the Editor</category>
        <author>Alice Si Hua Ho</author><author>A. Vathsala</author><author>Hersharan Kaur Sran</author><author>Matthew Ross D’Costa</author><author>Zi Yun Chang</author><author>Ada Pei Yu Ng</author><author>Amy Lim</author><author>Wee-Kun Koh</author><author>Emmett Tsz Yeung Wong</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16391</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16391</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) use in controlled donation after circulatory determination of death (cDCDD): results of the European Society for Organ Transplantation Bucharest consensus conference]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-22T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Consensus Report</category>
        <author>Eduardo Miñambres</author><author>Marius Berman</author><author>Marta Velia Antonini</author><author>Jose Luis Campo-Cañaveral De La Cruz</author><author>Kristopher Croome</author><author>Giuseppe Feltrin</author><author>Amelia Hessheimer</author><author>Carl Jorns</author><author>Simon Messer</author><author>Anji Wall</author><author>Beatriz Domínguez-Gil</author><author>Dominique Martin</author><author>Gabriel Oniscu</author><author>Umberto Cillo</author>
        <description><![CDATA[Normothermic Regional Perfusion (NRP) is emerging as a game-changer in enhancing outcomes for Donation after Circulatory Determination of Death (DCDD). NRP maintains physiological conditions through perfusion with oxygenated blood, outperforming conventional super-rapid recovery techniques significantly improving outcomes and organ utilization. Despite its clinical benefits, widespread adoption of NRP is impeded by heterogeneous organizational, legal, and ethical frameworks. At the ESOT Bucharest Consensus Conference, leading experts in transplantation achieved consensus on 130 relevant NRP-related open issues to facilitate its implementation and guide global practice. Key recommendations include criteria for adoption of NRP, minimal requirements, procedures to be adopted before and during NRP, donor organ evaluation criteria and sequence of organ harvesting. Consensus extends to procedural components (including the configuration of perfusion parameters and strategic team coordination), ethical integrity of NRP in the context of the dead donor rule and key unmet needs for future developments. While significant strides were made in unifying practice, unresolved issues regarding maximum warm ischemic time and variability in legal standards indicate avenues for future research. This consensus underscores the imperative for global standardization in NRP application, promising to elevate the success rates of organ transplants and establish NRP as a foundational element in the evolution of DCDD.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16968</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16968</link>
        <title><![CDATA[The European Board of transplant medicine: evolution, present role and future directions toward harmonised transplant medicine training in Europe]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-21T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>News and Views</category>
        <author>Nuria Montero</author><author>Miha Arnol</author><author>Susanne Beckebaum</author><author>Isabelle Binet</author><author>Vito Cicinnati</author><author>David Cucchiari</author><author>Caroline Den Hoed</author><author>Antoine Durrbach</author><author>Speranta Iacob</author><author>Smaragdi Marinaki</author><author>Anna Paola Mitterhofer</author><author>Anna Mrzljak</author><author>Adam Remport</author><author>Pablo Ruiz</author><author>Susana Sampaio</author><author>Francesca Tinti</author><author>Marios Prikis</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16734</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16734</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Both perfusion pressure and flow are critical in abdominal normothermic regional perfusion!]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-16T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Letter to the Editor</category>
        <author>Raphaël Giraud</author><author>Benjamin Assouline</author><author>Franz Immer</author><author>Yvan Gasche</author><author>Karim Bendjelid</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16478</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16478</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Long-term HLA-incompatible kidney transplant outcomes]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-16T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Maria Kahanpää</author><author>Jouni Lauronen</author><author>Marko Lempinen</author><author>Kaisa Ahopelto</author><author>Ville Sallinen</author><author>Ilkka Helanterä</author>
        <description><![CDATA[Many centers avoid human leukocyte antigen (HLA) -incompatible kidney transplantations due to increased risk of graft loss, although it may be the only option for highly sensitized patients. We assessed the association of pre-transplant donor-specific HLA-antibodies (DSAs) with biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), antibody mediated rejection (AMR), and death-censored graft survival (DCGS). All deceased donor kidney transplantations in Finland between 2006 and 2021 were included (n = 3209), with 226 DSA-positive recipients. DSA characteristics, including specificity and mean fluorescence intensity (MFI), were collected. DSAs were associated with worse DCGS, higher risk of BPAR (HR 3.22, 95% CI 2.57–4.04), and especially AMR (HR 35.1, CI 22.4–55.1). Higher cumulative MFI was associated with lower 10-year DCGS (no-DSA 83%, ≥10,000 66%). A similar trend was seen in multivariable models (HR 1.81, CI 0.995–3.27 for MFI ≥10,000). Class II DSAs indicated higher risk for BPAR (HR 4.2 vs. HR 3.1), and AMR (HR 32.3 vs. HR 21.9), than class I DSAs. Collectively, pretransplant DSAs and higher cumulative MFI were associated with poorer graft survival, and especially class II DSAs were associated with higher risk of AMR. However, DCGS with even very high-level pretransplant DSA could be considered acceptable, supporting consideration of HLA-incompatible transplantations for highly sensitized patients.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16594</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16594</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Living kidney donation prior to euthanasia: medical, psychological and ethical considerations]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-14T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Brief Research Report</category>
        <author>Emma K. Massey</author><author>Eline Bunnik</author><author>Louise Maasdam</author><author>Frank J. M. F. Dor</author><author>Jacqueline van de Wetering</author>
        <description><![CDATA[Living kidney donation prior to euthanasia has never previously been reported and is not incorporated into current clinical guidelines. This study aims to discuss the unique medical, procedural, psychological and ethical considerations of living donation prior to euthanasia based on 3 Dutch cases. Of the 3 candidates, 2 successfully donated without detrimental effects to physical or mental health; one was declined for medical reasons. In two cases, euthanasia has been performed; in one case donation was transformative and the request for euthanasia was withdrawn after donation. Medically, normal life-expectancy after donor nephrectomy should be presumed as euthanasia remains uncertain. Procedurally, timing can create tension between these two processes as postponing euthanasia could be harmful. Psychologically, potential exacerbation in psychopathology should be weighed against the impact of being declined for donation. Ethically, autonomy, capacity to consent and risk-benefit ratio must be rigorously assessed, especially given the degree of suffering in these cases. We conclude that living donation and euthanasia should be seen as independent processes and a euthanasia request should not be considered an absolute contra-indication for living donation. Our initial experiences underscore the need for international dialogue and policy development.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.17015</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.17015</link>
        <title><![CDATA[AI in transplantation: levelling the playing field and raising the methodological standards]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-14T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Editorial</category>
        <author>Nina Pilat</author><author>Maria Irene Bellini</author><author>Thierry Berney</author><author>Olivier Aubert</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.17127</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.17127</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Nurturing a Sustainable Transplantation Journey: the best of ESOT Congress 2025]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-14T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Editorial</category>
        <author>Olivier Thaunat</author><author>Colin Wilson</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16600</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16600</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Bidirectional portal vein reconstruction for type C anatomy in living donor liver transplant]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-13T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Letter to the Editor</category>
        <author> Shams-Ud-Din</author><author>Bigyan Acharya</author><author>Abdul Wahab Dogar</author><author>Mohammad Arsalan</author><author>Muhammad Umar</author><author>Syed Hasnain Abbas</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16484</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16484</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Acceptance of deceased donor livers in the United Kingdom – development of a liver “donor utilisation index”]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-10T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Jennifer Mehew</author><author>Helen Thomas</author><author>Peter Friend</author><author>Simon Knight</author>
        <description><![CDATA[Published Donor Risk Indices are often used to estimate the risk associated with transplanting a donor liver. Such indices have been constructed by considering only livers that are transplanted and estimating the risk of graft loss or patient death. Until now, there has been no index available that reflects the chance of an offered organ not being transplanted in the United Kingdom (UK). This paper presents a UK Donor Utilisation Index (UKDUI) which quantifies the impact of donor factors upon liver non-use. By comparing our developed UKDUI with a commonly used UK Donor Risk Index, we are able to see that there are differences between the factors that influence liver non-use and the factors that influence liver post-transplant outcomes. Importantly, this UKDUI can be used in future studies to characterise and identify offered livers that are either more or less likely to be transplanted. For example, the UKDUI can be used for study inclusion criteria or for risk adjustment/stratification.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16830</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16830</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Simultaneous kidney–islet transplantation from a donor after circulatory death using normothermic regional perfusion]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-09T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Letter to the Editor</category>
        <author>Laure Esposito</author><author>Orianne Villard</author><author>Thibault Austry</author><author>Christophe Broca</author><author>John Devos</author><author>Guillaume Ducos</author><author>Diane Osinski</author><author>Nelly Puech</author><author>Cedric Idri</author><author>Thibault Boisroux</author><author>Stéphanie Ruiz</author><author>Chloe Medrano</author><author>Thomas Prudhomme</author><author>Mokrane Fatima</author><author>Nassim Kamar</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.17169</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.17169</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Correction: Transplantation of older DCD livers in the machine perfusion era: a U.S. cohort study]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-08T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Correction</category>
        <author>Emmanouil Giorgakis</author><author>Ioannis A. Ziogas</author><author>Dimitrios Moris</author><author>Dimitrios N. Varvoglis</author><author>Charalampos Theocharopoulos</author><author>Dor Yoeli</author><author>Megan A. Adams</author><author>Andrew S. Barbas</author><author>Martin I. Montenovo</author><author>Melissa Chen</author><author>Sorabh Kapoor</author><author>Esteban Calderon</author><author>Andrew M. Moon</author><author>Sasha Deutch-Link</author><author>Hersh Shroff</author><author>Neil D. Shah</author><author>Oren K. Fix</author><author>A. Sidney Barritt</author><author>Amit K. Mathur</author><author>Trevor L. Nydam</author><author>Chirag S. Desai</author><author>Paulo N. Martins</author><author>Andrea Schlegel</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16459</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16459</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Patient perspectives on the ethics and acceptability of perfusion techniques for organ transplantation: a qualitative study]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-08T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Jaden Blazier</author><author>Eline M. Bunnik</author><author>Valerie Kortekaas</author><author>Esther W. de Bekker-Grob</author><author>Maartje H. N. Schermer</author><author>Niels van der Kaaij</author><author>Robert Minnee</author><author>Olivier Manintveld</author><author>Jeroen De Jonge</author><author>Emma K. Massey</author>
        <description><![CDATA[Perfusion technologies preserve and/or improve organ viability by restoring circulation to donor organs either outside the body (machine perfusion, MP) or inside the body of the deceased donor (normothermic regional perfusion, NRP). Ethical debates surrounding perfusion raise questions about its acceptability for transplant recipients. This study explores patient perspectives on perfusion techniques and preferences regarding informed consent. Five online focus groups were conducted with 32 kidney, liver, and heart patients, both pre- and post-transplant. Sessions were analyzed using qualitative content analysis in Atlas.ti. Participants were generally accepting of MP and NRP, valuing clinical benefits. However, they were more hesitant toward NRP due to ethical concerns about post-mortem use of the donor’s body and potential emotional impacts on donor families. Drivers of acceptance were patients’ medical urgency and certainty that donor and donor family were respected. Most participants wanted to receive detailed information about perfusion techniques. While patients were broadly accepting of perfusion techniques, NRP raised more concerns than MP. To ensure ethical implementation and social acceptability as these technologies evolve, patient perspectives should be embedded into perfusion guidelines, informed consent processes, and policy development.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16661</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16661</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Allograft nephrectomy: a systematic review of immunological consequences and management of immunosuppressants]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-03T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</category>
        <author>Arnaud Del Bello</author><author>Anna Goujon</author><author>Diana Kassab</author><author>Thomas Prudhomme</author><author>Alexandre Frontczak</author><author>Thibault Culty</author>
        <description><![CDATA[Allograft nephrectomy (AN) is a serious complication of kidney transplantation. Beyond surgical morbidity, AN has important immunological implications. We performed a systematic review to synthesize current evidence on the immunological impact of AN and post-allograft failure immunosuppressive strategies. A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed/Medline® was searched for studies published from 01/2000 to 03/2026 on transplantectomy indications and surgical techniques. Eligible designs included meta-analyses, randomized trials, and prospective or retrospective studies evaluating the immunological impact of AN and/or immunosuppression management before, during, or after graft removal in adult or pediatric kidney transplant recipients returning to dialysis. Consistent evidence indicates that immunosuppression withdrawal is the principal driver of allosensitization after graft failure. Multiple studies demonstrated marked increases in anti-HLA antibodies following the cessation of immunosuppression, regardless of nephrectomy status. When AN was performed under maintained immunosuppression, its independent effect on sensitization and retransplant outcomes appeared limited. Meta-analyses showed comparable survival after retransplantation, although higher PRA levels, delayed graft function, and acute rejection were more frequent in patients with prior nephrectomy. Allosensitization after graft failure is primarily driven by immunosuppression withdrawal/reduction rather than AN itself. Individualized immunosuppressive management balancing immunological and infectious risks is essential.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16548</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.16548</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Landscape of current practices and future perspectives in living donor kidney donation in Europe: proceedings of a pan-European symposium by the European kidney transplant association section of the European Society for Organ Transplantation]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-01T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Meeting Report</category>
        <author>Andreas Kousios</author><author>Marije Baas</author><author>Anna Manonelles</author><author>Fernanda Ortiz</author><author>Elvana Rista</author><author>Rachel Thomas</author><author>Carmen Lefaucheur</author><author>Emin Baris Akin</author><author>Lorna Marson</author>
        <description><![CDATA[Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) offers superior outcomes for most patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), yet its uptake across Europe remains highly variable. This proceedings article summarizes key themes from a pan-European symposium held in November 2025 in Prague, organized by the European Kidney Transplant Association (EKITA) in collaboration with the DESCaRTES Working Group. Discussions highlighted substantial heterogeneity in LDKT activity across Europe, driven by differences in healthcare capacity, legal frameworks, donor evaluation practices, and access to kidney exchange programmes. Marked inequities persist between regions, particularly in the Balkans and Western Balkans, for women those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, ethnic minority populations, paediatric and elderly patients and individuals with obesity. The symposium identified wide variation in donor selection criteria, risk assessment, informed consent practices, and long-term donor follow-up, despite existing international guidelines. Emerging strategies to address these challenges include harmonisation of donor evaluation and consent, expansion of paired and cross-border kidney exchange programmes, increased use of unspecified kidney donation, and adoption of innovative surgical and immunological approaches to safely broaden donor eligibility. Advances in outcome measurement, including validated surrogate endpoints, machine learning methods, and integrated, harmonised transplant registries, were discussed as critical tools to improve quality, transparency, and research efficiency. Collectively, the proceedings underscore the need for coordinated clinical, policy, and data-driven solutions to reduce inequities and unlock the full potential of LDKT across Europe, with implications for international transplant practice.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.15736</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2026.15736</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Surgical residents’ career interests in transplantation surgery in Germany – a nationwide survey]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-01T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Aghnia Jolanda Putri</author><author>Karim Bouhadjer</author><author>Arzu Oezcelik</author><author>Silvio Nadalin</author><author>Markus Guba</author><author>Christoph Michalski</author><author>Peri Husen</author>
        <description><![CDATA[The sustainability of transplantation surgery (TS) relies on the ability to attract and retain the next generation of surgeons. This study aims to assess how surgical residents perceive TS as a career pathway in Germany, and to identify barriers in choosing TS as a career. An anonymous 30-item online survey was distributed to surgical residents at all transplant centers registered with the Deutsche Stiftung Organtransplantation (DSO, German Organ Procurement Organization). Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS (version 29), free-text responses underwent thematic content analysis. Sixty-eight complete surveys were analyzed. TS was considered by 25% of respondents as a subspecialty training. Transplant-specific education was occasional or absent, though desired by >80%. Motivators included personal interest, patient care, and career development, while barriers were structural: lack of defined fellowship programs and limited autonomy during residency. Structured fellowship programs (46%), mentorship (27%) and enhanced operative autonomy (25%) were identified as key factors to encourage recruitment of surgeons in their early career stages. Surgical residents in their early career stages in Germany regard TS as an appealing career option. A structured training framework is a perceived unmet need to enhance recruitment to TS. Transplantation surgery, workforce sustainability, medical education]]></description>
      </item>
      </channel>
    </rss>