Comparison of open and laparoscopic live donor left lateral sectionectomy

Initial experience with purely laparoscopic living-donor right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

There may be concerns about purely laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) compared with open donor right hepatectomy, especially when performed by surgeons accustomed to open surgery. This study aimed to describe technical tips and pitfalls in PLDRH.

METHODS

Data from donors who underwent PLDRH at Seoul National University Hospital between December 2015 and July 2017 were analysed retrospectively. Endpoints analysed included intraoperative events and postoperative complications. All operations were performed by a single surgeon with considerable experience in open living donor hepatectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 26 donors underwent purely laparoscopic right hepatectomy in the study interval. No donor required transfusion during surgery, whereas two underwent reoperation. In two donors, the dissection plane at the right upper deep portion of the midplane was not correct. One donor experienced portal vein injury during caudate lobe transection, and one developed remnant left hepatic duct stenosis. One donor experienced remnant portal vein angulation owing to a different approach angle, and one experienced arterial damage associated with the use of a laparoscopic energy device. One donor had postoperative bleeding due to masking of potential bleeding foci owing to intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopy. Two donors experienced right liver surface damage caused by a xiphoid trocar.

CONCLUSION

Purely laparoscopic donor hepatectomy differs from open donor hepatectomy in terms of angle and caudal view. Therefore, surgeons experienced in open donor hepatectomy must gain adequate experience in laparoscopic liver surgery and make adjustments when performing PLDRH.

Highlights of the Third Expert Forum of Asia-Pacific Laparoscopic Hepatectomy; Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgeons of Asia (ELSA) Visionary Summit 2017

The application of laparoscopy for liver surgery is rapidly increasing and the past few years have demonstrated a shift in paradigm with a trend towards more extended and complex resections. The development of instruments and technical refinements with the effective use of magnified caudal laparoscopic views have contributed to the ability to overcome the limitation of laparoscopic liver resection. The Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgeons of Asia (ELSA) Visionary Summit 2017 and the 3^rd Expert Forum of Asia-Pacific Laparoscopic Hepatectomy organized hepatobiliary pancreatic sessions in order to exchange surgical tips and tricks and discuss the current status and future perspectives of laparoscopic hepatectomy. This report summarizes the oral presentations given at the 3^rd Expert Forum of Asia-Pacific Laparoscopic Hepatectomy.

Pure laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy: Focus on 55 donors undergoing right hepatectomy

Although laparoscopic donor hepatectomy is increasingly common, few centers with substantial experience have reported the results of pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH). Here, we report the experiences of 60 consecutive liver donors undergoing pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH), with most undergoing right hepatectomy. None of the 60 donors who underwent PLDH had intraoperative complications and none required transfusions, reoperation, or conversion to open hepatectomy. Forty-five donors who underwent PLDRH between November 2015 and December 2016 were compared with 42 who underwent conventional donor right hepatectomy (CDRH) between May 2013 and February 2014. The total operation time was longer (330.7 vs 280.0 minutes; P < .001) and the percentage with multiple bile duct openings was higher (53.3% vs 26.2%; P = .010) in the PLDRH group. However, the length of postoperative hospital stay (8.4 vs 8.2 days; P = .495) and rate of complications (11.9% vs 8.9%; P = .733) and re-hospitalizations (4.8% vs 4.4%; P = 1.000) were similar in both groups. PLDH, including PLDRH, is feasible when performed by a highly experienced surgeon and transplant team. Further evaluation, including long-term results, may support these preliminary findings of comparative outcomes for donors undergoing PLDRH and CDRH.

Laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy was expected to be the standard for the treatment of left hepatic lobe lesions: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy (LLLHS) has been widely accepted because of the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. We aimed to assess the benefits and drawbacks of left lateral sectionectomy (of segments II/III) compared with laparoscopic and open approaches.

METHODS

Relevant literature was searched using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Ovid Medline databases. We calculated odds ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for fixed-effects and random-effects models.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 14 trials involving 685 patients. There were no statistically significant differences between LLLHS and open LLHS (OLLHS) regarding analgesia (P = .31), pedicle clamping (P = .70), operative time (P = .54), hospital expenses (P = .64), postoperative alanine aminotransferase levels (P = .57), resection margin (95% CI -3.02-4.28; P = .73), or tumor recurrence (95% CI 0.51-3.05; P = .62). However, the LLLHS group showed significantly better results regarding blood transfusion (95% CI 0.14-0.73; P = .007), blood loss (95% CI -140.95 to -67.23; P <.001), total morbidity (95% CI 0.24-0.56; P <.01), and hospital stay (95% CI -3.84 to -2.31; P <.001) than the OLLHS group.

CONCLUSION

LLLHS has an advantage in the hospital stay, blood loss, and total morbidity. It is an ideal method for LLHS surgery.

Advances and challenges in laparoscopic surgery in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fifth most common malignancy and the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. From the wide variety of treatment options, surgical resection and liver transplantation are the only therapeutic ones. However, due to shortage of liver grafts, surgical resection is the most common therapeutic modality implemented. Owing to rapid technological development, minimally invasive approaches have been incorporated in liver surgery. Liver laparoscopic resection has been evaluated in comparison to the open technique and has been shown to be superior because of the reported decrease in surgical incision length and trauma, blood loss, operating theatre time, postsurgical pain and complications, R0 resection, length of stay, time to recovery and oral intake. It has been reported that laparoscopic excision is a safe and feasible approach with near zero mortality and oncologic outcomes similar to open resection. Nevertheless, current indications include solid tumors in the periphery < 5 cm, especially in segments II through VI, while according to the consensus laparoscopic major hepatectomy should only be performed by surgeons with high expertise in laparoscopic and hepatobiliary surgery in tertiary centers. It is necessary for a surgeon to surpass the 60-cases learning curve observed in order to accomplish the desirable outcomes and preserve patient safety. In this review, our aim is to thoroughly describe the general principles and current status of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as future prospects.

Initial Outcomes of Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy in an Experienced Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant Center

BACKGROUND

Only a limited number of centers have performed laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy to date. In particular, laparoscopic right hepatectomy is rarely performed because the procedure can only be performed by surgeons with significant experience in both laparoscopic liver surgery and liver transplantation with living donor liver grafts.

METHODS

Between November 2014 and February 2015, in a pure laparoscopic approach program for living right lobe donors at Asan Medical Center, 92 living donors underwent right hepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation. Among these, 3 pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomies were performed in 3 young female donors.

RESULTS

The intraoperative and postoperative courses for all 3 donors and recipients were uneventful without any complications. Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy has definite advantages over conventional open surgery, including decreased wound morbidity and faster recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the data of the present report, pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy in properly selected living donors (only 4% of potential donors in this cohort) appears to be a safe and feasible procedure in adult living donor liver transplantation.

Totally laparoscopic living donor left hepatectomy for liver transplantation in a child

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has been validated to be a new standard in living donor hepatectomy for adult-to-pediatric transplantation with less morbidity [1]. Laparoscopic donor hepatectomy can reduce the major concerns about pain and morbidity associated with open surgery and a slow return to daily activities of donors [2]. Herein, we present one case of totally laparoscopic living donor left hepatectomy including the middle hepatic vein (MHV).

DONOR AND METHOD

A 37-year-old mother volunteered to donate to her 3-year-old son with biliary atresia (PELD score 7). Total donor liver volume was 833 cm³ and left liver, including MHV, was 290 cm³. Graft to recipient body weight ratio was 2.07. Our operative technique has been published previously [2]. The left hepatic artery and portal vein were dissected and encircled with two vessel loops. Pringle's maneuver was used during parenchymal transection. The transection of the liver was performed using an alternating combination of laparoscopic ultrasonic aspirator (CUSA) and THUNDERBEAT™ (Olympus, Japan). The MHV was identified and parenchymal transection was performed right side to it. Several small tributaries from segment V and VIII were identified and divided. Finally, left bile duct was identified and divided after performing intraoperative cholangiography using a mobile C-arm.

RESULTS

Totally laparoscopic living donor left hepatectomy was performed successfully without intraoperative complications and transfusion. The operation time was 300 min, the estimated blood loss was less than 125 ml and Graft weight was 314 g. Oral intake was resumed on the first postoperative day (POD). On POD 4, CT scan showed no pathological findings. The patient was discharged on POD 8 without complications.

CONCLUSION

The authors conclude that the laparoscopic living donor left hepatectomy is a safe and feasible procedure but should be performed in selected patients with a favorable anatomy.

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe our experience with pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) and to compare its outcomes with those of open right hepatectomy (ORH) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with liver cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection has been reported as a safe and effective approach for the management of liver cancer; however, its outcomes have not been evaluated in a large cohort of HCC patients with liver cirrhosis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 152 patients who underwent pure LRH (n = 37) or ORH (n = 115) between June 2008 and July 2015 at the Asan Medical Center in Seoul, Korea. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching between the LRH and ORH groups. Subsequently, 33 patients were included in each group.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the LRH and ORH groups regarding the rate of complications (P = 0.053). However, the mean comprehensive complication index, which accounts for the severity of complications, was significantly lower in the LRH group (0.63 vs 4.42; P = 0.025). There were no significant differences between the LRH and ORH groups regarding 2-year disease-free survival rate or 2-year overall survival rate (P = 0.645 and P = 0.090, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Even in patients with cirrhosis, pure LRH is not less safe than the traditional open approach. The oncological outcomes of HCC were also comparable between the two groups. In selected patients, pure LRH for HCC appears to represent a viable alternative to ORH.

Different techniques for harvesting grafts for living donor liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on minimally vs conventional invasive techniques for harvesting grafts for living donor liver transplantation.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched comprehensively for studies comparing MILDH with conventional living donor hepatectomy (CLDH). Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes (operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative liver function, length of hospital stay, analgesia use, complications, and survival rate) were analyzed in donors and recipients. Articles were included if they: (1) compared the outcomes of MILDH and CLDH; and (2) reported at least some of the above outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 937 articles identified, 13, containing 1592 patients, met our inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. For donors, operative time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 20.68, 95%CI: -6.25-47.60, P = 0.13] and blood loss (WMD = -32.61, 95%CI: -80.44-5.21, P = 0.18) were comparable in the two groups. In contrast, analgesia use (WMD = -7.79, 95%CI: -14.06-1.87, P = 0.01), postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.44-0.89, P = 0.009], and length of hospital stay (WMD): -1.25, 95%CI: -2.35-0.14, P = 0.03) significantly favored MILDH. No differences were observed in recipient outcomes, including postoperative complications (OR = 0.93, 95%CI: 0.66-1.31, P = 0.68) and survival rate (HR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.27-3.47, P = 0.95). Funnel plot and statistical methods showed a low probability of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

MILDH is safe, effective, and feasible for living donor liver resection with fewer donor postoperative complications, reduced length of hospital stay and analgesia requirement than CLDH.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection can be an Effective Way in Obese Patients: A Single Center of 2-Year Experience

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic liver resection in obese patients, we compared the operative outcomes between obese and nonobese patients, also between laparoscopic liver resection and open liver resection of obese and nonobese patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 86 patients suffering from liver resection in our department from January 2013 to December 2014 were divided into 3 groups: the obese patients group for laparoscopic liver resection, the nonobese patients group for laparoscopic liver resection and the obese patients group for open liver resection. Characteristics and clinic data of 3 groups were studied.

RESULTS

Characteristics of patients and clinic data were equivalent between the 3 groups. The groups were well matched in age, sex distribution, and liver function (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in the operative time, estimated blood loss, time to oral intake, and postoperative hospital stay in the 3 groups. Tumor diameter of laparoscopic liver resection groups in obese patients was smaller than open liver resections groups in obese patients (P<0.05), but there were no obvious difference of tumor diameter in the laparoscopic liver resection groups of the obese patients and the nonobese patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Obesity should not be seen as a contraindication for laparoscopic liver resection, which is a safe and feasible procedure for obese patients.

The First Case of Total Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hemihepatectomy in Mainland China and Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Total laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy (LDRH) has been successfully performed in several transplant centers. Here we report the first LDRH performed in mainland China and review current literature, focusing on perioperative donor evaluation and surgical procedure to secure donor safety.

METHODS

A 47-year-old man volunteered for living donation to his wife who suffered from sclerosing cholangitis-related liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Donor height is 165 cm and weight is 65 kg, whereas the body mass index is 23.9. The CT volume evaluation showed that the graft-to-body weight ratio was 1.42%, and the remnant liver volume was 36.3% for right graft without middle hepatic vein (MHV). The anatomy of hepatic vein, artery, portal vein, and bile duct was normal. Preoperative liver function tests were normal.

RESULTS

Intraoperative biopsy result showed minimal steatosis. A transection was performed along the right side of the MHV. Two branches of MHV (V5 and V8) were <5 mm in diameter, and there was no need for reconstruction in the back table. Hilar dissection was meticulously performed. Right portal vein, hepatic artery, and bile duct were transected above the bifurcation. The right hepatic vein was transected by a laparoscopic linear stapler. The real graft volume was 660 mL, with a revised graft-to-body weight ratio of 1.14%. Warm ischemia time was about 4 minutes. The donor's postoperative course was uneventful.

CONCLUSIONS

Total LDRH has been proven to be technically feasible in selected adult donors. Following increased experience, it might be a safe and minimally invasive option for adult donors.

Totally laparoscopic anatomical liver resection for centrally located tumors: A single center experience

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy is a common procedure that has been reported frequently; however, laparoscopic resection of centrally located tumors involving segments 4, 5, and 8 remains a technically difficult procedure because it requires 2 transection planes and dissection of numerous branches of the hepatic vein and glissonean capsule compared to hemi-hepatectomy. Here, we present 7 cases of totally laparoscopic right anterior sectionectomy (Lap-RAS) and 3 cases of totally laparoscopic central bisectionectomy (Lap-CBS).Between May 2013 and January 2015, 10 totally laparoscopic anatomical resections of centrally located tumors were performed in our institution. The median age of the patients was 54.2 (38-72) years and the median ICG-R15 was 10.4 (3.9-17.4). There were 8 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and 2 with metastatic colorectal cancer. All the HCC patients has the liver function impairment on the degree of Child-Pugh score A.The mean operation time was 330 ± 92.7 minutes with an estimated blood loss of 325 ± 234.5 mL. Only 1 patient required transfusion during surgery. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 9.5 ± 3.4 day and postop complication was reported only 1 case that has the fluid collection at the resection margin of the liver. Mean resection margin was 8.5 ± 6.1 mm and tumor size was 2.9 ± 1.9 cm.Totally lap-RAS and lap-CBS are feasible operative procedures in patients with centrally located tumor of the liver and particularly in patients with limited liver function such as those with cirrhosis.

Two-stage liver transplantation using auxiliary laparoscopically harvested grafts in adults: Emphasizing the concept of "hypersmall graft nursing"

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation is limited by the donor's risk in case of right liver donation and by the risk of small-for-size syndrome on the recipient in case of left lobe transplantation. This study aimed at evaluating the feasibility and results of two-stage liver transplantation using auxiliary hyper small grafts harvested laparoscopically and discussing relevant technical insights and issues that still need to be overcome.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis involving two patients operated at a tertiary referral center. The recipients underwent left lateral sectionectomy and then auxillary liver transplantation using laparoscopically harvested left lateral section. The native right liver was transiently left in place to sustain the initially small functional graft functional during its hypertrophy.

RESULTS

No donor experienced postoperative complication. After 7days, the hypertrophy rate was 112% (105-120). Doppler assessments during the first two postoperative weeks showed progressive portal vein inflow decrease in the right native livers and portal vein inflow increase in the grafts. Liver biopsies on postoperative day 7 showed no lesion of overperfusion. No recipient experienced liver failure or small-for-size syndrome. Second stage hepatectomy of the native liver was undertaken in one patient. In the other patient, biliary stenosis on postoperative day 30 precluded second stage hepatectomy. This patient required retransplantation after one year.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The current strategy increases donor safety and may allow increasing the pool of available grafts. Refinements in the management of the native right liver are however required to improve the feasibility rate of this strategy.

Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donors

Objective

To document the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy in comparison with open liver resection for living donor liver transplantation.

Methods

Medline database, EMASE and Cochrane library were searched for original studies comparing laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy (LLDH) and open living donor hepatectomy (OLDH) by January 2015. Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate donors’ perioperative outcomes.

Results

Nine studies met selection criteria, involving 1346 donors of whom 318 underwent LLDH and 1028 underwent OLDH. The Meta analysis demonstrated that LLDH group had less operative blood loss [patients 1346; WMD: -56.09 mL; 95%CI: -100.28-(-11.90) mL; P = 0.01], shorter hospital stay [patients 737; WMD: -1.75 d; 95%CI: -3.01-(-0.48) d; P = 0.007] but longer operative time (patients 1346; WMD: 41.05 min; 95%CI: 1.91–80.19 min; P = 0.04), compared with OLDH group. There were no significant difference in other outcomes between LLDH and OLDH groups, including overall complication, bile leakage, postoperative bleeding, pulmonary complication, wound complication, time to dietary intake and period of analgesic use.

Conclusions

LLDH appears to be a safe and effective option for LDLT. It improves donors’ perioperative outcomes as compared with OLDH.

Surgical outcomes following laparoscopic major hepatectomy for various liver diseases

The aim of the study was to report surgical outcomes (efficacy and safety) of laparoscopic major hepatectomy for various liver diseases.Although the number of laparoscopic liver resections has increased, expansion of laparoscopic major hepatic resection remains limited, mainly owing to the technical difficulties for the procedure as compared to open surgery. We describe our experiences with laparoscopic major hepatectomy for various liver diseases.We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 192 patients who underwent laparoscopic major hepatectomy between October 2007 and March 2015 at Asan Medical Center, Korea.The mean age of the patients was 54 ± 11.6 years, and their mean body mass index was 23.5 kg/m. The most common preoperative diagnosis was hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 82, 42.7%), followed by intrahepatic duct stones (n = 51, 26.6%). We performed 108 left hepatectomies, 55 right hepatectomies, 18 right posterior sectionectomies, 6 right anterior sectionectomies, 2 central bisectionectomies, and 3 donor right hepatectomies. The conversion rate was 1.6% (3 cases) due to bleeding, bile leakage, and uncontrolled hypercapnea during the operation. The mean operation time was 272 ± 80.2 minutes, and the mean estimated blood loss was 300.4 ± 252.2 mL. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 9.8 days. All resection margins were tumor-free in cases of malignant tumors. The morbidity rate was 3.1% (n = 6), including for case of biliary stricture. There were no deaths.Laparoscopic major hepatectomy, including donor hepatectomy, is a safe and feasible option for various liver diseases when careful selection criteria are used by a surgeon experienced with the relevant surgical techniques.

Technical notes on pure laparoscopic isolated caudate lobectomy for patient with liver cancer

BACKGROUND

The advantages of laparoscopic liver resection become more obvious as evidence on its long-term outcome has emerged. Compared to open resection, there is no difference in term of overall survival. Many reports showed that the hospital stay was shorter and blood loss was less when laparoscopic hepatectomy was used. However, laparoscopic approach for caudate lobe resection remains a challenging procedure. The close proximity to inferior vena cava (IVC) and hepatic vein make this procedure extra difficult. This paper will demonstrate the use of pure laparoscopic approach for a patient with caudate lobe liver metastasis. Haemostasis by intracorporal suturing is safely performed when bleeding is encountered from the IVC.

METHOD

The patient was a 54-year-old lady who had carcinoma of the rectum with laparoscopic anterior resection performed. She was found to have a 2 cm lesion in the left caudate lobe of the liver on follow-up. Her platelet count was only 120×10⁹/L. Pure laparoscopic resection of the caudate lobe was performed as shown in the video.

RESULTS

The operation last for 180 minutes. Blood loss was 220 mL and no blood transfusion was required. She resumed diet on the next day and was discharged 3 days after the operation. Histopathological examination showed 2 cm colorectal liver metastasis with a clear margin. Contrast CT scan performed 1 year after the operation showed no recurrence of the disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic approach for caudate lobe resection is a feasible option. It can be performed to patients in center by surgeons with experience in both hepatobiliary and laparoscopic skills.

A review of current status of living donor liver transplantation

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become an inevitable procedure in Asia due to its shortage of deceased donor under the influence of the religion and native cultures. Through a broad variety of experience, LDLT has been evolved and extended its indication. Although there have been many surgical and ethical efforts to prevent donor risk, concerns of donor's safety still are remaining questions due to its strict selection criteria. Therefore, dual grafts LDLT or ABO incompatible (ABO-I) LDLT may be effective means in its application and safety aspect. Many Asian LDLT centers have pointed out the useful extended criteria of LDLT for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the applicability of extended criteria should be validated and standardized by worldwide prospective studies based on the Milan criteria. Recent struggling efforts have been reported to surmount extensive portal vein thrombosis and Budd-Chiari syndrome which were previously contraindicated to LDLT. There is no doubt that LDLT is a surely complicated therapy to be performed successfully and requires devoted efforts by surgeons and co-workers. Nonetheless, comprehensive increasing understandings of partial graft LT and improvements of surgical techniques with challenges to obstacles in LDLT will make its prosperity with satisfactory outcomes.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions

Laparoscopic surgery is applied today worldwide to most digestive procedures. In some of them, such as cholecystectomy, Nissen's fundoplication or obesity surgery, laparoscopy has become the standard in practice. In others, such as colon or gastric resection, the laparoscopic approach is frequently used and its usefulness is unquestionable. More complex procedures, such as esophageal, liver or pancreatic resections are, however, more infrequently performed, due to the high grade of skill necessary. As a result, there is less clinical evidence to support its implementation. In the recent years, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has been increasingly applied, again with little evidence for comparison with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This review will focus on the complex digestive procedures as well as those whose use in standard practice could be more controversial. Also novel robot-assisted procedures will be updated.

Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy: a review of current status

Over the last two decades, laparoscopic surgery has been adopted in various surgical fields. Its advantages of reduced blood loss, reduced postoperative morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and excellent cosmetic outcome compared with conventional open surgery are well validated. In comparison with other abdominal organs, laparoscopic hepatectomy has developed relatively slowly due to the potential for massive bleeding, technical difficulties and a protracted learning curve. Furthermore, applications to liver graft procurement in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) have been delayed significantly due to concerns about donor safety, graft outcome and the need for expertise in both laparoscopic liver surgery and LDLT. Now, laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy in adult-to-pediatric LDLT is considered the standard of care in some experienced centers. Currently, the shift in application has been towards left lobe and right lobe graft procurement in adult LDLT from left lateral section in pediatric LDLT. However, the number of cases is too small to validate the safety and reproducibility. The most important concern in LDLT is donor safety. Even though a few studies reported the technical feasibility and comparable outcomes to conventional open surgery, careful validating through larger sample sized studies is needed to achieve standardization and wide application.

Totally laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy in a donor with trifurcation of bile duct

Donor operation in adult living donor liver transplantation is associated with significant postoperative morbidity. To avoid laparotomy wound complications and shorten postoperative recovery, laparoscopic liver graft harvest has been developed recently. However, to determine the cut point of bile duct is challenging. Herein, we report the application of totally laparoscopic approach for right liver graft harvest in a donor with trifurcation of the bile duct. A19-year-old man volunteered for living donation to his father who suffered from hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis of liver and hepatocellular carcinoma. The graft was 880 mL with a single right hepatic artery and portal vein. The graft to recipient weight ratio was 1.06. The middle hepatic vein was preserved for the donor and the liver remnant was 42.3%. Two branches of middle hepatic veins were > 5 mm in diameter and needed reconstruction with cryopreserved allograft. Ductoplasty using laparoscopic intracorporeal suture technique was done to achieve single orifice of the graft bile duct. The postoperative course was uneventful for the donor. This report adds evidence of the feasibility of pure laparoscopic right donor hepatectomy and describes the necessary steps for bile duct division in donors with trifurcation of bile duct.

A propensity score-matched case-control comparative study of laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in case-controlled patient groups using the propensity score.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2005 and February 2013, 292 patients underwent surgical resection for HCC. Of these, 202 patients who underwent surgical resection for initial treatment for a single mass were enrolled. These patients were divided into two groups according to the method of operation: the Lap group (patients who underwent LLR) and the Open group (patients who underwent OLR). To correct different demographic and clinical factors in the two groups, propensity score matching was used at a 1:1 ratio, and, finally, 102 patients were enrolled in this study, 51 patients in each group. Preoperative characteristics, perioperative results, and long-term results were retrospectively analyzed based on the prospectively recorded database.

RESULTS

Preoperative baseline variables were well balanced in both groups. There were no differences of extent of surgery and rate of anatomical resection between the two groups. With the exception of a shorter postoperative hospital stay in the Lap group than that of the Open group (8.2 days versus 12.3 days; P=.004), there were no significant differences in perioperative, pathological, and long-term outcomes. The 5-year overall survival rates were 80.1% in the Lap group and 85.7% in the Open group, respectively (P=.173). The 5-year disease-free survival rates were 67.8% in the Lap group and 54.8% in the Open group, respectively (P=.519).

CONCLUSIONS

LLR for HCC is safe, and long-term oncologic outcomes in selected patients were comparable to those who underwent OLR.

Comparison between minimally invasive and open living donor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Living donor liver transplantation is a valid alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation, and its safety and feasibility have been well determined. Minimally invasive living donor hepatectomy (MILDH) has taken some time to be accepted because of inherent technical difficulties and the highly demanding surgical skills needed to perform the procedure, and its role is still being debated. Because of the lack of data, a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing MILDH and open living donor hepatectomy (OLDH) was performed. A systematic literature search was performed with PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library Central. Treatment outcomes, including blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, analgesia use, donor-recipient morbidity and mortality, and donor procedure costs, were analyzed. There were 573 articles, and a total of 11, dated between 2006 and 2014, fulfilled the selection criteria and were, therefore, included. These 11 studies included a total of 608 adult patients. Blood loss [mean difference (MD) = -46.35; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -94.04-1.34; P = 0.06] and operative times [MD = 19.65; 95% CI = -4.28-43.57; P = 0.11] were comparable between the groups, whereas hospital stays (MD = -1.56; 95% CI = -2.63 to -0.49; P = 0.004), analgesia use (MD = -0.54; 95% CI = -1.04 to -0.03; P = 0.04), donor morbidity rates [odds ratio (OR) = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.40-0.98; P = 0.04], and wound-related complications (OR = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.17-0.97; P = 0.04) were significantly reduced in MILDH. MILDH for right liver procurement was associated with a significantly reduced hospital stay (OR = -0.92; 95% CI = 0.17-0.97; P = 0.04). In conclusion, MILDH is associated with intraoperative results that are comparable to results for OLDH and with surgical outcomes that are no worse than those for the open procedure.

Fully laparoscopic left-sided donor hepatectomy is safe and associated with shorter hospital stay and earlier return to work: A comparative study

Living donor liver transplantation has failed to become a major means of transplantation in the United States, where <5% of the transplants are performed with living donors. At least 30% to 50% of the complications of donor hepatectomy appear to be related to abdominal wall trauma, including hernia, bowel obstruction, and chronic abdominal discomfort. We analyzed our experience with laparoscopically procured donor hepatectomy. We compared 22 full laparoscopic donor hepatectomies to 20 open/hybrid hepatectomies over an 11-year period. Donor and recipient demographics, complications, and graft and recipient outcomes were analyzed. All 22 laparoscopically procured liver allografts were transplanted successfully. The laparoscopically procured grafts took longer to procure (7 hours 58 minutes versus 6 hours 38 minutes; P < 0.001). The laparoscopically procured cases had lower blood loss (177.3 versus 3753 cc; P < 0.001), a shorter length of stay, and significantly reduced days off work (P = .01). The 1-year graft survival was not different (90% in the laparoscopic group and 85% in the open group; P = 0.70). The 1-year patient survival was not different (95% in the laparoscopic group and 85% in the open group; P = 0.32). There was a trend toward lower wound issues in the laparoscopic group, but this did not reach significance (the hybrid/open group had a 15% hernia rate versus 5% for the laparoscopic group). In experienced living donor centers, laparoscopic liver donation appears to be feasible for all pediatric recipients and some adult recipients. Outcomes for the recipients of laparoscopically procured grafts do not appear significantly different from outcomes with hybrid/open techniques.

2014 KLCSG-NCC Korea Practice Guideline for the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The guideline for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was first developed in 2003 and revised in 2009 by the Korean Liver Cancer Study Group and the National Cancer Center, Korea. Since then, many studies on HCC have been carried out in Korea and other countries. In particular, a substantial body of knowledge has been accumulated on diagnosis, staging, and treatment specific to Asian characteristics, especially Koreans, prompting the proposal of new strategies. Accordingly, the new guideline presented herein was developed on the basis of recent evidence and expert opinions. The primary targets of this guideline are patients with suspicious or newly diagnosed HCC. This guideline provides recommendations for the initial treatment of patients with newly diagnosed HCC.

2014 Korean Liver Cancer Study Group-National Cancer Center Korea practice guideline for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma

The guideline for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was first developed in 2003 and revised in 2009 by the Korean Liver Cancer Study Group and the National Cancer Center, Korea. Since then, many studies on HCC have been carried out in Korea and other countries. In particular, a substantial body of knowledge has been accumulated on diagnosis, staging, and treatment specific to Asian characteristics, especially Koreans, prompting the proposal of new strategies. Accordingly, the new guideline presented herein was developed on the basis of recent evidence and expert opinions. The primary targets of this guideline are patients with suspicious or newly diagnosed HCC. This guideline provides recommendations for the initial treatment of patients with newly diagnosed HCC.

Pure laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy in living donors: from innovation to development in France

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we report the results obtained from 70 living donors in France.

BACKGROUND

Left lateral sectionectomy for pediatric live donor liver transplantation is a well-standardized surgical procedure. Our team introduced the laparoscopic approach to live donation in 2002, and the reproducibility and safety of this method was discussed in 2006.

METHODS

Between March 2001 and October 2012, a total of 70 donors underwent a liver procurement. Sixty-seven donors (95.7%) underwent a left lateral sectionectomy, and 3 underwent a left hepatectomy without middle hepatic vein procurement. All data were prospectively recorded in a database.

RESULTS

Of the 70 donors, 66 (94%) liver grafts were procured by laparoscopy, whereas 4 (6%) patients required conversion into an open technique. Seventeen donors experienced complications, leading to an overall complication rate of 24.2%. Eleven donors (16%) had grade 1 complications, according to the Clavien system. Five donors (7.1%) presented grade 2 complications, and 1 donor (1.4%) had a grade 3 complication. No death occurred. Overall, patient and graft survival rates for pediatric recipients were 95% and 92% at 1 year, 95% and 88% at 3 years, and 95% and 84% at 5 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic retrieval of the left lateral section for live donor liver transplantation is safe and reproducible and has transitioned from an innovative surgery to a development phase in France.

A cost effective analysis of a laparoscopic versus an open left lateral sectionectomy in a liver transplant unit

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of a laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) compared with an open (OLLS) procedure and its role as a training operation as well as the learning curve associated with a laparoscopic approach.

METHOD

Between 2004 and 2013, a prospectively maintained database was reviewed. LLLS were compared with age- and sex-matched OLLS. In addition, the outcomes of LLLS with a consultant as the primary surgeon were compared with those performed by trainees.

RESULTS

Forty-three LLLS were performed during the study period. LLLS was a significantly cheaper operation compared with OLLS (P = 0.001, £3594.14 versus £5593.41). The median hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.002, 3 versus 7 days). No difference was found in outcomes between a LLLS performed by a trainee or consultant (operating time, morbidity or R1 resection rate). The procedure length was significantly shorter during the later half of the study period [120 versus 129 min (P = 0.045)].

CONCLUSION

LLLS is a significantly cost effective operation compared with an open approach with a reduction in hospital stay. In addition, it is suitable to use as a training operation.

How surgical technology translates into practice: the model of laparoscopic liver resections performed in France

OBJECTIVES

Analyze, at a national level, the adoption and practice of laparoscopic liver resections (LAP), compared to open resections (OPEN).

BACKGROUND

LAP initiated 20 years ago, has been described for all hepatectomies, and is considered as the reference technique for some resections. There are, however, no data on its adoption outside selected specialty centers.

METHODS

French Healthcare databases were screened to identify all patients who underwent an elective LAP or OPEN between 2007 and 2012. Patients' demographics, associated conditions, indication for surgery, hepatectomy performed, and hospital type and hepatectomy caseload were retrieved. Patients who had possible overcoding of biopsies as wedge resections were identified to select REAL resections. Time trend analyses were performed using a piecewise linear regression and the average annual percent change (AAPC) calculated.

RESULTS

There were 7881 (17.8%) LAP and 36,359 (82.2%) OPEN performed in an average of 483 hospitals. Of these, biopsies accounted for 29.9% of the LAP (7.3% of the OPEN, P<0.0001) and the incidence of LAP biopsies increased after 2009. The AAPC of the incidence of real LAP increased more than that of real OPEN (7.0% vs 1.3%) but most were minor resections (61.1% vs 28.9% for OPEN, P<0.0001), only 15% of patients were operated by LAP and intermediate (or major) resections were performed in 19.5% (or 4.8%) of hospitals performing liver resections. The proportion of resections performed by LAP was inversely related to annual caseload. The overall incidence of resections performed for benign conditions did not increase.

CONCLUSIONS

LAP is not developing, has not been adopted for intermediate/major resections, does not result in overuse for benign indications and some of the 2009 -consensus statements are not applied.

The role of adult living donor liver transplantation and recent advances

Twenty years since the first cases were described, adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT) is now considered a valid option to expand the donor pool in view of the ongoing shortage of organs and the high waiting list mortality rate. Despite the rapid evolution and acceptance of this complex process of donation and transplantation in clinical practice, the indications, outcome, ethical considerations and quality and safety aspects continue to evolve based on new data from large cohort studies. This article reviews the surgical and clinical advances in the field of liver transplantation, focusing on technical refinements and discussing the issues that may lead to a further expansion of this complex surgical procedure and the role of ALDLT.

An update on laparoscopic liver resection: The French Hepato-Bilio-Pancreatic Surgery Association statement

Laparoscopic liver resection has been recognized as a safe and efficient approach since the Louisville Conference in 2008, but its use still remains confined to experienced teams in specialized centers, and may lack some standardization. The 2013 Session of French Association for Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery (ACHBT) specifically focused on laparoscopic liver surgery and the particular aspects and issues arising since the 2008 conference. Our objective is to provide an update and summarize the current French position on laparoscopic liver surgery. An overview of the current practice of laparoscopic liver resections in France since 2008 is presented. The issues surrounding standardization for left lateral sectionectomy and right hepatectomy, hybrid and hand-assisted techniques are raised and discussed. Finally, future technologies and technical perspectives are outlined.

Donor safety in live donor laparoscopic liver procurement: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Donor safety is a major concern in live organ donation. Live donor laparoscopic liver procurement is an advanced surgical procedure that is performed in highly specialized centers. Since its first report, not much progress has been endeavored for that procedure.

METHODS

We planned to include all the randomized and comparative nonrandomized studies. Patients' population: live donors who are submitted to organ procurement via laparoscopy.

RESULTS

Out of 5,636 records retrieved from the literature, only seven nonrandomized studies were included in this review, which encompassed 418 patients, 151 patients of whom underwent laparoscopic procurement. The quality scores for the included studies ranged from 66 to 76 %. The operative time was significantly shorter in the conventional open group (SD = 0.863, 95 % CI 0.107-1.819). Blood loss in the laparoscopic group was comparable with the conventional open approach (SD = -0.307, 95 % CI -0.807 to 0.192). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy was protective against blood loss in laparoscopic parenchymal dissection (SD = -1.168, 95 % CI -1.758 to -0.577). The hospital stay was equal in both groups. Patients in laparoscopic group consumed fewer analgesics compared with conventional open group (SD = -0.33, 95 % CI -0.63 to -0.03). Analgesics use was lower in the laparoscopic group compared with the conventional approach. The rate of Clavien complications was equal in both groups (OR 0.721, 95 % CI 0.303-1.716). No difference was found between subgroup analysis based on the harvested liver lobe. Funnel plot and statistical methods used revealed low probability of publication BIAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Live donor laparoscopic liver procurement could be as safe as the conventional open approach. Lower blood loss and lower consumtion of analgesics might be offered in the laparoscopic approach.

Costs of laparoscopic and open liver and pancreatic resection: A systematic review

AIM: To study costs of laparoscopic and open liver and pancreatic resections, all the compiled data from available observational studies were systematically reviewed.

METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using the Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases to identify all studies published up to 2013 that compared laparoscopic and open liver [laparoscopic hepatic resection (LLR) vs open liver resection (OLR)] and pancreatic [laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) vs open pancreatic resection] resection. The last search was conducted on October 30, 2013.

RESULTS: Four studies reported that LLR was associated with lower ward stay cost than OLR (2972 USD vs 5291 USD). The costs related to equipment (3345 USD vs 2207 USD) and theatre (14538 vs 11406) were reported higher for LLR. The total cost was lower in patients managed by LLR (19269 USD) compared to OLR (23419 USD). Four studies reported that LPR was associated with lower ward stay cost than OLR (6755 vs 9826 USD). The costs related to equipment (2496 USD vs 1630 USD) and theatre (5563 vs 4444) were reported higher for LPR. The total cost was lower in the LPR (8825 USD) compared to OLR (13380 USD).

CONCLUSION: This systematic review support the economic advantage of laparoscopic over open approach to liver and pancreatic resection.

Oncological and surgical results of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for HCC less than 5 cm: case-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is the evaluation of the surgical and oncological results of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by comparing laparoscopic and open liver resection (OLR) in the treatment of this disease. Retrospective analysis of laparoscopic and OLR for HCC (<5 cm) performed over a 4-year period was conducted. The LLR was done by a single surgeon.

METHODS

The study was performed on patients who received liver resection for HCC between July 2007 and August 2011 in our institution. Propensity-based matched analyses were used to account for operative method selection biases. During the 4 years, 1,050 patients with HCC received an operation. Among them patients who never received TACE or RFA before surgery and had HCC (<5 cm) were selected for this study.

RESULTS

174 patients had OLR, and 58 patients underwent LLR. Patients who received LLR had lower operative time, transfusion rate, complication rate, and shorter hospital days. There were significant differences in hospital mortality and morbidity between the two groups. Dietary recovery was relatively fast in the group of LLR. Overall and disease-free survival rates during the 4 years were also not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR is a developing and safe technique in a select group of patients including those with malignancies, and use of this procedure is associated with short hospital stays, a rapid return to a normal diet, full mobility, and minimal morbidity, with acceptable oncological parameters. It may be an optimal method of hepatectomy in HCC (<5 cm). Further, long-term follow-up should be acquired for adequate evaluation for survival.

Laparoscopic liver resection for living donation: Where do we stand?

In Western countries, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) may represent a valuable alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation. Yet, after an initial peak of enthusiasm, reports of high rates of complications and of fatalities have led to a certain degree of reluctance towards this procedure especially in Western countries. As for living donor kidney transplantation, the laparoscopic approach could improve patient’s tolerance in order to rehabilitate this strategy and reverse the current trend. In this setting however, initial concerns regarding patient’s safety and graft integrity, need for acquiring surgical expertise in both laparoscopic liver surgery and living donor transplantation and lack of evidence supporting the benefits of laparoscopy have delayed the development of this approach. Similarly to what is performed in classical resectional liver surgery, initial experiences of laparoscopy have therefore begun with left lateral sectionectomy, which is performed for adult to child living donation. In this setting, the laparoscopic technique is now well standardized, is associated with decreased donor blood loss and hospital stays and provides graft of similar quality compared to the open approach. On the other hand laparoscopic major right or left hepatectomies for adult-adult LDLT currently lack standardization and various techniques such as the full laparoscopic approach, the hand assisted approach and the hybrid approach have been reported. Hence, even-though several reports highlight the feasibility of these procedures, the true benefits of laparoscopy over laparotomy remain to be fully assessed. This could be achieved through standardization of the procedures and creation of international registries especially in Eastern countries where LDLT keeps on flourishing.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a comparative study from a single center

PURPOSE

The significant advantages of robotic surgery have expanded the scope of surgical procedures that can be performed through minimally invasive techniques. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic liver surgeries at a single center.

METHODS

From July 2007 to October 2011, a total of 206 patients underwent laparoscopic or robotic liver surgery at the Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. We compared the surgical outcomes between robotic liver surgery and laparoscopic liver surgery during the same period. Only patients who underwent left hemihepatectomy or left lateral sectionectomy were included in this study.

RESULTS

The robotic group consisted of 13 patients who underwent robotic liver resection including 10 left lateral sectionectomies and three left hemihepatectomies. The laparoscopic group consisted of 17 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection during the same period including six left lateral sectionectomies and 11 left hemihepatectomies. The groups were similar with regard to age, gender, tumor type, and tumor size. There were no significant differences in perioperative outcome such as operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative liver function tests, complication rate, and hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, the medical cost was higher in the robotic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic liver resection is a safe and feasible option for liver resection in experienced hands. The authors suggest that since the robotic surgical system provides sophisticated advantages, the retrenchment of medical cost for the robotic system in addition to refining its liver transection tool may substantially increase its application in clinical practice in the near future.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Wedge resections to living donor hepatectomy, are we heading in the right direction?

Despite inception over 15 years ago and over 3000 completed procedures, laparoscopic liver resection has remained mainly in the domain of selected centers and enthusiasts. Requirement of extensive open liver resection (OLR) experience, in-depth understanding of anatomy and considerable laparoscopic technical expertise may have delayed wide application. However healthy scepticism of its actual benefits and presence of a potential publication bias; concern about its safety and technical learning curve, are probably equally responsible. Given that a large proportion of our work, at least in transplantation is still OLR, we have attempted to provide an entirely unbiased, mature opinion of its pros and cons in the current invited review. We have divided this review into two sections as we believe they merit separate attention on technical and ethical grounds. The first part deals with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in patients who present with benign or malignant liver pathology, wherein we have discussed its overall outcomes; its feasibility based on type of pathology and type of resection and included a small section on application of LLR in special scenarios like cirrhosis. The second part deals with the laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy (LDH) experience to date, including its potential impact on transplantation in general. Donor safety, graft outcomes after LDH and criterion to select ideal donors for LLR are discussed. Within each section we have provided practical points to improve safety in LLR and attempted to reach reasonable recommendations on the utilization of LLR for units that wish to develop such a service.

Total laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Right lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the predominant form of adult-to-adult LDLT. Accordingly, cosmetic and functional demand by young donors is increasing. We developed the world first total laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) in adult living donors.

METHODS

Total LDRH was performed in two young donors without vascular clamping. Modified extended right graft (right liver including all the middle hepatic vein branches) was retrieved from suprapubic transverse incision.

FINDINGS

After full mobilization of right liver, hilar dissection was done. First, right portal vein was isolated under retracting common bile duct laterally. Right hepatic artery was cautiously dissected and isolated without injuring. An exact transection line was drawn during transient clamping of the hepatic artery and portal vein on the right side of the liver using bulldog clamp. Dissection was meticulously performed along the right side of the middle hepatic vein until the origin of middle hepatic vein until exposure of the hilar plate. Anterior section vein branches (V5 and V8) were finely dissected and were reconstructed using an artificial vascular graft. A modified extended right graft with preservation of the middle hepatic vein branches was extracted through the suprapubic incision. There was no complication in both donors and recipients. Postoperative hospital stay of donors was 10 and 8 days, respectively. After follow-up of more than 1 year, all donors and recipients live well with normal liver function.

CONCLUSION

Total LDRH was feasible in selected adult donors. If this procedure will be more standardized, then total LDRH will be new option for adult LDLT, which meets demand by donors and diminish guilty feeling by recipients.

First fully laparoscopic donor hepatectomy for pediatric liver transplantation using the indocyanine green near-infrared fluorescence imaging in the Middle East: a case report

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a well-established treatment modality for several pediatric end-stage liver diseases owning excellent long-term results. Left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) through an open approach is a well-standardized procedure. This technique has been modified for a fully laparoscopic approach and gaining more and more interest worldwide. We report herein the first fully laparoscopic LLS for pediatric LDLT in the Middle East with the use of indocyanine green dye and near-infrared fluorescence imaging to identify the biliary ducts intraoperatively. The recipient was a 2-year-old girl affected by glycogen storage disease type IV. The mother, aged 21 years, was her donor. The surgical technique, key-points of this procedure, and outcome are hereby discussed.

Living donor liver transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) continues to evolve, generating interesting issues on the applicability and safety of new techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

Specific selection criteria and standardized surgical techniques with high ethical and medical standards are needed to minimize donor risk. In this aspect, minimally invasive donor hepatectomy has caused controversies. The reproducibility and safety of pure laparoscopic major hepatectomy in LDLT remains uncertain. Therefore, a stepwise approach is needed to avoid unnecessary donor risk. To expand the living donor pool, dual graft and ABO-incompatible LDLT have emerged as well tolerated and effective methods. The extended selection criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma in LDLT appear acceptable to balance donor risk and recipient outcome. However, these criteria should be validated based on the risk-benefit ratio. Despite technical advances, technical challenges persist such as Budd-Chiari syndrome and portal vein thrombosis. To address these issues, several innovative surgical techniques have been proposed and have shown promising results.

SUMMARY

LDLT is associated with donor safety concerns, technical complexity, and small-for-size issues. Nonetheless, accumulated experience and technical know-how from large-volume Asian LDLT centers have led to progress in LDLT. Further technical refinement and investigation to overcome the disadvantages of partial grafts will broaden the applicability of LDLT.

Role of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery in living-donor right liver harvest

OBJECTIVE

The cosmetic aspects of abdominal skin incisions are a matter of concern for both live liver donors and surgeons. We performed a prospective comparative study on the use of minilaparotomy to perform right liver graft harvests with and without hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS).

METHODS

Young donors were indicated for surgery using minilaparotomy with or without HALS. In the non-HALS group (n = 20), a 10-12-cm-long right subcostal incision was used for right liver graft harvest. In the HALS group (n = 20), an 8-cm-sized right subcostal incision was used for hand assistance and 3 laparoscopic holes made for manipulation. The retrohepatic inferior vena cava (IVC) was initially laparoscopically dissected while using air inflation. The skin incision was extended to 10-12 cm, and then hilar dissection and hepatic transection were performed through the skin incision.

RESULTS

In all 40 donors in the study cohort, safe uneventful harvesting of the right liver grafts was successfully achieved through the minilaparotomy incisions. The HALS group required an additional 30 minutes for laparoscopic preparation and dissection compared with the non-HALS group. HALS facilitated retrohepatic IVC dissection, and the remaining part of the surgery was the same as that for minimal-incision surgery. The minimal skin incision for the delivery of the liver from the abdomen was an average 10 cm for grafts <500 g and 12 cm for grafts ≥700 g. Compared with the patient profiles, there were no differences regarding donor age, body mass index, graft weight, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative increase in peak liver enzymes, total hospital stay, and incidence of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

HALS facilitates the performance of donor hepatectomy with the use of a minimal incision, which probably allows for a wider selection of living donors.

Laparoscopy-assisted hybrid left-side donor hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection developed for live liver donors has the advantage of reducing the physical and mental stress in donors. However, its safety and efficacy still remain to be established. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted hybrid donor hepatectomy (LADH) to obtain left side grafts.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 31 consecutive live liver donors of left side liver grafts underwent LADH, including left lateral segmentectomy (n = 17) and left liver resection with or without the caudate lobe (n = 14) (LADH group). We compared the clinical data between the LADH group and the group of donors in whom traditional open donor hepatectomy was performed to procure the liver graft (open donor hepatectomy [ODH] group, n = 79).

RESULTS

Laparoscopy-assisted hybrid donor hepatectomy was feasible in all patients, and there was no mortality over a follow-up period of 13.9 ± 9.8 months. The operative time to procure a left-lobe graft was significantly longer in the LADH group (510 ± 90 min) than in the ODH group (P < 0.001). A large right lobe on CT (RPv distance) was identified as a significant risk factor for prolonged operative time (P = 0.007). Evaluation using the SF36-v2 questionnaire revealed faster recovery of the physical component summary score and bodily pain score in the LADH group than in the ODH group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy-assisted hybrid donor hepatectomy for procuring left side grafts was safe and effective up to the left liver with the caudate lobe. Left-lobe LADH in donors with a large right lobe should be carefully planned in view of the potential surgical difficulty.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open left hemihepatectomy for left-sided hepatolithiasis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the perioperative and long-term outcomes of open versus laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (OLH vs. LLH) for left-sided hepatolithiasis.

METHODS

Between October 2007 and June 2012, 149 patients with left-sided hepatolithiasis who underwent LLH (n = 37) or OLH (n = 112) were evaluated. The perioperative and long-term outcomes that were reviewed included the stone clearance rate, operative morbidity and mortality, and the stone recurrence rate.

RESULTS

The mean operative time of the LLH group was significantly longer than that of the OLH group (257±50.4 minutes vs. 237±75.5 minutes, p = 0.022), but the mean hospital stay was significantly shorter (8.8±4.10 vs. 14.1±4.98 days, p < 0.001). Postoperative complications were noted in four and twenty cases among LLH and OLH patients, respectively (p = 0.982). The initial clearance rate of intrahepatic duct (IHD) stones was 100% and 96.4% in the LLH and OLH groups, respectively, but all remnant stones (n = 4, OLH group) were resolved postoperatively. There were two cases of recurrence of IHD stones in OLH patients, but none in LLH patients (p = 0.281).

CONCLUSIONS

In left-sided hepatolithiasis, LLH was safe and effective: it resulted in low postoperative morbidity, no mortality and a high stone clearance rate, and there were no incidences of recurrence in our study. The potential benefits of LLH include a shorter hospital stay and a faster return to oral intake. If consideration is given to the appropriate indication criteria, including the extent of hepatectomy and the location and distribution of lesions, LLH may be an excellent choice for treatment of left-sided hepatolithiasis.

Pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy in a living donor

After reporting the first laparoscopic hepatectomy in a living donor for pediatric liver transplantation, we now report a case of pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy for adult transplantation. A 50-year-old female volunteered for living donation to her sister who suffered from primary biliary cirrhosis. The volume of the planned hepatic graft (segments 5-8) was 620 cm(3) , representing 56% of her entire liver. Five ports were used in the donor to perform the operative procedure. The right hepatic artery and portal vein were isolated. Parenchymal division was performed using an ultrasonic dissector, bipolar coagulation and clips for hemostasis. Cholangiography was performed and the right bile duct was cut at the level of a marker thread. The right liver graft was placed in a bag and removed through a 10-cm suprapubic incision. The veins of segments 5 and 8 were recanalized and the graft was transplanted in the recipient. The postoperative course was uneventful for both the donor and recipient. This case offers evidence that the right liver can be procured via a total laparoscopic approach. This technique may allow for an early rehabilitation for the living donor.

Totally laparoscopic full left hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation in adolescents and adults

In recent years different minimal access strategies have been designed in order to perform living donor liver surgery for adult recipients with less morbidity. Techniques involve shortening the length of the incision with or without previous laparoscopic mobilization of the liver. Herein we present two cases of totally laparoscopic living donor left hepatectomy, with and without removal of the middle hepatic vein, respectively. We describe in detail the anatomical and technical aspects of the procedure focusing on relevant points to enhance safety.

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy: a systematic literature review and comparison of 3 techniques

OBJECTIVE

This review assesses the current status of laparoscopic liver resection.

BACKGROUND

The trend in laparoscopic liver resection has been moving from limited resections toward major hepatectomy. The surgical techniques for laparoscopic major hepatectomy include pure laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and laparoscopy-assisted methods. We performed a literature search and systematic review to assess the current status of laparoscopic major hepatectomy.

METHODS

Our literature review was conducted in Medline using the keywords "laparoscopy" or "laparoscopic" combined with "liver resection" or "hepatectomy." Articles written in English containing more than 10 cases of laparoscopic major hepatectomy were selected.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Twenty-nine articles were selected for this review. The laparoscopic major hepatectomies achieved similar patient and economic outcomes compared with open liver resections in selected (noncirrhotic) patients. Surgeon experience with the techniques affected the results; thus, a learning period is mandatory. Of these 3 techniques, the pure laparoscopic method is suitable for experienced surgeons to achieve better cosmetic outcomes, whereas the hand-assisted laparoscopic method was associated with better perioperative outcomes; the laparoscopy-assisted method is used by surgeons for unique resections such as resection of cirrhotic livers, laparoscopic resection of tumors in unfavorable locations, and living donor hepatectomies. In addition, the laparoscopic major hepatectomy-specific, long-term oncologic outcomes remain to be addressed in future publications.