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

Laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy: Review of its current status

The laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy procedure has been developing rapidly. Although its use has increased worldwide, it is still only performed by experienced surgeons at a limited number of institutions. However, technical innovations have improved the feasibility of more widespread use of laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy. The advantages of laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy should not be overemphasized, and the fundamental principle of "living-donor safety first" cannot be neglected. This review aims to summarize the current status of laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy and to emphasize that, while this procedure may soon be used as a reliable, donor-friendly substitute for traditional open donor hepatectomy, its safety and efficacy require further substantiation first.

Demarcating the Exact Midplane of the Liver Using Indocyanine Green Near-Infrared Fluorescence Imaging During Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy

Indocyanine green (ICG) near-infrared fluoroscopy has been recently implemented in pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH). This study aims to quantitatively evaluate the effectiveness of ICG fluoroscopy during liver midplane dissection in PLDH and to demonstrate that a single injection of ICG is adequate for both midplane dissection and bile duct division. Retrospective analysis was done with images acquired from recordings of PLDH performed without ICG (pre-ICG group) from November 2015 to May 2016 and with ICG (post-ICG group) from June 2016 to May 2017. 30 donors from the pre-ICG group were compared with 46 donors from the post-ICG group. The operation time was shorter (P = 0.002) and postoperative peak aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels were lower (P = 0.031 and P = 0.019, respectively) in the post-ICG group than the pre-ICG group. Within the post-ICG group, the color intensity differences between the clamped versus nonclamped regions in the natural, black-and-white, and fluorescent modes were 39.7 ± 36.2, 89.6 ± 46.9, and 19.1 ± 36.8 (mean ± SD, P < 0.001), respectively. The luminosity differences were 37.2 ± 34.5, 93.8 ± 32.1, and 26.7 ± 25.7 (P < 0.001), respectively. Meanwhile, the time from when ICG was injected to when the near-infrared camera was turned on for bile duct visualization was 85.6 ± 25.8 minutes. All grafts received from the 46 donors were successfully transplanted. In conclusion, ICG fluoroscopy helps to reduce operation time and lower postoperative AST/ALT levels. ICG injection visualized with black-and-white imaging is most effective for demarcating the liver midplane during PLDH. A single intravenous injection of ICG is sufficient for midplane dissection as well as bile duct division.

Donor wound satisfaction after living-donor liver transplantation in the era of pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Donor safety and cosmetic outcome are the main concerns raised by most living-donors. Pure laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy (PLLDH) can provide the balance between those concerns. No studies evaluated the donors' satisfaction after PLLDH. The aim of this study is to evaluate the donors' satisfaction after PLLDH compared with donors who underwent open approach.

METHODS

We randomly assigned a questionnaire (Donor satisfaction questionnaire) to the donors, operated between 2011 and 2017, during their follow-up visits in the outpatient clinic. Donors who responded to the questionnaire were included in our study. Donors were divided into 3 groups: L group (conventional inverted L incision), M group (midline incision), and PL group (laparoscopic approach).

RESULTS

149 donors were included in our study. L group included 60 donors (40.3%), M group included 39 patients (26.2%), and PL group included 50 patients (33.5%). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding preoperative and perioperative outcomes apart from shorter operation time in PL group and higher wound infection in M group. Body image scale was significantly better in PL group (p = 0.001). Cosmetic scale was significantly higher in PL group (p = 0.001). Regarding self-confidence scale, it was significantly higher in PL group (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the sense of dullness or numbness on the scar (p = 0.113).

CONCLUSION

PLLDH is safe and feasible for living-donor hepatectomy. Donors operated by pure laparoscopic approach have better satisfaction scores compared to conventional open approach.

Safety and Feasibility Report of Robotic-assisted Left Lateral Sectionectomy for Pediatric Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Comparative Analysis of Learning Curves and Mastery Achieved With the Laparoscopic Approach

BACKGROUND

There is a growing interest in left lateral sectionectomy for donor hepatectomy. No data are available concerning the safety of the robotic (ROB) approach.

METHODS

A retrospective comparative study was conducted on 75 consecutive minimally invasive donor hepatectomies. The first 25 ROB procedures performed from November 2018 to July 2019 were compared with our first (LAP1) and last 25 (LAP2) laparoscopic cases performed between May 2013 and October 2018. Short-term donors and recipients' outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

No conversions were noticed in ROB whereas 2 conversions (8%) were recorded in LAP1 and none in LAP2. Blood loss was significantly less in ROB compared with LAP1 (P ≤ 0.001) but not in LAP2. Warm ischemia time was longer in ROB (P ≤ 0.001) with respect to the other groups. Operative time was similar in the 3 groups (P = 0.080); however, the hospital stay was shorter in ROB (P = 0.048). The trend in operative time in ROB was significantly shorter compared to LAP1 and LAP2: linear R2 0.478, P≤0.001; R2 0.012, P = 0.596; R3 0.004, P = 0.772, respectively. Donor morbidity was nihil in ROB, similar in LAP1 and LAP2 (n=3%-12%; P = 0.196). ROB procedures required less postoperative analgesia (P = 0.002). Recipient complications were similar for all groups (P = 0.274), and no early retransplantations were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic left lateral sectionectomy for donor hepatectomy is a safe procedure with results comparable to the laparoscopy in terms of donor morbidity and overall recipients' outcome when the procedure is performed by experts. Certainly, its use is currently very limited.

Advances in the surgical outcomes of 300 cases of pure laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy divided into three periods of 100 cases: a single-centre case series

Background

Minimally invasive surgery has been widely used for hepatobiliary operations. This study aimed to determine the safety and feasibility of pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy.

Methods

From November 2015 to April 2019, 300 cases of adult pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy performed at Seoul National University Hospital were divided into three subgroups of periods 1-3 of 100 cases each: 1-100, 101-200, and 201-300, respectively. We retrospectively reviewed and analysed the safety and feasibility outcomes.

Results

The operative time (period 1: 318.9±62.2 min, period 2: 256.7±71.4 min, period 3: 227.7±57.4 min) and blood loss (period 1: 419.7±196.5 mL, period 2: 198.9±197.2 mL, period 3: 166.0±130.0 mL) gradually decreased (P<0.01). Similarly, the length of hospital stay decreased (period 1: 8.1±2.0 days, period 2: 7.3±3.1 days, period 3: 6.9±2.4 days, P<0.01). There was no requirement for intraoperative transfusions or care in the intensive care unit. The overall complication rate was 20/300 (6.7%), of which 8/300 (2.7%) were Clavien-Dindo grade III and above. Complications were not different among the three periods. In terms of anatomical variations, the incidences of multiple portal veins, multiple hepatic arteries, and multiple bile ducts were 32/300 (10.7%), 11/300 (3.7%), and 161/300 (53.7%), respectively. No differences were found among the three periods.

Conclusions

Owing to the technical improvements over time, pure laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy is currently feasible and safe even for donors with anatomical variations.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy for adult liver transplantation: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) was a controversial topic due to its unknown safety and feasibility.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing LDRH with open living donor right hepatectomy (ODRH), which were published between the date of database establishment and June 2020. Revman5.3 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included. For the donors, there was no significant difference in warm ischemic time, hospital stay, graft weight, hepatic arterial anomalies (HAA), hepatic vein anomalies (HVA), portal vein anomalies (PVA), biliary anomalies, bleeding, wound infection, severe complication rate and readmission rate. The estimated blood loss, incidence of complication, intra-abdominal fluid rate in the LDRH group were significantly lower than those in the ODRH group, while the operation time, time to remove liver in the LDRH group were significantly higher than those in the ODRH group. For the recipients, there was no significant difference in complication rate, bleeding, HAA, PVA, biliary anomalies, graft failure and mortality. The HVA rate in the LDRH group was significantly higher than that in the ODRH group.

CONCLUSION

LDRH is safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared with ODRH and it can reduce intraoperative bleeding and postoperative complication in donors, which requires further verification by more multi-center comparative studies with large sample and high quality.

Expert Consensus Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy for Living Donor Liver Transplantation From Innovation to Implementation: A Joint Initiative From the International Laparoscopic Liver Society (ILLS) and the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (A-PHPBA)

OBJECTIVE

The Expert Consensus Guidelines initiative on MIDH for LDLT was organized with the goal of safe implementation and development of these complex techniques with donor safety as the main priority.

BACKGROUND

Following the development of minimally invasive liver surgery, techniques of MIDH were developed with the aim of reducing the short- and long-term consequences of the procedure on liver donors. These techniques, although increasingly performed, lack clinical guidelines.

METHODS

A group of 12 international MIDH experts, 1 research coordinator, and 8 junior faculty was assembled. Comprehensive literature search was made and studies classified using the SIGN method. Based on literature review and experts opinions, tentative recommendations were made by experts subgroups and submitted to the whole experts group using on-line Delphi Rounds with the goal of obtaining >90% Consensus. Pre-conference meeting formulated final recommendations that were presented during the plenary conference held in Seoul on September 7, 2019 in front of a Validation Committee composed of LDLT experts not practicing MIDH and an international audience.

RESULTS

Eighteen Clinical Questions were addressed resulting in 44 recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a 90% consensus among experts and were afterward endorsed by the validation committee.

CONCLUSIONS

The Expert Consensus on MIDH has produced a set of clinical guidelines based on available evidence and clinical expertise. These guidelines are presented for a safe implementation and development of MIDH in LDLT Centers with the goal of optimizing donor safety, donor care, and recipient outcomes.

Pure Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy: A Multicenter Experience

According to recent international consensus conferences, pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH), particularly right and left hepatectomies, is not yet considered a standard practice because studies remain limited. Thus, we present the outcomes of more than 500 PLDH patients, mostly receiving a right hepatectomy. To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date on PLDH. Data from all living liver donors who underwent PLDH at 5 centers in Korea until June 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The outcomes of both donors and recipients were included. Pearson correlation analysis was used to explore the relationship between the duration of surgery and cumulative experience at each center, which reflects the learning curve. Overall, 545 PLDH cases were analyzed, including 481 right hepatectomies, 25 left hepatectomies, and 39 left lateral sectionectomies (LLS). The open conversion was necessary for 10 (1.8%) donors, and none of the donors died or experienced irreversible disability. Notably, there were 25 (4.6%) patients with major complications (higher than Clavien-Dindo grade 3). All centers except one showed a significant decrease in surgery duration as the number of cases accumulated. Regarding recipient outcomes, there were 110 cases (20.2%) of early major complications and 177 cases (32.5%) of late major complications. This study shows the early and late postoperative outcomes of 545 donors and corresponding recipients, including 481 right hepatectomies and 25 left hepatectomies, from 5 experienced centers. Although the results are comparable to those of previously reported open donor hepatectomy series, further studies are needed to consider PLDH a new standard practice.

Image guidance using two-dimensional illustrations and three-dimensional modeling of donor anatomy during living donor hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

For living donor liver transplantation, preoperative imaging is required for the safety of both the donor and the recipient. We previously initiated our image-guidance program using two-dimensional illustrations and three-dimensional modeling in September 2018; herein, we analyzed the resultant changes in the clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Living donors and recipients who underwent liver transplantation between September 2017 and August 2019 were included. Cases with image guidance were compared to those without image guidance regarding the operative outcome, especially bile-duct opening in the graft as well as surgical complications.

RESULTS

Among 200 living donor transplantation, 90 transplantations were completed with image guidance. The image-guidance group had a higher rate of laparoscopy (80.9% vs. 97.8%; p < .001) as compared with the group without image guidance. Although there was no difference in the type of bile duct (p = .144), more grafts with single bile-duct openings were found in the image-guidance group (52.7% vs. 80.0%; p = .001). Consequently, achievements in bile-duct openings were superior in the image-guidance group (p = .022). There were no differences in bile leakage, graft failure, or number of deaths during the first month post-transplantation.

CONCLUSION

As we initiated our image-guidance program for living donor liver transplantation, clinical outcomes, especially bile-duct division, were improved relative to before implementation.

Robotic Versus Open Right Lobe Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Robotic right lobe donor hepatectomy (RRLDH) is rarely performed, and data concerning its safety and efficacy are lacking. Here we compare our series of RRLDHs with a similar cohort undergoing open right lobe donor hepatectomy (ORLDH) with a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis. Among 263 consecutive adult patients undergoing right lobe living donor hepatectomy from January 2015 until July 2019, 35 RRLDHs were matched to 70 ORLDHs. A 1:2 PSM analysis was performed to make the groups comparable for donor sex, age, and body mass index (BMI) and for recipient sex, age, BMI, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and indication for transplant. Operative time was longer in RRLDHs compared with ORLDHs (504 ± 73.5 versus 331 ± 65.1 minutes; P < 0.001) but significantly decreased with the number of patients (P < 0.001). No conversions occurred. First warm ischemia time was longer and blood loss significantly less in RRLDHs (P = 0.001 and 0.003, respectively). Overall donor complications were similar: 2 (6%) in RRLDHs versus 12 (17%) in ORLDHs (P = 0.13). Biliary leak occurred in 1 (3%) patient receiving a robotic procedure and 2 (3%) patients receiving the conventional approach. Donors undergoing robotic surgery required less patient-controlled analgesia and had a shorter hospital stay compared with the open surgery group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively). No significant differences in graft anatomical data and recipient outcomes were recorded. RRLDH is feasible, safe, and reproducible, with significantly decreased blood loss and a shorter hospital stay compared with the open procedure. The first 35 patients receiving the robotic procedure showed a substantial reduction in operative time, reflecting a rapid shortening of the learning curve.

Laparoscopic liver resection: indications, limitations, and economic aspects

Background

Minimally invasive techniques have increasingly found their way into liver surgery in recent years. A multitude of mostly retrospective analyses suggests several advantages of laparoscopic over open liver surgery. Due to the speed and variety of simultaneous technical and strategic developments, it is difficult to maintain an overview of the current status and perspectives in laparoscopic liver surgery.

Purpose

This review highlights up-to-date aspects in laparoscopic liver surgery. We discuss established indications with regard to their development over time as well as continuing limitations of applied techniques. We give an assessment based on the current literature and according to our own center experiences, not least with regard to a highly topical cost discussion.

Conclusions

While in the beginning mainly benign tumors were laparoscopically operated on, liver metastasis and hepatocellular carcinoma are now among the most frequent indications. Technical limitations remain and should be evaluated with the overall aim not to endanger quality standards in open surgery. Financial aspects cannot be neglected with the necessity of cost-covering reimbursement.

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy, systemic review

Liver transplantation is a life-saving therapy for patients with end-stage liver disease. Living donation is a critical source of organs throughout the world. Reducing donor morbidity and mortality is of utmost importance while maintaining access to liver transplantation for recipients. While laparoscopy was more rapidly utilized in donor nephrectomy, laparoscopy has been slower to develop for living donor hepatectomies due to the concerns about hemostasis, safety of the donor and quality of the graft. Pure minimal invasive approach has become a standard of care for left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) for pediatric recipients. In the past few years, a number of centers with significant laparoscopic and living donor experience have reported fully minimally invasive approach to hemi-hepatectomies. In this manuscript we discuss the experiences, lessons learned and path forward for laparoscopic and minimal invasive surgery(MIS) in donor hepatectomies (DH).

Influence of Body Mass Index ≥30 on Pure Laparoscopic Donor Right Hepatectomy

Background

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) for donors with obesity has not been previously investigated. This study aimed to investigate the influence of donor obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) on and clinical outcomes after PLDRH.

Material/Methods

Records of all living donors who underwent PLDRH between November 2015 and May 2018 and open conventional donor right hepatectomy (CDRH) between January 2011 and October 2015 at Seoul National University Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. The donors were divided into 3 groups: PLDRH BMI ≥30, PLDRH BMI <30, and CDRH BMI ≥30.

Results

Donors in the PLDRH BMI ≥30 group (n=7) were compared with those in the PLDRH BMI <30 (n=65; control 1) and CDRH BMI ≥30 (n=8; control 2) groups. Graft weight was significantly heavier in PLDRH BMI ≥30 than in control 1 (P=0.012). The lowest hemoglobin (Hb) value was higher (P=0.014) and ΔHb% was lower (P=0.005) in PLDRH BMI ≥30 than in control 1. Similarly, the lowest Hb value was higher (P=0.021) and ΔHb% was lower (P<0.001) in PLDRH BMI ≥30 than in control 2. The peak alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (P=0.029) and ΔALT% were higher in PLDRH BMI ≥30 than in control 2. No significant differences in hospital stay and postoperative complications were found between PLDRH BMI ≥3 and control 1, as well as between PLDRH BMI ≥3 and control 2.

Conclusions

This study revealed that PLDRH is feasible in donors with obesity.

Complications and outcomes of 890 living liver donor hepatectomies at a single center: risks of saving loved one's life

OBJECTIVES

Living liver donor surgery is a major surgical procedure applied to healthy people with mortality and morbidity risks and does not provide any direct therapeutic advantage to the donor. We retrospectively analyzed the postoperative complication of our living liver donors to figure out the risks of donation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between November, 2006 and December, 2018, a total of 939 living liver donor hepatectomies were performed with no mortality to the living-related donors. Eight hundred and ninety donors with a minimum 1-year follow-up were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Of the 890 donors, 519 (58.3%) were males and 371 (41.7%) were females. Mean age was 35 years (18-64) and mean body mass index was 25.7 kg/m2 (17.7-40). Right donor hepatectomy was performed to 601 (67.5%), left donor hepatectomy to 28 (3.2%) and left lateral sector hepatectomy to 261 (29.3%) of the donors. Of the 890 donors, 174 (19.5%) donors experienced a total of 204 early and late complications including life- threatening and nearly life- threatening complications in 26 (2.9%) of them. Intraoperative complication occurred in 4 (0.5%) donors. Right donors hepatectomy complication rate (23.3%) was higher than left donor (14.3%) and left lateral sector donor hepatectomy (11.5%).

CONCLUSION

All donor candidates should be well-informed not only on the details of early and late complications of living liver donation, also possible outcomes of the recipient. In addition to detailed physical evaluation, preoperative psychosocial evaluation is also mandatory. Comprehensive donor evaluation, surgical experience, surgical technique, close postoperative follow-up and establishing a good dialog with the donor allows better outcomes.

Robotic approach to the liver: Open surgery in a closed abdomen or laparoscopic surgery with technical constraints?

The application of the minimally invasive approach has shown to be safe and effective for liver surgery and is in constant growth. The indications for laparoscopic surgery are steadily increasing across the field. In the early 2000s, robotic surgery led to some additional improvements, such as tremor filtration, instrument stability, 3D view and more comfort for the surgeon. These techniques bring in some advantages compared to the traditional OLR: less blood loss, shorter admissions, fewer adhesions, and a faster postoperative recovery and better outcomes in case of further hepatectomy for tumor recurrence has been shown. Concerning which is the best minimally invasive approach between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, the evidence is still conflicting. The latter shows good potential, since the endo-wristed instruments work similarly to the surgeon's hands, even with an intact abdominal wall. However, the technique is still under development, burdened by important costs, and limited by the lack of some instruments available for the laparoscopic approach. The paucity of universally accepted and proven data, especially concerning long-term outcomes, hampers drawing univocal acceptance at present. Furthermore, the number of variables related both to the patient and the disease further complicates the decision leading to a treatment tailored to each patient with strict selection. This review aims to explore the main differences between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, focusing on indications, operative technique and current debated clinical issues in recent literature.

Feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for liver cavernous hemangioma: A single-institutional comparative study

Backgrounds/Aims

While minimal invasive surgery has become popular, the feasibility of laparoscopy for liver cavernous hemangioma has not been shown.

Methods

Patients who underwent hepatectomy for liver cavernous hemangioma from January 2008 to February 2019 at the Samsung Medical Center were reviewed. Patients who underwent trisectionectomy were excluded. Background characteristics, along with operative and postoperative recovery, were compared between the laparoscopy and open surgery groups.

Results

Forty-three patients in the laparoscopy group and 33 patients in the open surgery group were compared. The differences in the background characteristics were presence of symptoms (14.6% in laparoscopy vs. 57.1% in open, p<0.001) and tumor location (right, left and both side p=0.017). The laparoscopy group had smaller blood loss (p=0.001), lesser blood transfusion requirements (p=0.035), lower level of post-operative total bilirubin, prothrombin time (INR) (p=0.001, 0.003 each), shorter hospital stay (p=0.001), earlier soft diet start (p<0.001), earlier drain removal (p<0.001) and shorter amount and duration of additional pain control (p=0.001, p=0.017 each). There was no significant difference in complication after surgery between two groups (p=0.721). All the patients showed pathologic report of benign hemangioma regardless of type of surgery (100%). Almost every patients reported no symptom or relief of symptom in both groups (97.7%, 93.9% each).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic liver resection for liver cavernous hemangioma can be safely performed with improved postoperative recovery. However, surgery for liver cavernous hemangioma should be conducted with informed consent of the patients.

The high-end range of biliary reconstruction in living donor liver transplant

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize recent evidence in literature regarding incidence and risk factors for biliary complications in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), and current concepts in evaluation of donor biliary anatomy and surgical techniques of biliary reconstruction, to reduce the incidence of biliary complications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Advances in biliary imaging in the donor, both before surgery, and during donor hepatectomy, as well as safe hepatic duct isolation in the donor, have played a significant role in reducing biliary complications in both the donor and recipient. Duct-to-duct biliary anastomoses (DDA) is the preferred mode of biliary reconstruction currently, especially when there is a single bile duct orifice in the donor. The debate on stenting the anastomoses, especially a DDA, continues. Stenting a Roux en Y hepaticojejunostomy in children with small ductal orifices in the donor is preferred. With growing experience, and use of meticulous surgical technique and necessary modifications, the incidence of biliary complications in multiple donor bile ducts, and more than one biliary anastomoses can be reduced.

SUMMARY

Biliary anastomosis continues to be the Achilles heel of LDLT. Apart from surgical technique, which includes correct choice of type of reconstruction technique and appropriate use of stents across ductal anastomoses, better imaging of the biliary tree, and safe isolation of the graft hepatic duct, could help reduce biliary complications in the recipient, and make donor hepatectomy safe .

Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: An International, Multi-Institutional Evaluation of Safety, Efficacy and Early Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Evaluating the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive (MIV) donor hepatectomy for adult live donor liver transplants in a large multi-institutional series from both Eastern and Western centers.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection has become standard practice for minor resections in selected patients in whom it provides reduced postoperative morbidity and faster rehabilitation. Laparoscopic approaches in living donor hepatectomy for transplantation, however, remain controversial because of safety concerns. Following the recommendation of the Jury of the Morioka consensus conference to address this, a retrospective study was designed to assess the early postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic donor hepatectomy. The collective experience of 10 mature transplant teams from Eastern and Western countries was reviewed.

METHODS

All centers provided data from prospectively maintained databases. Only left and right hepatectomies performed using a MIV technique were included in this study. Primary outcome was the occurrence of complications using the Clavien-Dindo graded classification and the Comprehensive Complication Index during the first 3 months. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for complications.

RESULTS

In all, 412 MIV donor hepatectomies were recorded including 164 left and 248 right hepatectomies. Surgical technique was either pure laparoscopy in 175 cases or hybrid approach in 237. Conversion into standard laparotomy was necessary in 17 donors (4.1%). None of the donors died. Also, 108 experienced 121 complications including 9.4% of severe (Clavien-Dindo 3-4) complications. Median Comprehensive Complication Index was 5.2.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows favorable early postoperative outcomes in more than 400 MIV donor hepatectomy from 10 experienced centers. These results are comparable to those of benchmarking series of open standard donor hepatectomy.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes between pure laparoscopic surgery and open right hepatectomy in living donor hepatectomy: Propensity score matching analysis

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) is not a standard procedure for living donor liver transplantation but is safe and reproducible in the hands of experienced surgeons. However, the perioperative outcomes of PLDRH have not been fully evaluated yet. We used propensity score matching to compare the perioperative complications and postoperative short-term outcomes of donors undergoing PLDRH and open donor right hepatectomy (ODRH). A total of 325 consecutive donors who underwent elective, adult-to-adult right hepatectomy were initially screened. After propensity score matching, all patients were divided into two groups: PLDRH (n = 123) and ODRH (n = 123) groups. Perioperative complications and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Postoperative pulmonary complications were significantly more common in the ODRH than in the PLDRH group (54.5 vs. 31.7%, P < 0.001). The biliary complications (leak and stricture) were higher in PLDRH group than in the ODRH group (8% vs. 3%), but it failed to reach statistical significance (P = 0.167). Overall, surgical complication rates were similar between the two groups (P = 0.730). The opioid requirement during the first 7 postoperative days was higher in the ODRH group (686 vs. 568 mg, P < 0.001). The hospital stay and time to the first meal were shorter in the PLDRH than in the ODRH group (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001, respectively). PLDRH reduced the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications and afforded better short-term postoperative outcomes compared to ODRH. However, surgical complication rates were similar in both groups.

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Left Hepatectomy Including the Middle Hepatic Vein for Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) has become increasingly accepted in the era of minimally invasive surgeries. However, the outcomes of pure laparoscopic donor left hepatectomy (PLDLH) are relatively less known than for left lateral sectionectomy or right hepatectomy. This study aimed to report our experience with and the outcomes of PLDLH including the middle hepatic vein (MHV) and to compare these outcomes with conventional donor left hepatectomy (CDLH). The medical records of living liver donors between January 2010 and January 2018 at Seoul National University Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Donors who underwent left hepatectomy including the MHV were included. To minimize selection bias, donors who underwent CDLH after the initiation of the PLDH program were excluded. Finally, there were 18 donors who underwent CDLH and 8 who underwent PLDLH. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) warm ischemia time (11 [10-16] minutes versus 4 [2-7] minutes; P = 0.001) was longer in the PLDLH group than the CDLH group. The total operation time (333 [281-376] minutes versus 265 [255-308] minutes; P = 0.09) and time to remove the liver (245 [196-276] minutes versus 182 [172-205] minutes; P = 0.08) were also longer in PLDLH although not statistically significant. The length of postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the PLDLH group (7 [7-8] days versus 9 [8-10] days; P = 0.01). There were no postoperative complications in the PLDLH group. The rate of complications in recipients was similar in both groups. In conclusion, PLDLH including the MHV appears to be safe and feasible. Further analysis including longterm outcomes is needed.

Learning Curve Under Proctorship of Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Left Lateral Sectionectomy for Pediatric Transplantation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the learning curve of an expert liver transplantation surgeon approaching fully laparoscopic living donor left lateral sectionectomy (L-LLS) under proctorship.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resections necessitate a long learning curve trough a stepwise fulfillment of difficulties. L-LLS requires expertise in both living donor liver transplantation and advanced laparoscopic liver surgery. There is currently no data about the learning curve of L-LLS.

METHODS

A total of 72 pure L-LLS were included in this study. A Broken line model was used to identify the periods of the learning curve. A CUSUM analysis of the operative time was performed to evaluate improvements of outcomes with time. To evaluate the relationship between operative time and progressive number of procedures, a linear regression model was applied. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was carried out to identify the cutoff for completion of the learning curve.

RESULTS

Operative time decreased with the progressive increase of procedures. Two cutoffs and 3 different periods were identified: cases 1 to 22, cases 23 to 55, and cases 56 to 72. A significant decrease in blood loss and operative time was noted. The CUSUM analysis showed an increase in operative time in the first period, a stable duration in the second period, and a decrease in the last. Blood loss was significantly associated with an increase in operative time (P = 0.003). According to the ROC curve, the learning curve was completed after 25 procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

L-LLS is a safe procedure that can be standardized and successfully taught to surgeons with large experience in donor hepatectomy through a proctored learning curve.

New Technique for Management of Separate Right Posterior and Anterior Portal Veins in Pure 3D Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, including right hepatectomy, is being increasingly performed at experienced centers (Kim et al. Transplantation 101:1106-1110, 2017; Han et al. Medicine (Baltimore) 96:e8076, 2017; Suh et al. Am J Transplant 18:434-443, 2018; Hong et al. Br J Surg 105:751-759, 2018; Lee et al. Transplantation 102:1878-1884, 2018). However, anatomical variations in the portal vein remain major challenges and are regarded as contraindications by some centers. Using a stapler or clip in donors with these anatomical variations may result in kinking of the remnant portal vein due to the thick linear bite, as well as a reduction in the length of the graft portal vein. This report describes a liver donor with separate right posterior and anterior portal veins who underwent pure 3D laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy, focusing on a new technique of managing separate two portal veins.

METHODS

A 45-year-old man offered to donate part of his liver to his father, who required a liver transplant for alcoholic liver cirrhosis. The father's Child-Pugh score was 7 and his Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was 10.7. Donor height was 175.4 cm, body weight was 79.9 kg, and body mass index was 26.0 kg/m². Preoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography showed that the donor had separate right posterior and anterior portal veins. Estimated graft-to-recipient weight ratio was 1.4% and remnant liver volume was 35.7%. The entire procedure was performed under 3D laparoscopic view using a flexible scope and real-time indocyanine green fluorescence cholangiography. The right posterior and anterior portal veins were divided using Hem-O-Lok clips. After retrieving the liver, the stumps of the portal veins were replaced with polypropylene sutures, followed by removal of the Hem-O-Lok clips (SNUH technique).

RESULTS

The total operation time was 365 min, with no transfusion and no intraoperative complications. The portal veins were divided safely without any torsion or stricture. The stumps of the portal veins were sutured after retrieval of the liver graft, with suturing requiring about 12 min. The donor was discharged on postoperative day 7 with no complications.

CONCLUSION

The SNUH technique, consisting of temporary clipping, intracorporeal suturing, and clip removal is safe and useful for pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy in donors with anatomic variations in the portal vein.

Pure 3D laparoscopy versus open right hemihepatectomy in a donor with type II and III portal vein variations

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS

Pure laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy (PLDRH) has been performed in many experienced centers. However, portal vein variations still remain challenging thus disturbing the widespread of PLDRH in many centers. PLDRH when integrated with 3-dimensional laparoscopy and indocyanine green (ICG) near-infrared fluorescence cholangiography is safe and feasible.

METHODS

We reviewed 19 donors with separated right anterior and right posterior portal veins who underwent living donor right hemihepatectomy between January 2014 and December 2016. We compared the clinical outcomes of PLDRH and conventional open right hemihepatectomy (CDRH).

RESULTS

6 donors (31.6%) underwent PLDRH while 13 donors (68.4%) underwent CDRH. There was no intraoperative complications, transfusions and open conversions in the PLDRH donors. The total operative time was longer in PLDRH (356.5 vs. 244.5 minutes, p=0.003). However, the length of hospital stay (8.5 vs. 9.0 days, p=0.703), blood loss (450.0 vs. 393.6 ml, p=0.557) and complication rate (16.6% vs.27.3%; p=0.327) did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PLDRH is safe and feasible in donors with type II and III portal vein variations. Further prospective comparative studies are needed to prove the safety and efficacy of PLDRH.

One-Year Recipient Morbidity of Liver Transplantation Using Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: Propensity Score Analysis

Donor safety and graft results of pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy (LLDRH) have previously been compared with those of open living donor right hepatectomy (OLDRH). However, the clinical outcomes of recipients at 1-year follow-up have never been accurately compared. We aimed to compare 1-year outcomes of recipients of living donor right liver transplantation (LRLT) using pure LLDRH and OLDRH. From May 2013 to May 2017, 197 consecutive recipients underwent LRLT. Donor hepatectomies were performed either by OLDRH (n = 127) or pure LLDRH (n = 70). After propensity score matching, 53 recipients were included in each group for analysis. The clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up were compared between the 2 groups. The primary outcome was recipient death or graft failure during the 1-year follow-up period. In the propensity-matched analysis, the incidence of death or graft failure during the 1-year follow-up period was not different between the 2 groups (3.8% versus 5.7%; odds ratio [OR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-8.95; P = 0.69). However, the composite of Clavien-Dindo 3b-5 complications was more frequent in the pure LLDRH group (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.15-5.96; P = 0.02). In conclusion, although pure LLDRH affords a comparable incidence of fatal complications in recipients, operative complications may increase at the beginning of the program. The safety of the recipients should be confirmed to accept pure LLDRH as a feasible option.

Learning curve of laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy

Background

The feasibility and learning curve of laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy was assessed.

Methods

Donors who underwent right hepatectomy performed by a single surgeon were reviewed. Comparisons between open and laparoscopy regarding operative outcomes, including number of bile duct openings in the graft, were performed using propensity score matching.

Results

From 2014 to 2018, 103 and 96 donors underwent laparoscopic and open living donor right hepatectomy respectively, of whom 64 donors from each group were matched. Mean(s.d.) duration of operation (252·2(41·9) versus 304·4(66·5) min; P &lt; 0·001) and median duration of hospital stay (8 versus 10 days; P = 0·002) were shorter in the laparoscopy group. There was no difference in complication rates of donors (P = 0·298) or recipients (P = 0·394) between the two groups. Total time for laparoscopy decreased linearly (R2 = 0·407, β = –0·914, P = 0·001), with the decrease starting after approximately 50 procedures when cases were divided into four quartiles (2nd versus 3rd quartile, P = 0·001; 3rd versus 4th quartile, P = 0·023). Although grafts with bile duct openings were more abundant in the laparoscopy group (P = 0·022), no difference was found in the last two quartiles (P = 0·207).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy is feasible and an experience of approximately 50 cases may surpass the learning curve.

Abdominal Organ Transplantation: Noteworthy Literature in 2018

A PubMed search revealed 1382 articles on pancreatic transplantation, 781 on intestinal transplantation, more than 7200 on kidney transplantation, and more than 5500 on liver transplantation published between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018. After narrowing the list down to human studies, 436 pancreatic, 302 intestinal, 1920 liver, and more than 2000 kidney transplantation studies were screened for inclusion in this review.

Intraoperative Ultrasonography as a Guidance for Dividing Bile Duct During Laparoscopic Living Donor Hepatectomy

Background

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using intraoperative ultrasonography as a guidance in dividing bile duct during laparoscopic donor hepatectomy.

Material/Methods

Cases of living liver donors who underwent laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy from May 2013 to December 2017 were reviewed. Operative and postoperative data were compared between donors with intraoperative ultrasonography and donors with intraoperative cholangiography. For analyzing whether bile duct division was performed successfully, anatomical type and number of bile duct openings were reviewed. When the number of bile ducts were achieved as expected, it was considered “successful”.

Results

Intraoperative cholangiography was used in 67 donors (62.6%) while intraoperative ultrasonography was used in 36 donors (33.6%). Mean operation time was 405.0±76.2 minutes versus 275.1±37.5 minutes, P<0.001, respectively, and was longer in donors who had a cholangiography. There was no difference in the success rate of bile duct division between donors who had a cholangiography (92.5%) and donors who had an ultrasonography (88.9%, P=0.716). The mean hospital stay after operation was longer in donors who had a cholangiography (11.6±4.3 days versus 9.0±2.7 days, P<0.001). There was no difference in biliary complication rate between donors who had a cholangiography (11.9%) and donors who had an ultrasonography (8.3%, P=0.743).

Conclusions

Intraoperative ultrasonography can be used safely in dividing bile duct during laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy with similar outcomes to intraoperative cholangiography.

ABO incompatible living donor liver transplantation using dual grafts and pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy: A case report

RATIONALE

Because of the shortage of deceased donors, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become the main procedure to treat patients with end-stage liver disease in Asian countries. However, many potential donors are excluded because of donor safety and graft volume issues. In addition, large abdominal wounds after open surgery for hepatectomy could be a reason for hesitating to agree to liver donation, particularly when attempting to recruit young female donors.

PATIENT CONCERNS

On volumetric computed tomography (CT) examination, remnant liver volume was too small to guarantee the safety of the male donor, and the right hemiliver volume of the female donor was not sufficient to meet the recipient's metabolic demand. The young female donor also worried about a large abdominal wound following open surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

We performed ABO-incompatible LDLT using dual grafts and right-sided graft was obtained by pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy in a young female donor.

OUTCOMES

The postoperative course was uneventful in both donors and the recipient is presently doing well in satisfactory condition 7 months after liver transplantation.

LESSONS

We overcame these volumetric and cosmetic issues through dual living donor liver grafts using a combination of conventional surgery for 1 donor and laparoscopic right hepatectomy for a second ABO-incompatible donor. We think this procedure can be a good option for the expansion of donor pools.

Indocyanine green fluorescence image-guided total laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy: The first case report from Mainland China

INTRODUCTION

Total laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy (TLDRH) is sporadically reported worldwide. Liver transection margin used to be determined by ischemic demarcation or intraoperative ultrasonography. To identify the site of bile duct division relied on preoperative MRCP and intraoperative cholangiography, which is experience demanding.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 34-year-old man volunteered for living donation to his brother who suffered decompensated HBV-related cirrhosis. Right lobe donation without MHV fulfilled the volumetric criteria. After hilum dissection, ICG was injected into the right portal branch. Right lobe was transected tracing the real-time fluorescence-enhanced borderline and the course of MHV. The right bile duct was transected above the bifurcation that was fluorescently visualized within the parenchyma. The liver graft was retrieved from a pre-made suprapubic incision after simple vascular clamping. The warm ischemia time was 6 min. The recipient procedure was successful with back-table graft venoplasty using cryopreserved iliac artery allografts. The donor recovered uneventfully and was discharged from hospital on POD 7.

DISCUSSION

The operative time, blood loss and postoperative course of donor is comparable to those undergoing ordinary laparoscopic right hepatectomy in our institute. ICG fluorescence can real-timely visualize the surgical margin and biliary branches of right lobe, which helps preserve every last bit of functional liver volume for the donor and avoid the complicated traditional intraoperative cholangiography.

CONCLUSION

TLDRH proves to be achievable in surgical teams confortable with both laparoscopic hepatectomy and LDLT. ICG fluorescence navigation could make the procedure simplified, safer and more accurate. More practice and technical modification are necessary.

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy: perspectives in manipulating a flexible scope

BACKGROUND

Interest in pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) is increasing worldwide with the donor's cosmetic demands and improvements in surgical techniques. Efficient manipulation of flexible scope is mandatory for successful PLDH, especially in right hepatectomy which requires more mobilization. This study provides guidelines on how to manipulate optimally a flexible scope.

METHODS

Data from 158 donors who underwent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) between November 2015 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

None of the donors required transfusion, conversion to open hepatectomy, or experienced any irreversible disabilities or mortalities. Three types of laparoscopic view provided by the flexible scope, which are bird's eye view, low angle view, and lateral view, were applied to each step of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

PLDRH can be successfully performed with maximizing visibility given by the tips and pitfalls in manipulating the flexible scope.

Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Recipients

Even after 2 decades of experience in laparoscopic hepatectomy, data on purely laparoscopic approach for donor hepatectomy in adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) are limited. We report our initial experience of a purely laparoscopic approach for donor hepatectomy for adult recipients to explore its potential application in the management of donors. We did a retrospective data analysis of 54 consecutive patients operated on between May 2013 and February 2015. There were 41 right, 10 extended right, and 3 left hepatectomies. The median operative time was 436 minutes (range 294-684 minutes), and warm ischemia time was 6 minutes (2-12 minutes). Estimated blood loss was 300 mL (10-850 mL), and none of the patients required intraoperative transfusion. Four cases were converted to open laparotomy. The major complication rate was 16.7%, and biliary complication was the most frequent cause. Patients with normal anatomy had a major complication rate of 9.3% as compared with 45.5% in patients with anatomic variations. All patients recovered, and there was no mortality. In conclusion, a purely laparoscopic donor hepatectomy for adult LDLT recipients seems to be a feasible option; with careful patient selection and when performed by experienced surgeons, it may afford results comparable to the open method.

Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Left Lateral Sectionectomy in Pediatric Transplantation: A Propensity Score Analysis on 220 Consecutive Patients

Left lateral sectionectomy for donor hepatectomy is a well-established alternative to deceased donor pediatric liver transplantation. However, very little is available on the laparoscopic approach (laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy [L-LLS]). With the aim to assess safety, reproducibility under proctorship, and outcomes following living donor liver transplantation in children, a comparative single-center series using propensity score matching (PSM) to evaluate open left lateral sectionectomy (O-LLS) versus L-LLS was carried out in a relatively short time period in a high-volume pediatric transplant center. A retrospective, observational, single-center, PSM study was conducted on 220 consecutive living donor hepatectomies from January 2011 to April 2017. The variables considered for PSM were as follows: year of operation, recipient age, indication for transplant, recipient weight, donor sex, donor age, and donor body mass index. After matching, 72 O-LLSs were fit to be compared with 72 L-LLSs. Operative time and warm ischemia time were significantly longer in L-LLSs, whereas blood loss and overall donor complication rates were significantly lower. Postoperative day 1 and 4 pain scores were significantly less in the L-LLS group (P = 0.015 and 0.003, respectively). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in L-LLS (4.6 versus 4.1 days; P = 0.014). Overall donor biliary complications were 9 (12.5%) and 1 (1.4%) for O-LLS and L-LLS (P = 0.022), respectively. Vascular complications occurred in 3 (4.2%) children without graft loss in the laparoscopic group. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall patient survival rates were 98.5%, 90.9%, and 90.9% in the O-LLS group and in the L-LLS group 94.3%, 92.7%, and 86.8% (P = 0.28). In conclusion, L-LLS for donor hepatectomy is a safe and reproducible technique yielding better donor perioperative outcomes with respect to the conventional approach with similar recipient outcomes.

Laparoscopic liver resection: a review of current indications and surgical techniques

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been the most impressive development in the field of liver surgery in recent two decades. Technical innovations and experience accumulation have made LLR a safe and effective procedure with faster postoperative recovery. Despite the fast spreading of the procedure, details regarding the indications, oncological outcomes and technical essentials were still disputable. To address these issues, two international consensus conferences were hold to update the knowledge in this field. The statements of the both conferences were not conclusive and more high-quality researches are required. In this article, we reviewed the development and the current state of LLR. Indications, outcomes, surgical techniques and devices used in LLR were also discussed.

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy, are we ready for prime time?

Minimally invasive surgery potentially reduces operative morbidities. However, pure laparoscopic approaches to donor hepatectomy have been limited by technical complexity and concerns over donor safety. Reduced-wound donor hepatectomy, either in the form of a laparoscopic-assisted technique or by utilizing a mini-laparotomy wound, i.e., hybrid approach, has been developed to bridge the transition to pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, offering some advantages of minimally invasive surgery. To date, pure laparoscopic donor left lateral sectionectomy has been validated for its safety and advantages and has become the standard in experienced centres. Pure laparoscopic approaches to major left and right liver donation have been reported for their technical feasibility in expert hands. Robotic-assisted donor hepatectomy also appears to be a valuable alternative to pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, providing additional ergonomic advantages to the surgeon. Existing reports derive from centres with tremendous experience in both laparoscopic hepatectomy and donor hepatectomy. The complexity of these procedures means an arduous transition from technical feasibility to reproducibility. Donor safety is paramount in living donor liver transplantation. Careful donor selection and adopting standardized techniques allow experienced transplant surgeons to safely accumulate experience and acquire proficiency. An international prospective registry will advance the understanding for the role and safety of pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy.