Upper midline incision for living donor right hepatectomy

Minimizing Incision in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Initial Experience and Comparative Analysis of Upper Midline Incision in 115 Recipients

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) needs "Mercedes Benz" or "J-shaped" incision, causing short and long-term complications. An upper midline incision (UMI) is less invasive alternative but technically challenging. Reporting UMI for recipients in LDLT vs. conventional J-shaped incision. Retrospective analysis, July 2021 to December 2022. Peri-operative details and post-transplant outcomes of 115 consecutive adult LDLT recipients transplanted with UMI compared with 140 recipients with J-shaped incision. Cohorts had similar preoperative and intraoperative variables. The UMI group had significant shorter time to ambulation (3 ± 1.6 vs. 3.6 ± 1.3 days, p = 0.001), ICU stay (3.8 ± 1.3 vs. 4.4 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.001), but a similar hospital stay (15.6±7.6 vs. 16.1±10.9 days, p = 0.677), lower incidence of pleural effusion (11.3% vs. 27.1% p = 0.002), and post-operative ileus (1.7% vs. 9.3% p = 0.011). The rates of graft dysfunction (4.3% vs. 8.5% p = 0.412), biliary complications (6.1% vs. 12.1% p = 0.099), 90-day mortality (7.8% vs. 12.1% p = 0.598) were similar. UMI-LDLT afforded benefits such as reduced pleuropulmonary complications, better early post-operative recovery and reduction in scar-related complaints in the medium-term. This is a safe, non-inferior and reproducible technique for LDLT.

Mini-incision Right Hepatectomy for Living Donor Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

The application of a minimally invasive technique to graft procurement in living donor liver transplantation has minimized skin incisions and led to early recovery in donor hepatectomy while ensuring donor safety. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of mini-incision living donor right hepatectomy compared with conventional open surgery.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 448 consecutive living donors who underwent living donor right hepatectomy performed by a single surgeon between January 2015 and December 2019. According to the incision type, the donors were divided into 2 groups: a right subcostal mini-incision group (M group: n = 187) and a conventional J-shaped incision group (C group: n = 261). A propensity score matching analysis was conducted to overcome bias.

RESULTS

The estimated graft volume and measured graft weight were significantly lower in the M group ( P = 0.000). The total of 17 (3.8%) postoperative complications were identified. The readmission rate and overall postoperative complication rate of donors was not significantly different between the groups. The biliary complication rates in the recipients were 12.6% and 8.6% in the C group and M group, respectively ( P = 0.219). Hepatic artery thrombosis requiring revision developed in 2 patients (0.8%) in the C group and 7 patients (3.7%) in the M group ( P = 0.038). After propensity score matching, these complications were not significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-incision living donor right hepatectomy shows comparable biliary complications to open surgery and is considered a safe and feasible operative technique.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of outcomes after open, mini-laparotomy, hybrid, totally laparoscopic, and robotic living donor right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes after living donor right hepatectomy via the following techniques: conventional open (Open), mini-laparotomy (Minilap), hybrid (Hybrid), totally laparoscopic (Lap), and robotic living donor right hepatectomy (Robotic).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched from inception to August 2021 for comparative studies of patients who underwent living donor right hepatectomy.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies comprising 2,261 patients were included. Operation time was longer in Lap versus Minilap and Open (mean difference 65.09 min, 95% confidence interval 3.40-126.78 and mean difference 34.81 minutes, 95% confidence interval 1.84-67.78), and in Robotic versus Hybrid, Lap, Minilap, and Open (mean difference 144.72 minutes, 95% confidence interval 89.84-199.59, mean difference 113.24 minutes, 95% confidence interval 53.28-173.20, mean difference 178.33 minutes, 95% confidence interval 105.58-251.08 and mean difference 148.05 minutes, 95% confidence interval 97.35-198.74, respectively). Minilap and Open were associated with higher blood loss compared to Lap (mean difference 258.67 mL, 95% confidence interval 107.00-410.33 and mean difference 314.11 mL, 95% confidence interval 143.84-484.37) and Robotic (mean difference 205.60 mL, 95% confidence interval 45.92-365.28 and mean difference 261.04 mL, 95% confidence interval 84.26-437.82). Open was associated with more overall complications compared to Minilap (odds ratio 2.60, 95% confidence interval 1.11-6.08). Recipient biliary complication rate was higher in Minilap and Open versus Hybrid (odds ratio 3.91, 95% confidence interval 1.13-13.55 and odds ratio 11.42, 95% confidence interval 2.27-57.49), and lower in Open versus Minilap (OR 0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.34).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive donor right hepatectomy via the various techniques is safe and feasible when performed in high-volume centers, with no major differences in donor complication rates and comparable recipient outcomes once surgeons have mounted the learning curve.

Limited upper midline incision for major hepatectomy in adults: safety and feasibility

Objective: Optimal incision for major hepatectomy remains controversial. In this study, we described our experience with a limited upper midline incision (UMI) for major hepatectomy. The objective was to analyze the feasibility and safety of UMI in major hepatectomy.

Material and Methods: Fifty-seven consecutive patients who underwent major hepatectomies performed via an UMI were compared to a control group of 36 patients who underwent major hepatectomies with a conventional incision (CI).

Results: In 85% of the patients, the indication was malignancy, with a median tumor size of 6 cm. Fifty-three percent of the patients had underlying chronic liver disease, and liver fibrosis was found in 61% of the patients. Ninteen percent of the patients had previous upper abdominal surgery. Twenty- six patients underwent left hepatectomy, 20 patients had right hepatectomy and 11 patients trisegmentectomy. Additional combined surgical proce- dures were performed in 42% of the patients. Median operative time was 323 minutes, estimated blood loss was 500 ml, and median post-operative hospital stay was seven days. Surgical complications occurred in 22 patients (39%). 5-year overall survival was 67%. When compared with the control group with CI, patients with UMI had no statistical difference on operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complication rate, and overall survival.

Conclusion: Major hepatectomies can be safely performed through UMI. This approach should be considered as a reasonable option in addition to conventional and laparoscopic approaches for major hepatectomies.

Shorter operation time and improved surgical outcomes in laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy compared with open donor right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy is a complex procedure, and the safety and feasibility of this operation remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and learning curve of this operation performed by a single surgeon.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the initial 100 donors who underwent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy or open donor right hepatectomy by a single surgeon from December 2012 to May 2019. Endpoints analyzed included intraoperative results, postoperative complications, and learning curve, which was evaluated using the cumulative sum method based on the operation time. We divided the pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy group into initial and recent groups based on the time point of overcoming the learning curve.

RESULTS

The operative time was significantly shorter in the recent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy group (n = 57; 181.0 ± 35.7 min) than in the open donor right hepatectomy (n = 50; 203.0 ± 37.3 min) and initial pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (n = 43; 282.2 ± 59.2 min) groups (P < .001). Moreover, the length of hospital stay in the recent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy group was significantly reduced compared to that in the open donor right hepatectomy group (7.7 ± 1.2 vs 5.8 ± 1.4; P < .001). The complication rate was reduced from 10% in the open donor right hepatectomy group and 8% in the initial pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy group to 2% in the recent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy group.

CONCLUSION

As technology advances, the surgical outcomes of pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy are comparable and the operation time of pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy is superior to those of open donor 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.

Novel Method for Reconstructing Multiple Graft Bile Ducts During Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplant: Dunking With Mucosal Eversion Technique

BACKGROUND

Multiple graft bile ducts (BDs) and anastomoses have been considered as risk factors for biliary complications after living donor liver transplant (LDLT). Various surgical techniques have been introduced, and most surgeons perform unification ductoplasty for multiple adjacent BDs during LDLT. However, this could cause hemobilia and is difficult to perform when 2 ductal orifices are far apart or show a size discrepancy.

METHODS

Here, we introduce our novel reconstruction technique for multiple adjacent graft BDs and discuss its effects on postoperative outcomes compared with ductoplasty. We compared the clinical outcomes of 2 biliary reconstruction techniques by retrospectively reviewing 58 recipients who underwent LDLT with right lobe grafts using these 2 techniques at our institution between January 2013 and September 2018: group 1 (n = 20) received ductoplasty, and group 2 (n = 38) was treated with dunking with mucosal eversion technique.

RESULTS

Overall biliary complication rates were 20.0% in group 1 and 10.5% in group 2 (P = .32). Biliary stricture in group 2 was not frequent compared with that in group 1 (7.9% vs 15.0%, P = .398). Moreover, incidence of biliary stricture in group 2 was not different than that in the group using graft with single BD during the same period (P > .624).

CONCLUSIONS

Our novel technique could be a useful method for reconstructing adjacent BDs in LDLT and the best alternative to ductoplasty. Moreover, it seems to be a reasonable option when 2 orifices are far apart or show a size discrepancy.

Impact of ABO-incompatibility on hepatic artery thrombosis in living donor liver transplantation

Background

The current era of rituximab-based regimens brought improved survival in ABO-incompatible (ABO-I) living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Nevertheless, the actual risk for hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) still remains to be investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of ABO-incompatibility on HAT in adult LDLT patients.

Methods

Patients who received ABO-I LDLT were compared to those who received ABO-compatible (ABO-C) LDLT with a special focus on HAT.

Results

A total of 378 patients underwent LDLT from January 2012 to February 2018. Of those, ABO-I LDLT was performed in 78 consecutive patients. The other 300 patients with ABO-C LDLT constituted the comparator group. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in baseline and perioperative characteristics. HAT occurred in 11 (2.9%) patients, 2 and 9 patients in ABO-I and ABO-C LDLT groups, respectively, which didn't show any significant difference between the two groups (P=0.84). All were categorized into early HAT. Immediate revascularization by intraarterial thrombolysis was successfully employed in 8 patients. Surgical revision of anastomosis and retransplantation were performed in 1 and 2 patients, respectively. No one-year mortality was related to HAT in the two groups. The overall outcomes including biliary complications made no significant difference between the two groups.

Conclusions

ABO-incompatibility has no adverse impact on the incidence and treatment outcome of HAT in the current rituximab-based desensitization.

Impact of ABO-incompatibility on hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

ABO-incompatible (ABO-I) living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been reported to have acceptable outcomes in the era of rituximab-based prophylaxis. However, the outcomes of ABO-I LDLT for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain to be elucidated. This study aimed to clarify the impact of ABO-Incompatibility on oncologic outcomes of LDLT for HCC.

METHODS

Patients with HCC who underwent ABO-I LDLT were randomly matched by 1:2 ratio to those who underwent ABO-compatible (ABO-C) LDLT according to propensity score. HCC recurrence and patient survival were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test.

RESULTS

Between January 2012 and December 2015, a total of 160 patients underwent LDLT for HCC confirmed by pathology analysis of liver explants. Thirty-nine consecutive patients underwent ABO-I LDLT for HCC, and 78 ABO-C LDLT patients were selected by propensity score matching, which made no significant difference between the two groups in baseline, perioperative, and tumor characteristics. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year recurrence-free survival rates in the ABO-I and ABO-C LDLT groups were 76.9%, 68.5%, 63.6% and 74.4%, 70.5%, 70.5%, respectively (p = 0.77). The site distribution of initial recurrence showed no significant difference between the two groups. The overall survival rates over the same period in the ABO-I and ABO-C LDLT groups were 82.1%, 73.5%, 73.5% and 92.2%, 80.3%, 80.3%, respectively (p = 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

ABO-I LDLT, having no adverse impact on oncological outcomes, can be a feasible transplant option for HCC.

UPPER MIDLINE INCISION IN RECIPIENTS OF DECEASED-DONORS LIVER TRANSPLANTATION

BACKGROUND

Liver transplant (LT) is the only effective and long-lasting option for patients with end-stage liver disease. Innovations and refinements in surgical techniques occurred with the advent of transplants with partial grafts and laparoscopy. Despite these modifications, the abdominal incision remains with only few changes.

AIM

Demonstrate the experience with the upper midline incision in LT recipients with whole liver grafts from deceased donors.

METHODS

Retrospective study with patients submitted to LT. Data were collected from the recipients who performed the surgical procedure through the upper midline incision.

RESULTS

The upper midline incision was used in 20 LT, 19 of which were performed in adult recipients. The main cause was liver disease secondary to alcohol. Male, BMI>25 kg/m² and MELD greater than 20 were prevalent in the study. Biliary complications occurred in two patients. Hemoperitoneum was an indication for reoperation at one of the receptors. Complication of the surgical wound occurred in two patients, who presented superficial surgical site infection and evisceration (omental). Two re-transplant occurred in the first postoperative week due to severe graft dysfunction and hepatic artery thrombosis, which were performed with the same incision, without the need to increase surgical access. There were two deaths due to severe graft dysfunction after re-transplant in 72 h and respiratory sepsis with multiple organ dysfunction in the third week.

CONCLUSION

The upper midline incision can be safely used in LT recipients with whole grafts from deceased donors. However, receptor characteristics and hepatic graft size should be considered in the option of abdominal surgical access.

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.

A simplified protocol using rituximab and immunoglobulin for ABO-incompatible low-titre living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

No consensus has been reached regarding optimal treatment strategies for ABO-incompatible (ABO-I) living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We introduce a simplified protocol using rituximab and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG).

METHODS

Data were analysed on adult patients who underwent ABO-I LDLT of which protocol added rituximab (300 mg/m² ) before surgery and IVIG (0.8 g/kg) on post-operative days 1 and 4 to the conventional immunosuppressive regimen used in ABO-compatible (ABO-C) LDLT, without plasmapheresis, splenectomy or graft local infusion. The outcomes were compared with those of ABO-C LDLT by 1:2 propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

Consecutive 43 ABO-I LDLT patients were identified between 2014 and 2016. Before desensitization, the median isoagglutinin titre was 1:8 (range, 1:2-1:64). The titre was reduced to 4 (range, 0-16) at the time of LDLT. None showed a rebound rise of isoagglutinin titres. No antibody-mediated rejection occurred. Biliary stricture was the most common complication with an incidence of 30.2%. A comparator group of 86 ABO-C LDLT patients were selected. There was no statistical difference in the overall complication rate including acute cellular rejection, biliary complications and infection between ABO-I and ABO-C groups. The 3-year cumulative patient survival rates in the ABO-I and ABO-C groups were 82.4% and 85.9% respectively (P = .115).

CONCLUSIONS

A simplified protocol using rituximab and IVIG for ABO-I LDLT was safe and effective in achieving sufficient desensitization and comparable outcomes in patients with the titre no higher than 1:64.

Impact of abdominal shape on living liver donor outcomes in mini-incision right hepatic lobectomy: Comparison among 3 techniques

Although minimally invasive techniques for living donor hepatectomy have been developed, the surgical feasibility and limitations remain to be elucidated. The risks and outcomes involved need to be better understood prior to their widespread application. The aim of this study was to assess feasibility of minimally invasive donor hepatectomy by reviewing our experience. A total of 99 living donor liver transplantations performed between 2000 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. All 99 living liver donors underwent right hepatectomy. The breakdown of the techniques is as follows: the standard technique in 33 patients; the laparoscopic-assisted minilaparotomy technique (hybrid technique group) in 19 patients; and the upper midline incision technique without laparoscopic assistance (minilaparotomy group) in 47 patients. An association between donor operative outcomes and body habitus, such as body mass index (BMI), abdominal truncal depth (approximated by celiac axis [CA] depth ratio), and umbilical circumference (UC) were assessed. Perioperative factors were compared between the standard technique and the minimally invasive technique. The minilaparotomy group had significantly shorter operative time (P = 0.046) and hospital stay (P = 0.005) than the standard technique group. Postoperative complication rates were similar between the 3 groups (P = 0.16). In the minilaparotomy group, greater BMI (P = 0.02), CA depth ratio (P = 0.04), and UC (P = 0.004) were found to be risk factors for postoperative complications. In the minilaparotomy group, CA depth ratio > 0.41, UC > 90 cm, and BMI > 30 kg/m² were significantly associated with longer operative time and hospital stay. In the standard technique group, none of the body size factors were associated with postoperative outcomes. In conclusion, the minilaparotomy technique is safe and feasible, though technical difficulties may be encountered when performed on donors with larger body habitus. Ongoing efforts are required to ensure living donor safety. Liver Transplantation 24 516-527 2018 AASLD.

Impact of preserved collateral veins on small-for-size grafts in living donor liver transplantation

AIM

Graft size is a critical issue in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We hypothesized that too much portal flow could possibly be diverted into pre-existing collateral veins, alleviating small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) in LDLT. This study evaluated the impact of the preserved collateral veins in the outcomes of LDLT using a small-for-size graft.

METHODS

For patient safety, a graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) <0.8% was strictly confined to patients with collateral veins (group A), and the patient group was compared in a 1:3 ratio to a matched group of patients with GRWR ≥0.8% (group B) using propensity score analysis.

RESULTS

Forty and 120 patients were included in group A and B, respectively. No significant differences in baseline patient characteristics were observed between the two groups except for graft weight and GRWR. The lowest GRWR was 0.4%. The graft portal inflow showed no significant differences for 7 days after graft implantation, ranging from 1668 to 5100 mL/min. Small-for-size syndrome occurred in no patients (0.0%) in group A and in 10 (8.3%) in group B (P = 0.067). Overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were not different between the two groups (85.0%, 82.5%, and 82.5% vs. 92.5%, 86.7%, and 85.0%, respectively; P = 0.670).

CONCLUSION

Pre-existing collateral veins saved during surgery may have a reserve buffer for excessive portal flow to obviate SFSS in LDLT.

Right lobe living donors ages 55 years old and older in liver transplantation

The evidence is insufficient for safe use of elderly donors in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of right lobe LDLT by donor age (≥55 versus < 55 years). All living donors who underwent right hepatectomy at the authors' institution between March 2008 and December 2015 were divided into 2 groups: group A with an age ≥ 55 years and group B with an age of <55 years. The selection criteria for elderly donor were preservation of middle hepatic vein, remnant liver volume ≥30%, and no or mild fatty liver. The matching criteria of recipients for the elderly donor grafts were Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of <25, graft-to-recipient weight ratio of >0.8%, and body mass index of <25 kg/m² . Perioperative data, complications by the Clavien classification, and the outcomes with at least 12 months follow-up were compared. A total of 42 donors were enrolled in group A and 498 in group B. No significant differences in operative parameters were observed between the 2 groups. The peak postoperative aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and total bilirubin levels made no difference between the 2 groups. The peak international normalized ratio level was significantly lower in group A than in group B (P = 0.001). All donors recovered completely with no significant differences in overall complications between the 2 groups. All recipients of grafts from donors in group A showed good initial function with no significant differences in 1-year graft and patient survival or biliary complications between 2 groups. These results provide clinical evidence for feasibility of right hepatectomy in living donors aged ≥ 55 years without compromising donor safety or recipient outcomes. Liver Transplantation 23 1305-1311 2017 AASLD.

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.

Comparison of Upper Midline Incision With and Without Laparoscopic Assistance for Living-Donor Right Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Since minimally invasive procedures for living-donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) became popular in recent years, several studies comparing the outcomes of donors undergoing an upper midline incision (UMI) under laparoscopic assistance for LDRH with those undergoing the traditional open LDRH have been published. However, there are very few comparative studies of outcomes for a UMI for LDRH with and without laparoscopic-assistance. We designed the present study to compare the benefits and shortcomings of a UMI for LDRH with and without laparoscopic assistance.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients in our center were included in the study: group hybrid (n = 28) versus group UMI (n = 20). Their surgical outcomes, postoperative course, and cosmetic outcomes were studied from medical records.

RESULTS

No differences existed between the 2 groups regarding their baseline characteristics except that group Hybrid had more donors with positive hepatitis B core antibody. No difference was observed in operative time, graft weight, warm ischemia time, blood loss, incision length, liver and coagulation function test results, postoperative complications, or cosmetic parameters. No deaths occurred in both groups. The length of postoperative hospital stay was similar for both groups, but the hospital cost was significantly lower for group UMI than for group hybrid (6,906.7 ± 777.4 USD vs 7,643.3 ± 918.6 USD; P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

An UMI without laparoscopic assistance can be considered as the first-line incision of choice for LDRH.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted hybrid living donor hepatectomy: a comparison with the conventional open procedure

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive living donor surgery has been increasingly accepted, its safety remains to be fully clarified in a large-scale study. This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of our laparoscopy-assisted hybrid living donor surgery (LAHDS) procedure with an upper median incision in comparison with conventional open donor hepatectomy (ODH).

METHODS

From 2011 to 2016, 153 adult living donors [right lobe (RL) graft: 80 donors; left lobe (LL) graft: 73 donors] were enrolled and divided into LAHDS (n = 76) and ODH (n = 77) groups. Donor characteristics, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications were compared between the 2 groups in each graft subgroup. Postoperative liver function tests (LFTs), inflammatory markers, pain parameters, incision-related symptoms, and recipient outcomes were compared between the 2 groups in all donors.

RESULTS

In RL donors, operative blood loss was significantly lower in the LAHDS group than in the ODH group (201 vs. 313 g; p = 0.034). In LL donors, duration of surgery was significantly longer in the LAHDS group than in the ODH group (459 vs. 403 min; p = 0.034). The incidence of complications, length of hospital stay, and postoperative changes in both LFTs and inflammatory markers were comparable. The incidence of postoperative scar discomfort or tightness was significantly lower in the LAHDS group than in the ODH group (2.6 vs. 31.2%; p < 0.001), whereas postoperative pain parameters were comparable. The incidence of wound problems and abdominal wall numbness tended to be lower, but not significantly so, in the LAHDS group.

CONCLUSIONS

This large consecutive case series demonstrates that our LAHDS procedure can be performed as safely as ODH, and it can improve quality of life without impaired donor and recipient outcomes.

Ligation and cut as a method for bile duct division in living donor right hepatectomy

The importance of bile duct division cannot be overemphasized in living donor surgery. Ligation and cut (LC) as a method for bile duct division in living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) has never been reported. The purpose of this study was to introduce the LC method of bile duct division in LDRH. All LDRH donors were identified through a prospectively maintained database at the authors' institution between September 2009 and March 2013, and the 2 methods, LC and cut and oversewing (CO), were compared both in terms of donor and recipient outcomes of right lobe living donor liver transplantation. In the LC method, after complete parenchymal transection, the right hepatic duct was dissected in the Glisson's sheath and ligated just at the right side of the confluence, and then the right side of the ligature was cut. The LC and CO methods were performed in 109 and 134 donors, respectively. Bile duct division time (P < 0.001) and operative time (P < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the LC group than in the CO group. With a median follow-up of 60.2 months, biliary complication rate was lower in the LC group than in the CO group (0% versus 5.2%; P = 0.01), but with no significant difference between the recipient groups. All donors made a complete recovery. In conclusion, the bile ducts of living donors can be dissected safely from the Glisson's sheath, and the LC method facilitates bile duct division and has a lower incidence of biliary complication in LDRH without compromising the recipient outcomes. Liver Transplantation 23 448-456 2017 AASLD.

Right hepatectomy in living donors with previous abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated the impact of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) on living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH). The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of liver transplantation using right lobe grafts of living donors with PAS.

METHODS

Data were reviewed from LDRH patients at the authors' institution between March 2008 and November 2014. LDRH patients with PAS were divided into two groups according to upper PAS (group 1) or lower PAS (group 2), and they were compared to those without PAS (group 3) who were matched 1:1 based on age, gender, and body mass index. Perioperative data, complications by the Clavien classification, and the outcomes with more than 14 months follow-up were compared.

RESULTS

Twenty-three (4.9%) of a total of 471 LDRH donors had PAS. Eleven donors were assigned to group 1, 12 to group 2, and 23 to group 3. Intraperitoneal adhesions were found in 20 (87.0%) of 23 donors with PAS, of whom 5 (21.7%) had adhesiolysis-related injuries that happened more commonly in group 1 than in group 2 (P=0.025). LDRH was successfully completed under upper midline laparotomy in all donors. No donors received perioperative blood transfusion. The peak postoperative AST, ALT, INR, and total bilirubin levels made no difference between the three groups. Compared with group 3, groups 1 and 2 had a longer operative time (P=0.012) and a higher grade I complication rate (P=0.047). All donors recovered fully to their routine activities. The 23 recipients of grafts from donors with PAS showed good liver function with 1-year graft and patient survivals of 100%.

CONCLUSION

A history of PAS is not a contraindication to LDRH in the current era of advanced surgical techniques.

The learning curves in living donor hemiliver graft procurement using small upper midline incision

The learning curve for performing living donor hemiliver procurement (LDHP) via small upper midline incision (UMI) has not been determined. Living donors (n=101) who underwent LDHP via UMI were included to investigate the learning curve using cumulative sum analysis. The cumulative sum analysis showed that nine cases for right lobe (case #23) and 19 cases for left lobe (case #32 in the whole series) are needed for stable and acceptable surgical outcomes in LDHP via UMI. The established phase (n=69, since case #33) had a significantly shorter operative time, a smaller incision size, and less blood loss than the previous learning phase (n=32, serial case number up to the last 19th left lobe case). Multivariate analysis showed that the learning phase, high body mass index ≥25 kg/m² , and left lobe graft procurement are the factors associated with surgical events including operative blood loss ≥400 mL, operative time ≥300 minutes, or surgical complications ≥Clavien-Dindo grade II. There is an obvious learning curve in performing LDHP via UMI, and 32 cases including both 19 cases for left lobe and nine cases for right lobe are needed for having stable and acceptable surgical outcomes.

Upper midline incision for living donor right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation is a viable option to increase access to transplantation and techniques to limit the operative incision is one way to increase donation by decreasing donor morbidity. We describe our experience with a limited upper midline incision (UMI) for living donor right hepatectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective data were collected on 58 consecutive living liver donors who underwent right hepatectomy via a UMI.

RESULTS

Donor median age was 32 years, with median body mass index of 24.6. The mean incision length was 11.7 cm. Ten liver grafts included middle hepatic vein. The mean graft volume by preoperative imaging was 940 cc. The mean operative time was 407 minutes; cellsaver was utilized in 35 patients with median of 1 unit. Mean peak aspartate transaminase (AST) and alanine transaminase (ALT) were 492 and 469, and peak bilirubin and international normalized ratio (INR) were 3.3 and 1.8. The average length of stay was 6 days. There were 10 Clavien grade I and 11 Clavien grade II complications. Three patients developed an incisional hernia requiring surgical repair.

CONCLUSION

Living liver donor hepatectomy can be safely performed through a UMI. This approach consolidates the steps of liver mobilization, hilar dissection, and parenchymal transection in a single-exposure technique, with incision comparable to the laparoscopic-assisted modality.

Impact of Intra-Abdominal Adhesion on Living Donor Right Hepatectomy

The impact of intra-abdominal adhesion (IAA) on living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) remains to be clarified. The purpose of this study was to compare both the donor and recipient outcomes of right lobe living donor liver transplantation according to IAA detected intraoperatively. LDRH donors were identified through a prospectively maintained database at the authors' institution between March 2008 and February 2014. IAA was graded according to Beck et al (Dis Colon Rectum 2000; 43: 1749-1753). LDRH donors with IAA (group A) were matched 1:3 to those without IAA (group B) based on age, gender, and BMI. Perioperative data, complications by the Clavien classification, and the outcomes with at least 12 months follow-up were compared. Thirty-two (7.6%) of a total of 420 LDRH donors had IAA around the liver. Nineteen donors had previous abdominal surgery. LDRH was successfully completed under upper midline laparotomy in all donors. Compared with group B, group A had a longer operative time (270 vs. 172 min; p < 0.001), a higher wound complication rate (28.1% vs. 4.2%; p = 0.009), and a longer postoperative stay (10 vs. 7 days; p = 0.009). All donors recovered completely to their previous activities. The 1-year graft and recipient survivals of recipients were comparable between two groups. These findings support the feasibility and safety of LDRH in patients with IAA.

The Impact of a Surgical Protocol for Enhanced Recovery on Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Single-Center Cohort Study

The concept of surgery for enhanced recovery (SFER) program has never been an issue in the context of living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH), much less its effects. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes after the establishment of an SFER protocol for LDRH in a single center.A single-center cohort study was performed in 500 consecutive living donors who underwent right hepatectomy from January 2005 to June 2014 by analyzing the outcomes before and after an established SFER protocol that evolved with continuous refinements in surgical technique and management over 300 LDRHs, being in place on September 2011. Donor characteristics, operative outcomes, and postoperative complications divided into 2 groups (group 1, stepwise adjustment; group 2, complete adherence to the protocol) were compared.Donor characteristics were comparable in the 2 groups. Overall complication rate was 10.0% with no mortality. In group 2, operative time, hospital stay, and overall complication rate decreased significantly, and the morbidity was 1% and confined in grade I complication without reoperation, perioperative blood transfusion, or readmission. All donors in this series recovered fully and returned to the previous functional lifestyle.An SFER protocol on LDRH can be established by the gradual implementation of various refinements of surgical technique, and the recent outcomes achieved after the establishment of an SFER protocol could provide a current guidance on LDRH toward the ultimate goal of zero morbidity.

Risk factors and consequences of conversion in laparoscopic major liver resection

BACKGROUND

Although recent reports have suggested potential benefits of the laparoscopic approach in patients requiring major hepatectomy, it remains unclear whether conversion to open surgery could offset these advantages. This study aimed to determine the risk factors for and postoperative consequences of conversion in patients undergoing laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH).

METHODS

Data for all patients undergoing LMH between 2000 and 2013 at two tertiary referral centres were reviewed retrospectively. Risk factors for conversion were determined using multivariable analysis. After propensity score matching, the outcomes of patients who underwent conversion were compared with those of matched patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy who did not have conversion, operated on at the same centres, and also with matched patients operated on at another tertiary centre during the same period by an open laparotomy approach.

RESULTS

Conversion was needed in 30 (13·5 per cent) of the 223 patients undergoing LMH. The most frequent reasons for conversion were bleeding and failure to progress, in 14 (47 per cent) and nine (30 per cent) patients respectively. On multivariable analysis, risk factors for conversion were patient age above 75 years (hazard ratio (HR) 7·72, 95 per cent c.i. 1·67 to 35·70; P = 0·009), diabetes (HR 4·51, 1·16 to 17·57; P = 0·030), body mass index (BMI) above 28 kg/m(2) (HR 6·41, 1·56 to 26·37; P = 0·010), tumour diameter greater than 10 cm (HR 8·91, 1·57 to 50·79; P = 0·014) and biliary reconstruction (HR 13·99, 1·82 to 238·13; P = 0·048). After propensity score matching, the complication rate in patients who had conversion was higher than in patients who did not (75 versus 47·3 per cent respectively; P = 0·038), but was not significantly different from the rate in patients treated by planned laparotomy (79 versus 67·9 per cent respectively; P = 0·438).

CONCLUSION

Conversion during LMH should be anticipated in patients with raised BMI, large lesions and biliary reconstruction. Conversion does not lead to increased morbidity compared with planned laparotomy.

Recent advancements in and views on the donor operation in living donor liver transplantation: a single-center study of 886 patients over 13 years

Donor safety remains an important concern in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). In the present study, we assessed recent advancements in the donor operation for LDLT through our experience with this procedure. A total of 886 donor hepatectomies performed between January 1999 and December 2012 were analyzed. Three chronological periods were investigated: the initial period (1999-2004, n = 239), the period in which the right liver with middle hepatic vein reconstruction was primarily used (2005-2010, n = 422), and the period in which the right liver with a standardized protocol, including a preoperative donor diet program, an evaluation of steatosis with magnetic resonance spectroscopy, no systemic heparin administration or central venous pressure monitoring, exact midplane dissection, and incremental application of minimal incisions, was exclusively used (2011-2012, n = 225). The proportion of patients > 50 years old increased (2.5% versus 4.7% versus 8.9%), whereas the proportion of patients with a remnant liver volume ≤ 30% (6.5% versus 13.9% versus 6.3%) and with macrosteatosis ≥ 10% (7.9% versus 11.1% versus 4.4%) decreased throughout the periods. The operative time (292.7 versus 290.0 versus 272.8 minutes), hospital stay (12.4 versus 11.2 versus 8.5 days), and overall morbidity rate (26.4% versus 13.3% versus 5.8%), including major complications (>grade 3; 1.7% versus 1.9% versus 0.9%) and biliary complications (7.9% versus 5.0% versus 0.9%), were markedly reduced in the most recent period. No intraoperative transfusion was required. No cases of irreversible disability or mortality were noted. In conclusion, the quality of the donor operation has recently been standardized through a large volume of experience, and the operation has been proven to have minimal risk. However, a constant evaluation of our experience is critical for remaining prepared for any unavoidable crisis.

Successful living donor liver transplantation between septuagenarians

We report a case of a 76-year-old female who underwent living donor right hepatectomy for her 75-year-old husband with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma. With her voluntary decision, full medical and psychiatric assessment was performed. The operative time was 130 min in the donor and 399 min in the recipient. Both the donor and recipient had an uneventful recovery and were discharged on days 7 and 10, respectively with normal liver function. The couple has had no complication so far and is currently doing well in good health 26 months after living donor liver transplantation.

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.

Clinical outcomes of and patient satisfaction with different incision methods for donor hepatectomy in living donor liver transplantation

With the decrease in the average donor age and the increase in the proportion of female donors, both donor safety and cosmetic appearance are major concerns for some living donors in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) because a large abdominal incision is needed that may influence the donor's quality of life. In all, 429 donors who underwent donor hepatectomy for LDLT from April 2010 to February 2013 were included in the study. Donors were divided into 3 groups based on the type of incision: conventional inverted L incision (n = 268; the C group), upper midline incision (n = 147; the M group), and transverse incision with laparoscopy (n = 14; the T group). Demographics, perioperative outcomes, postoperative complications for donors and recipients, and questionnaire-derived donor satisfaction with cosmetic appearance were compared. The mean age was lower (P < 0.001), the female ratio was higher (P < 0.001), and the body mass index (BMI) was lower (P = 0.017) in the M and T groups versus the C group. The operation time (P < 0.001) and the hospital stay duration (P = 0.010) were lowest in the M group. The postoperative complications did not differ by the type of incision and also did not show any significant effect in a multivariate analysis (P = 0.867). In the assessment of questionnaire-derived donor satisfaction matched by age (±5 years), sex, graft, height, weight, and BMI, a more satisfactory cosmetic result and more self-confidence were noted in the M and T groups versus the C group. In conclusion, the use of a minimal incision is technically feasible for some donor hepatectomy cases with a favorable safety profile. The patient satisfaction levels were greater with improved cosmetic outcomes in cases of minimal incision versus cases of conventional incision.

Pushing the frontiers of living donor right hepatectomy

Living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) is currently the most common donor surgery in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation although the morbidity and mortality reported in living donors still contradicts the Hippocratic tenet of “do no harm”. Achieving low complication rates in LDRH remains a matter of major concern. Living donor surgery is performed worldwide as an established solution to the donor shortage. The aim of this study was to assess the current status of LDRH and comment on the future of the procedure; assessment was made from the standpoint of optimizing the donor selection criteria and reducing morbidity based on both the authors’ 8-year institutional experience and a literature review. New possibilities have been explored regarding selection criteria. The safety of living donors with unfavorable conditions, such as low remnant liver volume, fatty change, or old age, should also be considered. Abdominal incisions have become shorter, even without laparoscopic assistance; upper midline laparotomy is the primary incision used in more than 400 consecutive LDRHs in the authors’ institution. Various surgical techniques based on preoperative imaging technology of vascular and biliary anomalies have decreased the anatomical barriers in LDRH. Operative time has been reduced, with low blood loss. Laparoscopic or robotic LDRH has been tried in only a few selected donors. The LDRH-specific, long-term outcomes remain to be addressed. The follow-up duration of these studies should be long enough to address possible late complications. Donor safety, which is the highest priority, is ensured by three factors: preoperative selection, intraoperative surgical technique, and postoperative management. These three focus areas should be continuously refined, with the ultimate goal of zero morbidity.

Section 17. Laparoscopic and minimal incisional donor hepatectomy

Living donor hepatectomy is now a well-established surgical procedure. However, a large abdominal incision is still required, which results in a large permanent scar, especially for a right liver graft. This report reviews our techniques of minimally invasive or minimal incisional donor hepatectomy using a transverse incision.Twenty-five living donors underwent right hepatectomy with a transverse incision and 484 donors with a conventional incision between April 2007 and December 2012. Among the donors with a transverse incision, two cases were totally laparoscopic procedures using a hand-port device; 11 cases were laparoscopic-assisted hepatectomy (hybrid technique), and 14 cases were open procedures using a transverse incision without the aid of the laparoscopic technique. Currently, a hybrid method has been exclusively used because of the long operation time and surgical difficulty in totally laparoscopic hepatectomy and the exposure problems for the liver cephalic portion during the open technique using a transverse incision.All donors with a transverse incision were women except for one. Twenty-four of the grafts were right livers without middle hepatic vein (MHV) and one with MHV. The donors' mean BMI was 21.1 kg/m. The median operation time was 355 minutes, and the mean estimated blood loss was 346.1±247.3 mL (range, 70-1200). There was no intraoperative transfusion. These donors had 29 cases of grade I [14 pleural effusions (56%), 11 abdominal fluid collections (44%), 3 atelectasis (12%), 1bile leak (4%)], 1 case of grade II (1 pneumothorax) and two cases of grade III complications; two interventions were needed because of abdominal fluid collections by Clavien-Dindo classification. Meanwhile, donors with a conventional big incision, which included the Mercedes-Benz incision or an inverted L-shaped incision, had 433 cases of grade I, 19 cases of grade II and 18 cases of grade III complications. However, the liver enzymes and total bilirubin of all donors were normalized within 1 month, and they recovered fully. Additionally, in a survey inquiring about cosmetic outcomes with a numeric scale of 1 through 10 (1, Not confident; 10, Very confident), the transverse incision had more satisfactory scores compared to the conventional big incision (9.80 vs. 6.17, P=0.001). In conclusion, the hybrid technique can be safely performed in donor right hepatectomy, with a minimal transverse skin incision, resulting in a good cosmetic outcome.

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.

Difference in outcomes between living left lobe donors and noncirrhotic subjects undergoing left lobe resections

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes between the living donors and patients without cirrhosis after left lobe resection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected data from 40 left lobe donors (Group 1) and from 40 patients who had undergone left liver resection for various diseases (Group 2) from 2002 to 2010. In addition to preoperative parameters, we compared intraoperative variables as well as, short- and long-term outcomes, including postoperative complications and laboratory test results. The liver functions included total bilurubin (TB), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), international normalized ratio (INR), and albumin (ALB) compared as well as changes in white blood cell (WBC) count and platelet count.

RESULTS

The preoperative parameters of the two groups were comparable. There was significantly more blood loss in Group 2 than Group 1 (422.5 mL vs 318.8 mL; P = .001), leading to more autologous blood transfusions in Group 2 (P = .008). The other intraoperative variables were similar between the two groups. The overall postoperative complication rate was similar: 4% in Group 1 and 8% in Group 2 (P = .213); however, there were longer hospital stays and overall costs in Group 1 (P < .05). The total bilirubin level, AST, and ALT of Group 2 were worse than those in Group 1 during the early postoperative period. Upon long-term follow-up the postoperative platelet count decreased in the two groups compared with the preoperative levels.

CONCLUSION

The type and rate of complications following left hepatectomy were similar between donors and noncirrhotic hepatic patients. Nevertheless, more serious liver dysfunction postoperatively was observed among the patient group.

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.

Which incision is better for living-donor right hepatectomy? Midline, J-shaped, or Mercedes

Incision-related morbidity for donors is a major concern in living-donor right hepatectomy (LDRH). Open approaches use midline, J-shaped, and Mercedes incisions for LDRH. We retrospectively studied 95 consecutive donors who underwent LDRH between January 2009 and November 2010. They underwent midline (n = 32), J-shaped (n = 28), or Mercedes (n = 35) incisions. We studied resection times, perioperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative pain assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS) and by analgesic requirements as well as laboratory data and complications. Postoperative analgesic requirements and postoperative VAS scores were significantly lower in the midline group (P < .05) upon univariate but not multivariate analyses. The postoperative complications as well as other parameters were similar between the groups. In conclusion, compared with a J-type shaped or not for Mercedes incision, a donor hepatectomy can be satisfactorily performed via a midline incision by experienced surgeons without increased risk.

Selection and outcomes of living donors with a remnant volume less than 30% after right hepatectomy

The evidence for defining a safe minimal remnant volume after living donor hepatectomy is insufficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of living donors with a remnant/total volume ratio (RTVR) < 30% after right hepatectomy according to the following selection criteria: the preservation of the middle hepatic vein (MHV), an age < 50 years, and no or mild fatty changes in healthy adults. All living donors who underwent right hepatectomy preserving the MHV at our institution between January 2005 and September 2011 were divided into 2 groups: group A with an RTVR < 30% and group B with an RTVR ≥ 30%. Perioperative data, complications by the Clavien classification, and outcomes with at least 15.1 months' follow-up were compared. Twenty-eight donors were enrolled in group A, and 260 were enrolled in group B. The estimated liver volume was strongly correlated with the actual graft weight (R(2)  = 0.608, P < 0.001). The calculated donation liver volume and the RTVR were significantly different between the 2 groups (P = 0.03 and P < 0.001, respectively). The peak postoperative aspartate aminotransferase levels, alanine aminotransferase levels, and international normalized ratios did not differ between the 2 groups. The peak total bilirubin level was higher for group A versus group B (P = 0.04). The hospital stay was longer for group A versus group B (P < 0.001). All donors recovered completely, and there were no significant differences in overall complications between the 2 groups. In conclusion, right hepatectomy preserving the MHV with an RTVR < 30% can be safely indicated for carefully selected living donors less than 50 years old with no or mild fatty changes.

Donor safety in living donor liver transplantation: a single-center analysis of 300 cases

Aim

To evaluate the safety to donors of living-donor liver transplantation.

Methods

This study included 300 consecutive living liver tissue donors who underwent operations at our center from July 2002 to December 2012. We evaluated the safety of donors with regard to three aspects complications were recorded prospectively and stratified by grade according to Clavien’s classification, and the data were compared in two stages (the first 5 years’ experience (pre-January 2008) and the latter 5 years’ experience (post-January 2008); laboratory tests such as liver function and blood biochemistry were performed; and the health-related quality of life was evaluated.

Results

There was no donor mortality at our center, and the overall morbidity rate was 25.3%. Most of the complications of living donors were either grade I or II. There were significantly fewer complications in the latter period of our study than in the initial period (19.9% vs 32.6%, P<0.001), and biliary complications were the most common complications, with an incidence of 9%. All of the liver dysfunction was temporary; however, the post-operative suppression of platelet count lasted for years. Although within the normal range, eight years after operation, 22 donors showed lower platelet levels (189×10⁹/L) compared with the pre-operative levels (267×10⁹/L) (P<0.05). A total of 98.4% of donors had returned to their previous levels of social activity and work, and 99.2% of donors would donate again if it was required and feasible. With the exception of two donors who experienced grade III complications (whose recipients died) and a few cases of abdominal discomfort, fatigue, chronic pain and scar itching, none of the living donors were affected by physical problems.

Conclusion

With careful donor selection and specialized patient care, low morbidity rates and satisfactory long-term recovery can be achieved after hepatectomy for living-donor liver transplantation.

Upper midline incision for liver resection

OBJECTIVES

The optimal incision for liver resection in living donors or patients with small tumours should be revisited. This study introduces the upper midline incision (UMI) above the umbilicus for various liver resections using a conventional open-surgery technique.

METHODS

A retrospective study based on a prospectively collected database of 308 liver resections performed by a single surgeon was conducted to evaluate the feasibility, safety and applicability of the UMI.

RESULTS

From September 2006 to September 2010, this incision was used successfully in 308 consecutive liver resections in all patients with tumours measuring ≤ 5 cm and all living donors without any extension of the incision. The median length of the incision was 16.4 cm (range: 12-20 cm).The median operating time was 189 min (range: 54-305 min). The median postoperative hospital stay was 8 days (range: 6-17 days). One patient died in the postoperative period from heart failure. All other patients fully recovered and returned to their previous level of activity. Over a median follow-up of 31 months (range: 20-68 months), 25 complications (8.1%) developed. Seven wound infections (2.3%) occurred with no incisional hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

The UMI can be used safely and effectively in conventional open surgery in various liver resections and should therefore be given priority as the first-line technique in living liver donors and patients with tumours measuring ≤ 5 cm.

Improving outcomes of living-donor right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Complication rates of living-donor right hepatectomy remain a matter of major concern. The aim of this study was to achieve near-zero morbidity for living-donor right hepatectomy in a single centre.

METHODS

All living donors who underwent right hepatectomy between January 2005 and September 2011 were enrolled in this retrospective study. During this interval, modifications in surgical technique and management included upper midline laparotomy, use of wound protectors, hanging manoeuvre during parenchymal transection using Glisson's approach, no intraoperative cholangiography, no intensive care unit stay after surgery, no central venous catheterization, and reduction in systemic heparin dose before graft removal. Donor characteristics, operative outcomes and complications graded according to Clavien's classification were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 300 donors were enrolled and these were divided into three groups of 100 operated on in consecutive time periods. Groups were comparable with regard to donor characteristics. The overall complication rate was 16·0 per cent, with no deaths. From group 1 to group 3, the duration of operation (P < 0·001), length of hospital stay (P < 0·001), and rate of overall (P < 0·001) and grade IIIb (P = 0·019) complications decreased significantly. In the most recent group, the morbidity rate was 3·0 per cent without any major complications, reoperation or blood transfusions. All donors recovered completely.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that near-zero morbidity may be reached after right hepatectomy in carefully selected living donors by continuous refinement of surgical technique and management.

Mini-incision right hepatic lobectomy with or without laparoscopic assistance for living donor hepatectomy

Minimally invasive procedures are considered to be safe and effective approaches to the management of surgical liver disease. However, this indication remains controversial for living donor hepatectomy. Between 2000 and 2011, living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) was performed 58 times. Standard right hepatectomy was performed in 30 patients via a subcostal incision with a midline extension. Minimally invasive procedures began to be used for LDRH in 2008. A hybrid technique (hand-assisted laparoscopic liver mobilization and minilaparotomy for parenchymal dissection) was developed and used in 19 patients. In 2010, an upper midline incision (10 cm) without laparoscopic assistance for LDRH was innovated, and this technique was used in 9 patients. The perioperative factors were compared, and the indications for minimally invasive LDRH were investigated. The operative blood loss was significantly less for the patients undergoing a minimally invasive procedure versus the patients undergoing the standard procedure (212 versus 316 mL, P = 0.001), and the operative times were comparable. The length of the hospital stay was significantly shorter for the minimally invasive technique group (5.9 versus 7.8 days, P < 0.001). The complication rates were 23% and 25% for the standard technique and minimally invasive technique groups, respectively (P = 0.88). Patients undergoing minilaparotomy LDRH had a body mass index (24.0 kg/m(2)) similar to that of the hybrid technique patients (25.8 kg/m(2), P = 0.36), but the graft size was smaller (780 versus 948 mL, P = 0.22). In conclusion, minimally invasive LDRH can be performed without safety being impaired. LDRH with a 10-cm upper midline incision and without laparoscopic assistance may be appropriate for donors with a smaller body mass. Laparoscopic assistance can be added as needed for larger donors. This type of LDRH with a 10-cm incision is innovative and is recommended for experienced centers.

Living donor right hepatectomy using the hanging maneuver by Glisson's approach under the upper midline incision

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to introduce an advanced technique for the best living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) using the hanging maneuver by Glisson's approach under an upper midline incision.

METHODS

From January 2005 to February 2010, a total of 196 consecutive LDRHs have been performed at the National Cancer Center, Korea. To assess the overall outcomes of LDRH done with two significant technical developments--the upper midline incision and the initial Glisson's approach--we performed a comparative analysis involving all consecutive living donors, who we divided into three groups based on the two technical modifications over 5 years.

RESULTS

Compared with the previous two groups, the third group of 32 consecutive living donors, from September 2009 to February 2010, demonstrated shorter operative time, shorter duration of hospital stay, and lower complication rate with no operative mortality, major morbidity, blood transfusion, or reoperation. All donors were fully recovered and returned to their previous activities.

CONCLUSIONS

This LDRH using the hanging maneuver by Glisson's approach can be completed safely and effectively with good outcomes through an upper midline incision above the umbilicus, which may be a new milestone toward the best LDRH that donor surgeons can pursue.

Elective living donor liver transplantation by hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and short upper midline laparotomy

BACKGROUND

Although the technique of liver transplantation is well developed, the invasiveness of the operation can be decreased with laparoscopic procedures.

METHODS

We performed elective living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) through a short midline incision combined with hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS). Nine selected patients with end stage liver disease underwent the procedure between July, 2010 and February, 2011 (median age 60, median Child-Pugh 9, median MELD score 14). Splenectomy was performed simultaneously in 7 cases. The liver (and spleen) were mobilized by a sealing device under a HALS procedure with an 8-cm upper midline incision, followed by explantation of the diseased liver (and spleen) through the upper midline incision which was extended to 12 to 15 cm. Partial liver grafts were implanted through the upper midline incision.

RESULTS

The median duration of the operation was 741 minutes, the median time needed for anastomosis was 48 minutes, the median blood loss was 3,940 g, and the median liver weight was 866 g. Eight recipients are alive and have good graft function. A difficult implantation for one patient required an additional right transverse incision. When compared with 13 recent liver recipients who underwent LDLT with a regular Mercedes-Benz-type incision, no clinically relevant drawbacks of the HALS hybrid procedure were observed.

CONCLUSION

We have shown the feasibility and safety of LDLT performed through a short midline incision without abdominal muscle disruption with the aid of HALS.

Donor quality of life after living donor liver transplantation: a prospective study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

It is important to determine the health-related quality of life of live donors in liver transplantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed 35 live liver donors and prospectively and longitudinally evaluated their health-related quality for 1.5 years post-surgery based on the Short Form-36 version 2 questionnaire. Scores of the donors stratified by the clinical data were analyzed. The study was approved by the University of Tokyo Institutional Review Board (No. 1533).

RESULTS

There was no donor mortality in the donor population studied. The percentage of major complications greater than Clavien's classification grade III was 8.6%. The physical component summary score decreased to 42.9 (p < 0.01) at 3 months, but recovered within 6 months after the operation. The mental component summary scores did not change during the observation period. The stratification study revealed that age and postoperative complications remained significant factors among the high physical component summary scores 3 months after the operation.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this survey suggest that liver harvesting does not decrease the donor's quality of life during the 1.5 years following the surgery.