Use of an upper midline incision for living donor partial hepatectomy: a series of 143 consecutive cases

Donor Safety and Risk Factors of Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Korean Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify safety and risk factors of living donor after pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy in a Korean multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy is not yet a standardized surgical procedure due to lack of data.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 543 patients undergoing PLRDH between 2010 and 2018 in 5 Korean transplantation centers. Complication rates were assessed and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors of open conversion, overall complications, major complications, and biliary complications.

RESULTS

Regarding open conversion, the incidence was 1.7% and the risk factor was body mass index >30 kg/m 2 [ P =0.001, odds ratio (OR)=22.72, 95% CI=3.56-146.39]. Rates of overall, major (Clavien-Dindo classification III-IV), and biliary complications were 9.2%, 4.4%, and 3.5%, respectively. For overall complications, risk factors were graft weight >700 g ( P =0.007, OR=2.66, 95% CI=1.31-5.41), estimated blood loss ( P <0.001, OR=4.84, 95% CI=2.50-9.38), and operation time >400 minutes ( P =0.01, OR=2.46, 95% CI=1.25-4.88). For major complications, risk factors were graft weight >700 g ( P =0.002, OR=4.01, 95% CI=1.67-9.62) and operation time >400 minutes ( P =0.003, OR=3.84, 95% CI=1.60-9.21). For biliary complications, risk factors were graft weight >700 g ( P =0.01, OR=4.34, 95% CI=1.40-13.45) and operation time >400 minutes ( P =0.01, OR=4.16, 95% CI=1.34-12.88).

CONCLUSION

Careful donor selection for PLRDH considering body mass index, graft weight, estimated blood loss, and operation time combined with skilled procedure can improve donor safety.

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.

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.

Perineal midline vertical incision verses inverted-U incision in the urethroplasty: which is better?

OBJECTIVE

To compare postoperative outcomes between the perineal inverted-U and the vertical midline incision approaches of the urethroplasty and clarify them via gross anatomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 461 male patients, from Jan. 2006 to Jun. 2014, who underwent the urethroplasty via perineal midline vertical or inverted-U incision approach were recruited retrospectively. By match pairing for etiology and stricture length, 410 patients from two groups (205 for each group) were selected. Anatomy experiments were also performed. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: the Chi-square, Student's t and binary logistic regression analyses were performed to compare the operative and postoperative data on the two groups.

RESULTS

With regard to patients with bulbar urethral stricture, the rate of surgical site infection (SSI) in perineal inverted-U group was 18.6% while 1.9% in the midline vertical group (p < 0.001). As for patients with posterior urethral stricture, the rate of SSI in the perineal inverted-U group was 16.4% while 3.1% in the midline vertical group (p = 0.001). Mean hospital stay between both groups were 15.8 ± 9.0 vs. 12.7 ± 3.8 days (p < 0.001). Anatomy experiments showed the number of damaged vessels and nerves involved in the inverted-U incision were approximately 1.6 to 2.0 folds more than the vertical midline, but the visual operation fields are similar between two approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

The perineal midline vertical incision is a safer approach with fewer SSI and shorter hospital stay than the perineal inverted-U incision for bulbar and posterior urethroplasty.

Massive Rhabdomyolysis; A Rare Cause of Hepatocellular Dysfunction

BACKGROUND Rhabdomyolysis syndrome is a rare surgical complication. It is infrequently reported in prolonged operations under lateral decubitus position. This syndrome mainly impacts kidney function and electrolytes levels; liver is another organ that is uncommonly affected. CASE REPORT A 54-year-old male underwent a partial hepatectomy in the supine position, the procedure lasted three hours. After five days of uneventful recovery from surgery, he was readmitted to the hospital with rhabdomyolysis syndrome involving his lower limbs. No predisposing factors other than surgery could be identified. Based on blood tests, the only affected organ was the liver. Upon aggressive hydration, the creatinine kinase, hepatic enzymes, bilirubin levels, and prothrombin time were normalized. The patient regained normal physical strength over the next few weeks. CONCLUSIONS Liver dysfunction secondary to rhabdomyolysis is rare but should be considered when other causes are excluded. Prothrombin time, bilirubin levels and albumin levels may help to identify concomitant liver damage. Rhabdomyolysis is rarely reported in liver resection surgeries.

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.

Hybrid procedure in living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

We have previously reported a hybrid procedure that uses a combination of laparoscopic mobilization of the liver and subsequent hepatectomy under direct vision in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We present the details of this hybrid procedure and the outcomes of the procedure.

METHODS

Between January 1997 and August 2014, 204 LDLTs were performed at Nagasaki University Hospital. Among them, 67 recent donors underwent hybrid donor hepatectomy. Forty-one donors underwent left hemihepatectomy, 25 underwent right hemihepatectomy, and 1 underwent posterior sectionectomy. First, an 8-cm subxiphoid midline incision was made; laparoscopic mobilization of the liver was then achieved with a hand-assist through the midline incision under the pneumoperitoneum. Thereafter, the incision was extended up to 12 cm for the right lobe and posterior sector graft and 10 cm left lobe graft procurement. Under direct vision, parenchymal transection was performed by means of the liver-hanging maneuver. The hybrid procedure for LDLT recipients was indicated only for selected cases with atrophic liver cirrhosis without a history of upper abdominal surgery, significant retroperitoneal collateral vessels, or hypertrophic change of the liver (n = 29). For total hepatectomy and splenectomy, the midline incision was sufficiently extended.

RESULTS

All of the hybrid donor hepatectomies were completed without an extra subcostal incision. No significant differences were observed in the blood loss or length of the operation compared with conventional open procedures. All of the donors have returned to their preoperative activity level, with fewer wound-related complaints compared with those treated with the use of the conventional open procedure. In recipients treated with the hybrid procedure, no clinically relevant drawbacks were observed compared with the recipients treated with a regular Mercedes-Benz-type incision.

CONCLUSIONS

Our hybrid procedure was safely conducted with the same quality as the conventional open procedure in both LDLT donors and recipients.

Upper abdominal shape as a risk factor of extended operation time and severe postoperative complications in HCC hepatectomy through subcostal incision

Background

Subcostal incision is the most widely used approach in open surgery for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Body shape is recognised to be a factor influencing the difficulty of surgery; however, the exact impact of the increased difficulty on the patients’ operation as well as the outcome has not been analysed. In this study, we retrospectively studied the possible influence of patients’ body shape, tumour burden and varied surgical methods on the operation procedure and postoperative complications.

Methods

From January 2009 to December 2013, 651 patients with HCC were included in the study. We studied the patients’ sex, age, body mass index, upper abdominal body shape described by the depth-to-width ratio for the trunk at the celiac axis on CT/MRI, Child-Pugh classification, tumour burden and a different liver dissection method before the surgery and used a regression model for analysis.

Results

Prolonged operation time is associated with advanced tumour stage, large CA ratio, previous abdominal surgery, selective hepatic vascular occlusion and dissecting with Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator rather than clamp crushing. Surgical blood loss is associated with operation time, liver function and a different liver dissection method. The incidence of severe postoperative complication was 17.5 % (114/651) and was associated with larger CA ratio, Child-Pugh stage B liver function and greater blood loss.

Conclusions

Large upper abdominal shape is a risk factor of both prolonged operation time and severe postoperative complication. CA ratio combined with liver function and surgical blood loss has an acceptable power to predict severe postoperative complications.

Body image in transplant recipients and living organ donors

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to describe the current evidence regarding the prevalence and significance of concerns about body image in transplant recipients and organ donors.

RECENT FINDINGS

Body image and organ integration concerns have been reported as main themes in the psychological adaptation to transplantation. Their prevalence, severity, description and impact vary wildly. There is a lack of validated instruments to measure body image or organ integration in transplant patients. For organ recipients, satisfaction with body image depends on the organ, genre, pretransplant medical illness, time since transplantation and post-transplant medication regimen. Complete or partial denial of the graft is frequently reported. For organ donors, body image is influenced by the type of surgical incision. There is little evidence that body image or organ integration impact medical or psychological outcomes after transplantation or organ donation.

SUMMARY

Body image is becoming a significant component of measuring the quality of life in transplant patients. Body image may become a factor in decisions about if and when to pursue transplant for nonlife-threatening conditions (e.g. face transplantation), about the type of incision or about the immunosuppressant regimen. For mental health professionals, understanding the complexities of body image and organ integration will help enhance the assistance provided before and after transplant or donation.

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.

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.

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.

A hybrid method of laparoscopic-assisted open liver resection through a short upper midline laparotomy can be applied for all types of hepatectomies

BACKGROUND

Although hepatectomy procedures should be designed to provide both curability and safety, minimal invasiveness also should be pursued.

METHODS

We analyzed the data related to our method for laparoscopy-assisted open resections (hybrid method) through a short upper midline incision for various types of hepatectomies. Of 215 hepatectomies performed at Nagasaki University Hospital between November 2009 and June 2012, 102 hepatectomies were performed using hybrid methods.

RESULTS

A hybrid method was applicable for right trisectionectomy in 1, right hemihepatectomy in 32, left hemihepatectomy in 29, right posterior sectionectomy in 7, right anterior sectionectomy in 1, left lateral sectionectomy in 2, and segmentectomy in 7 patients, and for a minor liver resection in 35 patients (12 combined resections). The median duration of surgery was 366.5 min (range 149-709) min, and the median duration of the laparoscopic procedure was 32 min (range 18-77) min. The median blood loss was 645 g (range 50-5,370) g. Twelve patients (12 %) developed postoperative complications, including bile leakage in three patients, wound infections in two patients, ileus in two patients, and portal venous thrombus, persistent hyperbilirubinemia, incisional hernia, local liver infarction each in one patient. There were no perioperative deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

Our method of hybrid hepatectomy through a short upper midline incision is considered to be applicable for all types of hepatectomy and is a reasonable approach with no abdominal muscle disruption, which provides safe management of the hepatic vein and parenchymal resection even for patients with bilobular disease.

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.