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

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.

Long-term medical and quality of life outcomes among voluntary liver donors

BACKGROUND

Long-term medical and quality of life (QOL) outcomes in voluntary liver donors remain under investigated. The objective of the current study was to report long-term medical outcomes and re-evaluate QOL in living liver donors.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of donors who underwent donor hepatectomy between 2012 and 2018. We investigated long-term outcomes in 7 domains. These include medical problems, surgical procedures, work-related issues, pregnancy outcomes, psychiatric interventions, willingness to donate again, and long-term mortality. QOL was evaluated using short-form 36.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 61.4 months (53.3-83.7). Among 698 donors, 80 (11.5%) experienced medical problems, 4 (0.6%) had work-related issues, and 20 (2.9%) needed psychiatric assistance. Surgery was performed in 49 donors (7%), and females were more likely to have undergone incisional hernia repair (5.8% vs 1.9%, P = .006). There were 79 postdonation pregnancies including 41 normal vaginal deliveries (51.9%), 35 cesarean sections (44.3%), and 3 miscarriages (3.8%). Willingness to donate again was reported by 658 donors (94.3%). Donors whose recipients were alive were more likely to donate again (95.5% vs 90.5%, P = .01). There were 3 deaths (0.4%) in the long-term. The mean physical composite score at initial and follow-up evaluation was 86.7 ± 13.9 and 76.5 ± 20.9 (P = .001), and the mean mental composite score at initial and follow-up evaluation was 92.1 ± 13.5 and 80.7 ± 16 (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

The overall long-term outlook in living liver donors is promising. QOL parameters might deteriorate over time and frequent re-evaluation might be considered.

Minimally Invasive Surgery in Liver Transplantation: From Living Liver Donation to Graft Implantation

Since the end of the 20th century and the establishment of minimally invasive techniques, they have become the preferred operative method by many surgeons. These techniques were applied to liver surgery for the first time in 1991, while as far as transplantation is concerned their application was limited to the living donor procedure. We performed a review of the literature by searching in Pubmed and Scopus using the following keywords: Liver transplantation, Minimally invasive surgery(MIS) living liver donor surgery. Applications of MIS are recorded in surgeries involving the donor and the recipient. Regarding the recipient surgeries, the reports are limited to 25 patients, including combinations of laparoscopic, robotic and open techniques, while in the living donor surgery, the reports are much more numerous and with larger series of patients. Shorter hospitalization times and less blood loss are recorded, especially in centers with experience in a large number of cases. Regarding the living donor surgery, MIS follows the same principles as a conventional hepatectomy and is already the method of choice in many specialized centers. Regarding the recipient surgery, significant questions arise mainly concerning the safe handling of the liver graft.

Pure laparoscopic versus open left lateral hepatectomy in pediatric living donor liver transplantation: a review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the safety and feasibility of pure laparoscopic left lateral hepatectomy in comparison with open approach for pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

A systemic literature survey was performed by searching the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for articles that compared pure laparoscopic left lateral living donor hepatectomy (LLDH) and open left lateral living donor hepatectomy (OLDH) by November 2021. Meta-analysis was performed to assess donors' and recipients' perioperative outcomes using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of five studies involving 432 patients were included in the analysis. The results demonstrated that LLDH group had significantly less blood loss (WMD = -99.28 ml, 95%CI -152.68 to -45.88, p = 0.0003) and shorter length of hospital stay (WMD = -2.71d, 95%CI -3.78 to -1.64, p < 0.00001) compared with OLDH group. A reduced donor overall postoperative complication rate was observed in the LLDH group (OR = 0.29, 95%CI 0.13-0.64, p = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis, donor bile leakage, wound infection and pulmonary complications were similar between two groups (bile leakage: OR = 1.31, 95%CI 0.43-4.02, p = 0.63; wound infection: OR = 0.38, 95%CI 0.10-1.41, p = 0.15; pulmonary complications: OR = 0.24, 95%CI 0.04-1.41, p = 0.11). For recipients, there were no significant difference in perioperative outcomes between the LLDH and OLDH group, including mortality, overall complications, hepatic artery thrombosis, portal vein and biliary complications.

CONCLUSION

LLDH is a safe and effective alternative to OLDH for pediatric LDLT, reducing invasiveness and benefiting postoperative recovery. Future large-scale multi-center studies are expected to confirm the advantages of LLDH in pediatric 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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of open versus laparoscopy-assisted versus pure laparoscopic versus robotic living donor hepatectomy

The value of minimally invasive approaches for living donor hepatectomy remains unclear. Our aim was to compare the donor outcomes after open versus laparoscopy-assisted versus pure laparoscopic versus robotic living donor hepatectomy (OLDH vs. LALDH vs. PLLDH vs. RLDH). A systematic literature review of the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement (up to December 8, 2021). Random-effects meta-analyses were performed separately for minor and major living donor hepatectomy. The risk of bias in nonrandomized studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A total of 31 studies were included. There was no difference in donor outcomes after OLDH versus LALDH for major hepatectomy. However, PLLDH was associated with decreased estimated blood loss, length of stay (LOS), and overall complications versus OLDH for minor and major hepatectomy, but also with increased operative time for major hepatectomy. PLLDH was associated with decreased LOS versus LALDH for major hepatectomy. RLDH was associated with decreased LOS but with increased operative time versus OLDH for major hepatectomy. The scarcity of studies comparing RLDH versus LALDH/PLLDH did not allow us to meta-analyze donor outcomes for that comparison. There seems to be a marginal benefit in estimated blood loss and/or LOS in favor of PLLDH and RLDH. The complexity of these procedures limits them to transplant centers with high volume and experience. Future studies should investigate self-reported donor experience and the associated economic costs of these approaches.

Minimally Invasive Donors Right Hepatectomy versus Open Donors Right Hepatectomy: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

How to obtain a donor liver remains an open issue, especially in the choice of minimally invasive donors right hepatectomy versus open donors right hepatectomy (MIDRH versus ODRH). We conducted a meta-analysis to clarify this question.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 24 retrospective studies were identified. For MIDRH vs. ODRH, the operative time was longer in the MIDRH group (mean difference [MD] = 30.77 min; p = 0.006). MIDRH resulted in significantly less intraoperative blood loss (MD = -57.86 mL; p < 0.00001), shorter length of stay (MD = -1.22 days; p < 0.00001), lower pulmonary (OR = 0.55; p = 0.002) and wound complications (OR = 0.45; p = 0.0007), lower overall complications (OR = 0.79; p = 0.02), and less self-infused morphine consumption (MD = -0.06 days; 95% CI, -1.16 to -0.05; p = 0.03). In the subgroup analysis, similar results were observed in pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) and the propensity score matching group. In addition, there were no significant differences in post-operation liver injury, bile duct complications, Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 III, readmission, reoperation, and postoperative transfusion between the MIDRH and ODRH groups.

DISCUSSION

We concluded that MIDRH is a safe and feasible alternative to ODRH for living donators, especially in the PLDRH group.

Influence of surgical technique in donor hepatectomy on immediate and short-term living donor outcomes - A systematic review of the literature, meta-analysis, and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

There are currently no guidelines pertaining to ERAS pathways in living donor hepatectomy.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify whether surgical technique influences immediate and short-term outcomes after living liver donation surgery.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel (CRD42021260707). Endpoints were mortality, overall complications, serious complications, bile eaks, pulmonary complications, estimated blood loss and length of stay.

RESULTS

Of the 2410 screened articles, 21 articles were included for final analysis; three observational, 13 retrospective cohort, four prospective cohort studies, and one randomized trial. Overall complications were higher with right versus left hepatectomy (26.8% vs. 20.8%; OR 1.4, P = .010). Donors after left hepatectomy had shorter length of stay (MD 1.4 days) compared to right hepatectomy. There was no difference in outcomes after right donor hepatectomy with versus without middle hepatic vein. We had limited data on the influence of incision type and minimally invasive approaches on living donor outcomes, and no data on the effect of operative time on donor outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Left donor hepatectomy should be preferred over right hepatectomy, as it is related to improved donor short-term outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Right donor hepatectomy with or without MHV has equivalent outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong); no preference is recommended, decision should be based on program's experience and expertise. No difference in outcomes was observed related to incision type, minimally invasive vs. open (QOE; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Weak); no preference can be recommended.

Perioperative management of living donor liver transplantation: Part 2 - Donors

Living donor liver transplantation was first developed to mitigate the limited access to deceased donor organs in Asia in the 1990s. This alternative liver transplantation method has become a widely practiced and established transplantation option for adult patients suffering with end-stage liver disease, and it has successfully helped address the shortage of deceased donors. The Society for the Advancement of Transplant Anesthesia and the Korean Society of Transplantation Anesthesiologists jointly reviewed published studies on the perioperative management of adult live liver donors undergoing donor hemi-hepatectomy. The goal of the review is to offer transplant anesthesiologists and critical care physicians a comprehensive overview of the perioperative management of adult live donors. We featured the current status, donor selection process, outcomes and complications, surgical procedure, anesthetic management, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols, avoidance of blood transfusion, and considerations for emergency donation. Recent surgical advances, including laparoscopic donor hemi-hepatectomy and robotic laparoscopic donor surgery, are also addressed.

World Survey on Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy: A Global Snapshot of Current Practices in 2370 Cases

BACKGROUND

Having little evidence on the real extent of the minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH), a world survey was conducted aiming to picture the spread of MIDH and to identify geographical, institutional, and individual differences.

METHODS

A web-based survey was created with 5 sections (general, institutional, surgeon's experience, technical, and spread and dissemination), comprising up to a total of 47 questions. A thorough search was carried out to identify all possible centers and surgeons performing MIDH.

RESULTS

A global MIDH experience of 2370 cases was collected: 1587 right hepatectomies (RHs; 48.9% pure laparoscopic), 471 left lateral sectionectomies (LLS; 81.1% pure laparoscopic), and 366 left hepatectomies (LHs; 77.6% laparoscopic-assisted). LLS and adult MIDH conversion rates were 5.4% and 3.9%, respectively. Median blood loss was 250 mL (100-600), 100 mL (50-250), and 150 mL (50-500) for RH, LLS, and LH, respectively. Intra- and postoperative transfusion rates were 0.5%, 0%, and 0.3%; and 1.3%, 1.6%, and 0% for RH, LLS, and LH, respectively. Geographically, Asia accounts up to 1730 cases (73% of the global experience, 49.6% pure lap), of which 1374 cases are RH; Europe and Middle East-395 cases-stands out for its experience in left lateral sectionectomy: 289 cases (93% pure lap). Finally, America accounts for 245 cases, using a laparoscopic-assisted technique in 72.6% of the cases (178).

CONCLUSIONS

This world survey provides evidence and data on the global spread of MIDH and anticipates how in a near future a large-scale adoption of these techniques may be observed.

The impact of mini-invasive right hepatectomy in the setting of living donation: a meta-analysis

Adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation (A2ALDLT) represents a challenging procedure, mainly when the right hepatic lobe is donated. Therefore, especially in Western countries, the medical community still considers it a “risky procedure”. The present meta-analysis investigated the postoperative results reported in donors undergoing right hepatectomy for A2ALDLT through a minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) vs. open liver resection (OLR) approach, with the intent to clarify the hypothesis that the MILR approach should minimize the risks for the donor. A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE electronic databases. The primary outcome investigated was the complication rate after transplant. Fifteen studies were included (n = 2094; MILR = 553 vs. OLR = 1541). The MILR group only merged the statistical relevance in terms of advantage in terms of a lower number of complications (OR = 0.771, 95% CI 0.578–1.028; P value = 0.077). Investigating the complications ≥ IIIa according to the Dindo-Clavien classification, the estimated blood loss, and the length of hospital stay, no statistical difference was reported between the two groups. MILR represents a novel and promising approach for improving the results in A2ALDLT. However, no benefits have been reported regarding blood loss, length of stay, and postoperative complications. More extensive experiences are needed to re-evaluate the impact of MILR in right lobe live donation.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open living donor hepatectomy: A meta-analysis

Laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (LDH), accepted as a minimally invasive approach, has become increasingly popular for living donor liver transplant. However, the outcomes of LDH remain to be fully clarified when compared with open living donor hepatectomy. Thus, our meta-analysis was designed to assess the efficacy of laparoscopic in comparison with conventional open donor hepatectomy.The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase electronic databases were searched to identify the articles concerning the comparison of the efficacy of laparoscopic versus open surgery in treatment of living donor liver transplantation updated to March, 2020. The main search terms and medical Subject Heading terms were: "living donor," "liver donor," "minimally invasive," "laparoscopic surgery," and "open surgery." After rigorous evaluation on quality, the data was extracted from eligible publications. The outcomes of interest included intraoperative and postoperative results.The inclusion criteria were met by a total of 20 studies. In all, 2001 subjects involving 633 patients who received laparoscopic surgery and 1368 patients who received open surgery were included. According to the pooled result of surgery duration, the laparoscopic surgery was associated with shorter duration of hospital stay (MD = -1.07, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.29; P = .007), less blood loss (MD = -57.57, 95% CI -65.07 to -50.07; P < .00001), and less postoperative complications (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.85; P = .003). And the open donor hepatectomy achieved a trend of shorter operation time (MD = 30.31, 95% CI 13.93-46.69; P = .0003) than laparoscopic group. Similar results were found in terms of ALT (P = .52) as well as the AST (P = .47) peak level between the 2 groups.LDH showed the better perioperative outcomes as compared with open donor hepatectomy. The findings revealed that LDH may be a feasible and safe procedure for the living donor liver transplantation.

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.

Usefulness and safety of midline incision for right-sided hepatectomy: Cohort study

Background

While the adoption rates of laparoscopic hepatectomy are increasing, most patients still undergo open hepatectomy. Open hepatectomies use inverted L-shaped or Mercedes incisions for right-sided liver tumor. To decrease procedural invasiveness, we performed midline incisions in such cases, excluding those of laparoscopic hepatectomy. This retrospective study examined the effects of this change in treatment policy on overall patient surgical outcomes.

Materials and methods

From 2012 to 2018, 374 patients who underwent hepatectomy for right-sided hepatocellular carcinoma were enrolled, and short-term patient outcomes were compared following stratification into the 1st (n = 157) or 2nd (n = 217) Era group based on whether procedures occurred before or after the policy change, respectively.

Results

Short-term outcomes were mostly comparable between the two groups, with significantly increased postoperative aspartate aminotransferase maximum values found in the 2nd Era group relative to the 1st Era group (median: 393 vs. 331, p < 0.05). Pain scores at rest during postoperative day 1 and while moving on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3 were significantly lower in the 2nd Era group than in the 1st Era group (p < 0.05, <0.01, <0.05, <0.01, respectively).

Conclusions

Utilization of midline incisions may provide some benefits in postoperative outcomes for right-sided open hepatectomy cases.

•

Utilization of midline incisions may provide better postoperative outcomes in cases of right-sided open hepatectomy.

Postoperative incision scars and cosmetic satisfaction of living liver donors

Cosmetic appearance is a major concern for living donors. However, little is known about the impact of a surgical scar on body image changes in living liver donors. The aim of this study was to identify potential factors that cause displeasing upper midline incision scar, and to evaluate the overall satisfaction regarding body image and scarring after living donor hepatectomy.Donors who underwent right lobe hepatectomy were recruited. Exclusion criteria included reoperation, refusal to participate, and lost follow-up. All donors were invited to complete the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the body image questionnaire. According to the VSS results of upper midline incision scar, donors were divided into 2 groups: good scarring group (VSS ≤4) and bad scarring group (VSS >4). we compared the clinical outcomes, including the demographics, preoperation, intraoperation, and postoperation variables. The study also analyzed the results of the body image questionnaire.The proportion of male donors was 48.9%. The bad scarring group consisted of 63% of the donors. On multivariate analysis, being a male donor was found to be an independent predictor of a cosmetically displeasing upper midline incision scar with statistical significance. The results of body image questionnaires, there were significant differences in cosmetic score and confidence score among the 2 groups.The upper midline incision and male donors have higher rates of scarring in comparison with the transverse incision and female donors. Donors who reported having a higher satisfaction with their scar appearance usually had more self-confidence. However, the body image won't be affected. Medical staff should encourage donors to take active participation in wound care and continuously observe the impact of surgical scars on psychological changes in living liver donors.

Wound complications after primary and repeated midline, transverse and modified Makuuchi incision: A single-center experience in 696 patients

There are 3 main types of incisions in major open, elective abdominal surgery: the midline incision (MI), the transverse incision (TI) and the modified Makuuchi incision (MMI). This study aimed to compare these approaches regarding wound complications and hernias, with a special focus on suture material and previous laparotomies.Patients who underwent elective abdominal surgery between 2015 and 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Uni- and multivariate analyses were computed using stepwise binary and multifactorial regression models.In total, 696 patients (406 MI, 137 TI and 153 MMI) were included. No relevant differences were observed for patient characteristics (e.g., sex, age, body mass index [BMI], American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] score). Fewer wound complications (TI 22.6% vs MI 33.5% vs MMI 32.7%, P = .04) occurred in the TI group. However, regarding the endpoints surgical site infection (SSI), fascial dehiscence and incisional hernia, no risk factor after MI, TI, and MMI could be detected in statistical analysis. There was no difference regarding the occurrence of fascial dehiscence (P = .58) or incisional hernia (P = .97) between MI, TI, and MMI. In cases of relaparotomies, the incidence of fascial dehiscence (P = .2) or incisional hernia (P = .58) did not significantly differ between the MI, TI, or MMI as well as between primary and reincision of each type. On the other hand, the time to first appearance of a hernia after MMI is significantly shorter (P = .03) than after MI or TI, even after previous laparotomy (P = .003).In comparing the 3 most common types of abdominal incisions and ignoring the type of operative procedure performed, TI seems to be the least complicated approach. However, because the incidence of fascial dehiscence and incisional hernia is not relevantly increased, the stability of the abdominal wall is apparently not affected by relaparotomy, even by repeated MIs, TIs, and MMIs. Therefore, the type of laparotomy, especially a relaparotomy, can be chosen based on the surgeon's preference and planned procedure without worrying about increased wound complications.

Usefulness of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy to Improve the Safety of a Living Liver Donor

OBJECTIVES

The steatosis of graft liver is an important factor in liver transplant that determines the graft function in the recipient and the recovery of the remnant liver in the living donor. We analyzed the data of living donors from our center to evaluate whether magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy can replace liver biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From May 2010 to May 2019, data from a total of 239 living donors was collected. There were 84 patients who had no magnetic resonance imaging or magnetic resonance spectroscopy data, and they were excluded. The result of preoperative liver biopsy was compared with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy data. The steatosis was defined by the degree of macrosteatosis.

RESULTS

The magnetic resonance imaging of the fat fraction was a good parameter to predict fatty changes between normal and fatty liver groups (3.09 ± 3.38% for normal 7.48 ± 4.07% for fatty liver; P < .001). The magnetic resonance spectroscopy was also a good parameter to predict fatty changes between normal and fatty liver groups (2.09 ± 1.43% for normal and 6.89 ± 2.68% for fatty liver; P < .001). Linear regression showed that pathology results were significantly correlated with magnetic resonance spectroscopy (P < .001, R2 = 0.604) but not with magnetic resonance imaging (P < .001, R2 = 0.227).

CONCLUSIONS

Magnetic resonance spectroscopy has several benefits for quantifying hepatic steatosis during a living donor liver transplant evaluation, including no radiation exposure, and a noninvasive procedure. Moreover, preoperative magnetic resonance spectroscopy can determine an anatomic variation of the bile duct, which helps improve the safety of the living donor. However, more clinical data and further studies are needed to ensure that preoperative magnetic resonance spectroscopy is essential.

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

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

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

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

Pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy of living donor is feasible and safe: a preliminary comparative study in China

BACKGROUND

The adoption of laparoscopic techniques for living donor major hepatectomy has been controversial issue. The aim of this study is to present the preliminary experience of laparoscopic right hepatectomy in China.

METHODS

All the donors receiving right hepatectomy for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) were divided into three groups: pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy (PLRH) group, hand-assisted right hepatectomy (HARH) group and open right hepatectomy (ORH) group. We compared the perioperative data and surgical outcomes of donors and recipients among three groups.

RESULTS

From November 2001 to May 2017, 295 donors have received right hepatectomy for LDLT in our center. Among them, 7 donors received PLRH, 26 donors received HARH and 262 donors received ORH. The operation time of PLRH group (509.3 ± 98.9 min) was longer than that of the HARH group (451.6 ± 89.7 min) and the ORH group (418.4 ± 81.1 min, p = 0.003). The blood loss was the least in the PLRH group (378.6 ± 177.1 mL), compared with that in the HARH group (617.3 ± 240.4 mL) and that in the ORH group (798.6 ± 483.7 mL, p = 0.0013). The postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the PLRH group (7, 7-10 days) than that in the HATH group (8.5, 7.5-12 days) and ORH group (11, 9-14 days; p = 0.001). Only one donor had pleural effusion (Grade I) and another one experienced pulmonary infection (Grade II). One recipient (14.3%) in the PLRH group occurred hepatic venous stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic approaches for right hepatectomy contribute to less blood loss, better cosmetic satisfaction, less severe complications, and faster rehabilitation. PLRH is a safe and feasible procedure, which must be performed in highly specialized centers with expertise of both LDLT and laparoscopic hepatectomy, and requires a hybrid-to-pure stepwise development.

Outcomes of liver resection in patients with colorectal liver metastases by laparoscopic or open surgery

Backgrounds/Aims

Colorectal cancer is found with liver metastases about 20-25% due to characteristics of cancer itself. Approximately 20% of liver metastases are found to be resectable. The objective of this study was to evaluate short-term outcomes of patients who received liver resection with colorectal cancer operation in our center by laparoscopic surgery or open surgery.

Methods

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery of liver resection (LSLR) group who underwent liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) at a single institute from 2013 to 2016 were compared to those of open surgery of liver resection (OSLR) group.

Results

A total of 123 patients underwent liver resection for CRLM, including 101 (82.1%) patients in the OSLR group and 22 (17.9%) patients in the LSLR group. There were significant differences in tumor characteristics between the two groups, including synchronous and metachronous (p=0.004), tumor number (p<0.001), and tumor margin (p=0.002). For postoperative outcomes, only the length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly different between the two groups (8.5 days in LSLR vs. 11 days in OSLR, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in overall rate of postoperative complications between the two groups (9.1% in LSLR vs. 23.8% in OSLR, p=0.158).

Conclusions

There are no significant differences in postoperative outcomes between LSLR and OSLR except LOS, liver metastasis number, and resection margin. LSLR may be favorable for highly selected patients with CRLM.

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.

Laparoscopy-assisted versus open and pure laparoscopic approach for liver resection and living donor hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted (hybrid) liver surgery is considered a minimally invasive technique, however there are doubts regarding loss of the benefits of laparoscopy due to the use of an auxiliary incision. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative results of hybrid vs. open and hybrid vs. pure laparoscopic approach to liver resection for focal lesions and living donation.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library Central and LILACS databases. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

21 studies were included. Hybrid vs. open: operative time was lower in open group (mean difference [MD] = 34 min; 95%CI: 22-47; P < 0.001; N = 669). Hybrid technique was associated with a reduction in operative blood loss [MD = -43 ml; 95%CI: -74-(-13); P = 0.005, N = 1738]; shorter hospital stay [MD = -1.9 days; 95%CI: -3.2-(-0.5); P = 0.008; N = 833] and lower morbidity [risk difference (RD) = -0.05; 95%CI: -0.10-(-0.01); P = 0.010; N = 1359]. Hybrid vs. pure laparoscopic: There was no difference regarding blood loss, transfusion rate, hospital stay and morbimortality.

DISCUSSION

Hybrid technique had perioperative outcomes that were more in keeping with pure laparoscopic outcomes than open surgery. Hybrid liver surgery should be considered a minimally invasive approach.

Laparoscopic donor hepatectomy

Laparoscopic liver resection has been applied to treat most indications for liver resection during the past two decades. According to the literature, patient numbers have increased exponentially as a result, and surgical difficulty has increased as well. In expert centers, laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy and major liver resection more than 3 segments have become the acceptable treatment. Moreover, with surgical innovations and accumulated experience, living donor liver transplantation has become an established treatment choice for patients on the transplant waiting list. It is even considered an inevitable choice in regions with limited access to organs from deceased donors. However, significant morbidity and rare but catastrophic mortality are associated with donor hepatectomy and remain major concerns. Therefore, to decrease the incidence of complications, a minimally invasive approach in donor hepatectomy was adopted in the early 2000s. Initially, a minimally invasive approach was used for left lateral sectionectomy for pediatric liver transplant, then for laparoscopy-assisted hemihepatectomy and pure laparoscopic/robotic right donor hepatectomy, and more recently, for adult living donor liver transplantation. The extent of procedure complexity and potential complications depends on the approach and the size of the graft to be harvested. Early results from expert teams have seemed promising in terms of shortened donor recovery and improved perioperative outcomes. However, the combination of these two highly sophisticated surgical procedures raise more concerns about donor safety, especially with regard to unexpected events during the operation. A high level of evidence is very difficult to achieve in this highly specialized surgical practice with limited penetration. Therefore, an international registry has been suggested to determine the risks and benefits before the use of laparoscopic right donor hepatectomy spreads.

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

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

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy in a living donor with type 3a biliary variation: A case report

RATIONALE

With refinements in the operative technique, laparoscopic surgery has become the standard practice for liver resection. In the field of living donor liver transplantation, a few centers adopted laparoscopic surgery as an alternative to conventional open donor hepatectomy, and the application of pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy has been limited to the donors with simple, favorable biliary anatomy.

PATIENT CONCERNS

The candidate donor was a 19-year-old woman with type 3a bile duct variation.

INTERVENTIONS

After confirming precise cutting points under the guidance of a radiopaque marker rubber band, the bile ducts were divided and the remnant stumps were closed with suture and clipping using Hem-o-lok, respectively.

OUTCOMES

The postoperative course was uneventful and she was satisfactory 6 months after surgery.

LESSONS

A laparoscopic donor hepatectomy for the living donor with biliary variation was feasible. Biliary variations are commonly encountered during living donor surgery, and we think that such variations in laparoscopic donor hepatectomy need to be overcome to expand the selection criteria.

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.

Laparoscopy-Assisted versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donor: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of laparoscopy-assisted living donor hepatectomy (LADH) in comparison with open living donor hepatectomy (ODH) for liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND

LADH is becoming increasingly common for living donor liver transplant around the world. We aim to determine the efficacy of LADH and compare it with ODH.

METHODS

A systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted in May 2017.

RESULTS

Nine studies were suitable for this analysis, involving 979 patients. LADH seemed to be associated with increased operation time (WMD = 24.85 min; 95% CI: -3.01~52.78, P = 0.08), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -59.92 ml; 95% CI: -94.58~-25.27, P = 0.0007), similar hospital stays (WMD = -0.47 d; 95% CI: -1.78~0.83, P = 0.47), less postoperative complications (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51~0.94, P = 0.02), less analgesic use (SMD = -0.22; 95% CI: -0.44~-0.11, P = 0.04), similar transfusion rates (RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.24~3.12, P = 0.82), and similar graft weights (WMD = 7.31 g; 95% CI: -23.45~38.07, P = 0.64).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that LADH is a safe and effective technique and, when compared to ODH.

Report of the 22nd Annual Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society

The 2016 Annual Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society was held in Seoul, South Korea in May. The 22nd Congress marked the largest multidisciplinary liver transplantation meeting in Asia since 2010. The principal themes were living donation, allocation, immunosuppression, machine preservation, novel treatment of hepatitis C, and expansion of the deceased-donor allograft pool. This report presents select abstracts from the scientific sessions within the context of the published literature to serve as a quick reference.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Cosmetic selection of skin incision for resection of choledochal cyst in young female patients

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS

Open surgery for choledochal cyst has a disadvantage of skin incision scar from operative wound, which can be a definite disadvantage especially in young female patients. This study focused on the cosmetic aspect of skin incision for resection of choledochal cyst in young female patients.

METHODS

During a 2-year study period, 11 adult female patients aged less than 40 years underwent primary resection of choledochal cyst by a single surgeon. The cosmetic effect of two types of skin incision was evaluated.

RESULTS

The patients underwent mini-laparotomy through either a right subcostal incision (n=8) or an upper midline incision (n=3). The mean length of skin incision was 10 cm for right subcostal incisions and 9 cm for upper midline incisions. It took approximately 1 hour to repair the operative wound meticulously in both groups. At the 6 month to 1 year follow-up, a slight bulge on the skin scar was observed in 3 (37.5%) patients of the right subcostal incision group and 1 (33.3%) patient of the upper midline incision group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this preliminary study support the claim that cosmetic effect of the upper midline incision for CCD surgery appears to be non-inferior to that of the right subcostal incision if the incision is placed accurately and repaired very meticulously.

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.

Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy: a review of current status

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

Meeting report of the 2014 joint international congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society, Liver Intensive Care Group of Europe, and European Liver and Intestinal Association

The 2014 Annual Meeting of the International Liver Transplantation Society was held in London, England. This was the 20th meeting of the Society and was marked by a joint meeting including the European Liver and Intestinal Association as well as the Liver Intensive Care Group of Europe. The meeting included symposia, invited lectures, debates, oral presentations, and posters. The principal themes were living donation, expanding the deceased donor pool, machine preservation, and new oral therapies for hepatitis C virus. This report highlights the scientific discussions of this meeting.