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

The long-term follow-up of the living liver donors

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been proposed in many countries to reduce organ shortage. While the early postoperative outcomes have been well investigated, little is known about the long-term follow-up of the living donors. We, therefore, designed a systematic review of the literature to explore long-term complications and quality of life among living donors. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE registries for studies published since 2013 that specifically addressed long-term follow-up following living-donor liver donation, concerning both physical and psychological aspects. Publications with a follow-up shorter than 1 year or that did not clearly state the timing of outcomes were excluded. A total of 2505 papers were initially identified. After a thorough selection, 17 articles were identified as meeting the eligibility criteria. The selected articles were mostly from North America and Eastern countries. Follow-up periods ranged from 1 to 11.5 years. The most common complications were incision site discomfort (13.2-38.8%) and psychiatric disorders (1-22%). Biliary strictures occurred in 1-14% of cases. Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy could improve quality of life, but long-term data are limited. About 30 years after the first reported LDLT, little has been published about the long-term follow-up of the living donors. Different factors may contribute to this gap, including the fact that, as healthy individuals, living donors are frequently lost during mid-term follow-up. Although the reported studies seem to confirm long-term donor safety, further research is needed to address the real-life long-term impact of this procedure.

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.

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.

The use of nondirected donor organs in living donor liver transplantation: Perspectives and guidance

Interest in anonymous nondirected living organ donation is increasing in the United States and a small number of transplantation centers are accumulating an experience regarding nondirected donation in living donor liver transplantation. Herein, we review current transplant policy, discuss emerging data, draw parallels from nondirected kidney donation, and examine relevant considerations in nondirected living liver donation. We aim to provide a consensus guidance to ensure safe evaluation and selection of nondirected living liver donors and a schema for just allocation of nondirected grafts.

Robotic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The introduction of robotics in living donor liver transplantation has been revolutionary. We aimed to examine the safety of robotic living donor right hepatectomy (RLDRH) compared to open (ODRH) and laparoscopic (LADRH) approaches. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and six additional databases following PRISMA guidelines. Data on morbidity, postoperative liver function, and pain in donors and recipients were extracted from studies comparing RLDRH, ODRH, and LADRH published up to September 2020; PROSPERO (CRD42020214313). Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios and continuous variables as weighted mean differences. Four studies with a total of 517 patients were included. In living donors, the postoperative total bilirubin level (MD: −0.7 95%CI −1.0, −0.4), length of hospital stay (MD: −0.8 95%CI −1.4, −0.3), Clavien−Dindo complications I−II (RR: 0.5 95%CI 0.2, 0.9), and pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.6 95%CI −1.6, 0.4) were lower following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Furthermore, the pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.4 95%CI −0.8, −0.09) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In recipients, the postoperative AST level was lower (MD: −0.5 95%CI −0.9, −0.1) following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Moreover, the length of stay (MD: −6.4 95%CI −11.3, −1.5) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In summary, we identified low- to unclear-quality evidence that RLDRH seems to be safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared to the conventional approaches. No postoperative deaths were reported.

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.

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Pure Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy: A Multicenter Experience

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

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

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

Short-term Outcomes of "Difficult" Laparoscopic Liver Resection at Specialized Centers: Report From INSTALL (International Survey on Technical Aspects of Laparoscopic Liver Resection)-2 on 4478 Patients

OBJECTIVE

To define the current status of "difficult" LLR, a global database was created and investigated.

BACKGROUND

In the Second International Consensus Conference in 2014, minor LLR was considered as a standard practice and major LLR remained an innovative procedure. Since then, no updates on worldwide trends have been available.

METHODS

A questionnaire on all consecutive patients who underwent difficult LLR (major hepatectomy, posterosuperior segmentectomy, sectionectomy, living donor hepatectomy, tumor size ≥10 cm, Child-Pugh grade ≥B, combined with biliary reconstruction, and Iwate criteria difficulty score ≥7) in 2014-2018 was distributed via email to 65 high-volume LLR centers worldwide. Individual data on patient and tumor demographics, surgical information, and short-term outcomes were obtained to create a large-scale international registry for analyses.

RESULTS

Overall, 58 centers in 19 countries performed 4478 difficult LLR (median, 58.5; range, 5-418) during the study period. Hepatocellular carcinoma accounted for ≥40% of all indications. Half of the patients underwent major hepatectomy, followed by sectionectomy, posterosuperior segmentectomy, and living donor hepatectomy. In the vast majority of procedures, Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa complication rates of ≈10% and 90-day mortality rates of ≈1% were achieved. Left or right trisectionectomy had the worst Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa complication rate of ≥10% and 90-day mortality rate of 5%-10%. No significant correlation was observed between center volume and short-term outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Total 4478 patients underwent difficult LLR worldwide in 2014-2018. Most procedures are safe and feasible when conducted in specialized centers.

Recent evolution of living donor liver transplantation at Kyoto University: How to achieve a one-year overall survival rate of 99%?

Previously, living donor liver transplantation was considered as a "high-risk, high-return" medical treatment due to the relatively high short-term mortality. It is our task to change "high-risk, high-return" into a "low-risk, high-return" situation. In this review article, the recent evolutions in living donor liver transplantation for both donors and recipients at Kyoto University such as portal vein pressure modulation, hybrid donor operation, and perioperative management considering sarcopenia, focusing on improvement of short-term outcomes are described. Under a paradigm of "marketing and innovation", various innovations and efforts have been made over the last decade aiming at improving the short-term outcomes of both donors and recipients. By doing so, excellent short-term results after living donor liver transplantation have been achieved, along with a potentially epoch-making discoveries.

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy, systemic review

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

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

Background

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

Material/Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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.

Simultaneous laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy and nephrectomy in the same living donor: The first case report

With the presence of organ shortage, living donors remain important sources of grafts, especially for pediatric recipients. Laparoscopic nephrectomy has become the gold standard for living donors. Additionally, laparoscopic partial liver procurement in living donors has proven its safety and feasibility in the latest studies. We have combined both approaches to perform a simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation in a pediatric patient from the same living donor. Our experience of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy and laparoscopic nephrectomy in living donors was the basis for adapting to this procedure. A 29-year-old mother was an ABO-incompatible (ABOi) donor for the left lateral section (LLS) of the liver and left kidney for her 2-year-old son. The postoperative period was uneventful. Two sessions of plasmapheresis and rituximab induction were necessary to prepare for ABOi transplantation. The donor and recipient were discharged on postoperative days 5 and 28, respectively. Simultaneous laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy and nephrectomy in the same living donor is feasible for transplantation from the parent to the child with advanced laparoscopic expertise.

Comprehensive and innovative techniques for laparoscopic choledocholithotomy: A surgical guide to successfully accomplish this advanced manipulation

Surgeries for benign diseases of the extrahepatic bile duct (EHBD) are classified as lithotomy (i.e., choledocholithotomy) or diversion (i.e., choledochojejunostomy). Because of technical challenges, laparoscopic approaches for these surgeries have not gained worldwide popularity. The right upper quadrant of the abdomen is advantageous for laparoscopic procedures, and laparoscopic choledochojejunostomy is safe and feasible. Herein, we summarize tips and pitfalls in the actual procedures of choledocholithotomy. Laparoscopic choledocholithotomy with primary closure of the transductal incision and transcystic C-tube drainage has excellent clinical outcomes; however, emergent biliary drainage without endoscopic sphincterotomy and preoperative removal of anesthetic risk factors are required. Elastic suture should never be ligated directly on the cystic duct. Interrupted suture placement is the first choice for hemostasis near the EHBD. To prevent progressive laceration of the EHBD, full-layer interrupted sutures are placed at the upper and lower edges of the transductal incision. Cholangioscopy has only two-way operation; using dedicated forceps to atraumatically grasp the cholangioscope is important for smart maneuvering. The duration of intraoperative stone clearance accounts for most of the operative time. Moreover, dedicated forceps are an important instrument for atraumatic grasping of the cholangioscope. Damage to the cholangioscope requires expensive repair. Laparoscopic approach for choledocholithotomy involves technical difficulties. I hope this document with the visual explanation and literature review will be informative for skillful surgeons.

Current Status of Surgical Incisions Used in Donors During Living Related Liver Transplantation-A Nationwide Survey in Japan

BACKGROUND

Smaller surgical incisions have recently been introduced in living donor liver procurement. This study used national data from Japan to clarify the present status of surgical incisions in living donor liver procurement.

METHODS

A nationwide, questionnaire-based survey related to 3121 donors and recipients was used. Donors were divided into 2 groups: left lateral segment graft (LLSG) procurement (n = 690) and other types (n = 2431). Incisions were classified into 6 types: type I, upper midline and bilateral subcostal; type II, upper midline and right subcostal; type III, upper midline and right subcostal to the right lateral margin of the abdominal rectus muscle; type IV, upper midline without laparoscopy; type V, upper midline with laparoscopy; and type VI, lower abdominal using the full laparoscopic technique. Types I, II, and III were regarded as standard, and types IV, V, and VI as small incisions.

RESULTS

In LLSGs, blood transfusion and postoperative complication rates were significantly less frequent in the small incision group than in the standard group. In other graft types, there were no significant differences in blood transfusion, postoperative complication, and recipients' graft loss rates. The rates of wound extension during surgery were 2.8% and 2.1% in the small incision group in LLSGs and in other graft types, respectively. A small incision was adapted more frequently and postoperative complications were less common in high-volume centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Various incisions have been adopted in living donor liver procurement. Donor safety and graft integrity appear to have been retained for donors receiving small incisions.

Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Recipients

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

Pure laparoscopic 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.

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

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

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.

The Southampton Consensus Guidelines for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: From Indication to Implementation

OBJECTIVE

The European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery was held in Southampton on February 10 and 11, 2017 with the aim of presenting and validating clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery.

BACKGROUND

The exponential growth of laparoscopic liver surgery in recent years mandates the development of clinical practice guidelines to direct the speciality's continued safe progression and dissemination.

METHODS

A unique approach to the development of clinical guidelines was adopted. Three well-validated methods were integrated: the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology for the assessment of evidence and development of guideline statements; the Delphi method of establishing expert consensus, and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument for the assessment of the methodological quality and external validation of the final statements.

RESULTS

Along with the committee chairman, 22 European experts; 7 junior experts and an independent validation committee of 11 international surgeons produced 67 guideline statements for the safe progression and dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery. Each of the statements reached at least a 95% consensus among the experts and were endorsed by the independent validation committee.

CONCLUSION

The European Guidelines Meeting for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery has produced a set of clinical practice guidelines that have been independently validated for the safe development and progression of laparoscopic liver surgery. The Southampton Guidelines have amalgamated the available evidence and a wealth of experts' knowledge taking in consideration the relevant stakeholders' opinions and complying with the international methodology standards.

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.

Fully laparoscopic left hepatectomy - a technical reference proposed for standard practice compared to the open approach: a retrospective propensity score model

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LLH) may be an alternative to open (OLH). There are several original variations in the technical aspects of LLH, and no accepted standard. The aim of this study is to assess the safety and effectiveness of the technique developed at Henri Mondor Hospital since 1996.

METHODS

The technique of LLH was conceived for safety and training of two mature generations of lead surgeons. The technique includes full laparoscopy, ventral approach to the common trunk, extrahepatic pedicle dissection, CUSA^® parenchymal transection, division of the left hilar plate laterally to the Arantius ligament, and ventral transection of the left hepatic vein. The outcomes of LLH and OLH were compared. Perioperative analysis included intra- and postoperative, and histology variables. Propensity Score Matching was undertaken of background covariates including age, ASA, BMI, fibrosis, steatosis, tumour size, and specimen weight.

RESULTS

17 LLH and 51 OLH were performed from 1996 to 2014 with perioperative mortality rates of 0% and 6%, respectively. In the LLH group, two patients underwent conversion to open surgery. Propensity matching selected 10 LLH/OLH pairs. The LLH group had a higher proportion of procedures for benign disease. LLH was associated with longer operating time and less blood loss. Perioperative complications occurred in 30% (LLH) and 10% (OLH) (p = 1). Mortality and ITU stay were similar.

CONCLUSION

This technique is recommended as a possible technical reference for standard LLH.

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.

Use of robotics in liver donor right hepatectomy

Liver transplantation is the best solution for end stage liver disease, and has been widely accepted and rapidly developed in the past decades. Along with the improved outcomes of liver transplantation, living-related donor transplantation has been conducted to overcome the shortage of the deceased donor. The most important aspects of the living-related liver transplantation are donor safety and fast recovery after graft procurement. Meanwhile, the rapid progress of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in general surgery has generated heated debate regarding the appropriateness of MIS in living-related donor graft hepatectomy. Technical innovations and instrument enhancements have been allowing recruitment of more potential candidates through smaller wounds and better surgical experience. Although MIS has been documented with safety and feasibility in complex liver surgery, the progress is slow in regard to the application of MIS in donor graft hepatectomy. Pioneer surgeons have devoted themselves to develop the pure MIS approach for the liver donor surgery, but the steep learning curve for pure MIS major hepatectomy remains a major barrier for wide adoption. The introduction of robotic system may lower the barrier for entry for practice into MIS donor hepatectomy.

The First Comparative Study of the Perioperative Outcomes Between Pure Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy and Laparoscopy-Assisted Donor Hepatectomy in a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

In a statement from the second International Consensus Conference for Laparoscopic Liver Resection, adult-to-adult laparoscopic donor surgery was the earliest phase of development. It was recommended that the procedure be performed under institutional ethical approval and a reporting registry.

METHOD

At our institute, we started laparoscopy-assisted donor hepatectomy (LADH) in 2007 and changed to pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) in 2012. This study included 40 living donors who underwent LADH and 14 live donors who underwent PLDH. We describe the technical aspects and outcomes of our donor hepatectomy from assist to pure and examine the liver allograft outcomes of the recipients after LADH and PLDH.

RESULTS

There was significantly less blood loss in the PLDH group (81.07 ± 52.78 g) than that in the LADH group (238.50 ± 177.05 g), although the operative time was significantly longer in the PLDH group (454.93 ± 85.60 minutes) than in the LADH group (380.40 ± 44.08 minutes). And there were no significant differences in postoperative complication rate in the 2 groups. The liver allograft outcomes were acceptable and comparable with open living donor hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

By changing our routine approach from assist to pure, PLDH can be performed safely, with better exposure due to magnification, and with less blood loss under pneumoperitoneal pressure. PLDH, which has become our promising donor procedure, results in less blood loss, better cosmesis, and the donor's complete rehabilitation without deterioration in donor safety.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Robotic liver donor right hepatectomy: A pure, minimally invasive approach

Right hepatectomy for a living liver donor via a pure minimally invasive approach is a challenging procedure and only a few cases have been reported. Between May 2013 and August 2015, 13 patients underwent robotic living donor right hepatectomy in our institute, and 54 patients received open surgery. In this series, no conversion was conducted for robotic donor right hepatectomy. The 2 groups shared similar blood loss (169 versus 146 mL), complication rates (7.7% versus 9.3%), and recovery of donor liver function (peak alanine aminotransferase, 269 versus 252 IU/mL). The robotic group needed longer operation time (596 versus 383 minutes) but less postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (0.58 versus 0.84 ng/kg) and a shorter period before returning to work/school (52.9 versus 100.0 days) and sex (100.0 versus 156.0 days). For recipient outcomes regarding the donor procedure, the robotic group shared similar experiences in early allograft dysfunction, complications, and 1-year recipient liver function with the open group. With respect to documented benefits of minimally invasive left-sided liver donor procedure, the development of right donor hepatectomy is slow. In conclusion, with substantial improvements in patient recovery after the minimally invasive approach, the robotic platform would be a big step toward completing pure minimally invasive liver donor surgery. Liver Transplantation 22 1509-1518 2016 AASLD.

Biliary complications following living donor hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become increasingly common in an effort to increase organ availability for the treatment of end-stage liver disease. Donor safety is a primary concern in LDLT. The majority of complications experienced by living donors are infectious or biliary in nature. The purpose of this paper was to review the existing literature on biliary complications in living donors.

METHODS

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English between 2006-present, focused on adult-to-adult LDLT, and were available via PubMed/MEDLINE.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies reporting outcomes from 12,653 donors (right lobe: 8231, left lobe: 4422) were included. Of 33 studies, 12 reported outcomes from right lobe donors, 1 from left lobe donors, 14 compared left and right, and 6 focused specifically on biliary complications. A total of 830 biliary complications (6.6%) were reported, with 75 donors requiring re-operation for biliary complications and 1 donor death attributed to biliary complications.

CONCLUSION

Although bile leaks and strictures are still relatively common following living donor hepatectomy, the majority of complications are minor and resolve with conservative measures. Approximately 6% of living donors will experience a biliary complication and, of these 6%, approximately 9% (total of 0.6% of donors) will require operative management of the biliary complication.