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

Current status and future perspectives of robotic liver surgery

Robotic liver resection has been reported in case series since the early 2000s. The surgical robot is capable of precise operation using articulated forceps with seven degrees of freedom. The robot also eliminates tremors and provides a good surgical field with highly detailed 3D high-definition images. The clinical results demonstrating their usefulness have been increasing year by year. Initially, a shorter hospital stay was observed in comparison with open hepatectomy. Recent reports have also shown lower conversion and complication rates in comparison with laparoscopic hepatectomy. The clamp and crush method with bipolar forceps, sealing devices, ultrasonic shears, and the combined procedure of Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator and robotic forceps as hybrid procedures have been reported as effective methods of parenchymal transection in robotic surgery. Theoretically, the advantages of the robotic platform allow for more complex liver resection around hilar structures and major blood vessels, as well as for vascular reconstruction or biliary reconstruction. The application of robotic liver surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma, living donor hepatectomy, and living donor liver transplantation has been reported. Robotic liver surgery is becoming more popular for certain indications; however, it is important to further evaluate its long-term surgical and oncological outcomes and costs in comparison with conventional laparoscopic and open liver surgery, based on accumulated experience.

Indications and results of right-lobe living donor liver transplantation

The shortage of deceased liver donor organs over the years has always posed the need to expand the donor pool. A viable alternative to deceased donors is that of the living donor. Indeed, the living donor in liver transplantation, initially in pediatric transplantation, but for several years now also in adult transplantation, is a more than viable alternative to deceased liver donation. In fact, right liver lobe donation has proven to be a surgical procedure with low impact on the donor's life in terms of morbidity and mortality, with excellent results in recipients of such organs. In recent years, an increasing number of studies have been published that show excellent results in right-lobe living donor liver transplantation, encouraging this practice not only in countries that have historically had a shortage of deceased donor organs, such as Asian countries, but making it a practice of increasing use in Western countries as well. In addition, thanks to improvements in surgical technique and the experience of high-volume centers, this surgery has also begun to be performed using minimally invasive surgical techniques, allowing us to envision ever better outcomes for both donor and recipient in the coming years.

Robotic and laparoscopic right lobe living donation compared to the open approach: A multicenter study on 1194 donor hepatectomies

Due to the success of minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive donor hepatectomies (MIDH) are increasingly performed worldwide. We conducted a retrospective, multicentre, propensity score-matched analysis on right lobe MIDH by comparing the robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches to assess the feasibility, safety, and early outcomes of MIDHs. From January 2016 until December 2020, 1194 donors underwent a right donor hepatectomy performed with a robotic (n = 92), laparoscopic (n = 306), and open approach (n = 796) at 6 high-volume centers. Donor and recipients were matched for different variables using propensity score matching (1:1:2). Donor outcomes were recorded, and postoperative pain was measured through a visual analog scale. Recipients' outcomes were also analyzed. Ninety-two donors undergoing robotic surgery were matched and compared to 92 and 184 donors undergoing laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. Conversions to open surgery occurred during 1 (1.1%) robotic and 2 (2.2%) laparoscopic procedures. Robotic procedures had a longer operative time (493 ± 96 min) compared to laparoscopic and open procedures (347 ± 120 and 358 ± 95 min; p < 0.001) but were associated with reduced donor blood losses ( p < 0.001). No differences were observed in overall and major complications (≥ IIIa). Robotic hepatectomy donors had significantly less pain compared to the 2 other groups ( p < 0.001). Fifty recipients of robotic-procured grafts were matched to 50 and 100 recipients of laparoscopic and open surgery procured grafts, respectively. No differences were observed in terms of postoperative complications, and recipients' survival was similar ( p =0.455). In very few high-volume centers, robotic right lobe procurement has shown to be a safe procedure. Despite an increased operative and the first warm ischemia times, this approach is associated with reduced intraoperative blood losses and pain compared to the laparoscopic and open approaches. Further data are needed to confirm it as a valuable option for the laparoscopic approach in MIDH.

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

The future of liver transplantation

Over the last 50 years, liver transplantation has evolved into a procedure routinely performed in many countries worldwide. Those able to access this therapy frequently experience a miraculous risk-benefit ratio, particularly if they face the imminently life-threatening disease. Over the decades, the success of liver transplantation, with dramatic improvements in early posttransplant survival, has aggressively driven demand. However, despite the emergence of living donors to augment deceased donors as a source of organs, supply has lagged far behind demand. As a result, rationing has been an unfortunate focus in recent decades. Recent shifts in the epidemiology of liver disease combined with transformative innovations in liver preservation suggest that the underlying premise of organ shortage may erode in the foreseeable future. The focus will sharpen on improving equitable access while mitigating constraints related to workforce training, infrastructure for organ recovery and rehabilitation, and their associated costs. Research efforts in liver preservation will undoubtedly blossom with the aim of optimizing both the timing and conditions of transplantation. Coupled with advances in genetic engineering, regenerative biology, and cellular therapies, the portfolio of innovation, both broad and deep, offers the promise that, in the future, liver transplantation will not only be broadly available to those in need but also represent a highly durable life-saving therapy.

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.

Robotic hepatectomy: current evidence and future directions

Minimally invasive hepatectomy continues to gain popularity and acceptance for treatment of benign and malignant liver disease. Robotic hepatectomy offers potential advantages over open and conventional laparoscopic approaches. Review of the literature on robotic hepatectomy was performed. Search terms included "robotic hepatectomy" and "minimally invasive hepatectomy." Search was further customized to include articles related to robotic surgical technology. Across many parameters in liver surgery, robotic liver resection appears to have comparable outcomes with respect to laparoscopic resection. The benefits over open resection are largely related to less morbidity and faster recovery times. There is evidence that the robotic approach may have a shorter learning curve and enable more difficult resections to be performed minimally invasively. The robotic platform may have the potential to achieve superior margin status or parenchymal sparing resection in oncologic resections, but numerous obstacles remain. The robotic platform has not been applied to liver surgery to the same extent as either laparoscopic or open surgery. Robotic surgical technology will need to continue developing to deliver on its potential advantages.

Application of robotics in abdominal organ transplantation: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic transplant surgery has garnered worldwide attention since 2002. Discussions on this issue have led to more publications over the past decade. This study assessed global robotic organ transplantation studies using bibliometric analysis.

METHOD

The study sample was robotic technique use in organ transplantation publications from 2002 to 2021 in the Web of Science database. We analysed top-cited authors, countries, institutions, journals, and keywords. Citations were used to visualise and analyse target literature in VOSviewer.

RESULTS

160 articles were included in the bibliometric study. Among the nations that are presently involved in the use of robotics in organ transplantation research, the United States of America leads robotic organ transplantation studies. The American Journal of Transplantation published the most articles overall.

CONCLUSION

Based on publication and citation numbers, robotic organ transplantation techniques are becoming more global attention. This robotic abdominal organ transplant surgery bibliometric analysis review covers research output and hotspots.

Current Status of Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Impact, Advantages, and Challenges

PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW

This review provides an overview of the current status of Living Donor Liver Transplant (LDLT). It discusses the impact of LDLT on waitlist and post-transplantation outcomes, highlighting the technical challenges and unique advantages of LDLT.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent findings show that LDLT offers several theoretical advantages over deceased donor liver transplant, including shorter wait times, better graft quality, and improved post-transplant outcomes. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are emerging as the leading indications for adult LDLT in the US. LDLT demonstrates comparable or better overall survival rates and organ-specific outcomes compared to deceased donor transplants. However, challenges exist, including donor and recipient risks such as biliary complications and small-for-size syndrome. Ongoing research focuses on refining surgical techniques, exploring minimally invasive approaches, utilizing predetermined donors to modulate the recipient's immune system, and ensuring ethical practices. LDLT is a valuable solution for patients with end-stage liver failure or disorders requiring transplantation. It offers advantages such as shorter wait times as well as improved waitlist and post-transplant outcomes. Continued research and advancements in LDLT will benefit patients in need of liver transplantation.

International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023

The robotic liver resection (RLR) has been increasingly applied in recent years and its benefits shown in some aspects owing to the technical advancement of robotic surgical system, however, controversies still exist. Based on the foundation of the previous consensus statement, this new consensus document aimed to update clinical recommendations and provide guidance to improve the outcomes of RLR clinical practice. The guideline steering group and guideline expert group were formed by 29 international experts of liver surgery and evidence-based medicine (EBM). Relevant literature was reviewed and analyzed by the evidence evaluation group. According to the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, the Guidance Principles of Development and Amendment of the Guidelines for Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment in China 2022, a total of 14 recommendations were generated. Among them were 8 recommendations formulated by the GRADE method, and the remaining 6 recommendations were formulated based on literature review and experts' opinion due to insufficient EBM results. This international experts consensus guideline offered guidance for the safe and effective clinical practice and the research direction of RLR in future.

Global dissemination of minimally invasive living donor hepatectomy: What are the barriers?

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH) is a relatively novel procedure that can potentially increase donor safety and contribute to faster rehabilitation of donors. After an initial period in which donor safety was not effectively validated, MIDH currently seems to provide improved results, provided that it is conducted by experienced surgeons. Appropriate selection criteria are crucial to achieve better outcomes in terms of complications, blood loss, operative time, and hospital stay. Beyond a pure laparoscopic technique, various approaches have been recommended such as hand-assisted, laparoscopic-assisted, and robotic donation. The latter has shown equal outcomes compared to open and laparoscopic approaches. A steep learning curve seems to exist in MIDH, mainly due to the fragility of the liver parenchyma and the experience needed for adequate control of bleeding. This review investigated the challenges and the opportunities of MIDH and the barriers to its global dissemination. Surgeons need expertise in liver transplantation, hepatobiliary surgery, and minimally invasive techniques to perform MIDH. Barriers can be categorized into surgeon-related, institutional-related, and accessibility. More robust data and the creation of international registries are needed for further evaluation of the technique and the acceptance from more centers worldwide.

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.

Short-Term Outcomes After Robotic Versus Open Liver Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic liver surgery is a novel technique expanding the field of minimally invasive approaches. An increasing number of studies assess the outcomes of robotic liver resections (RLR). The aim of our meta-analysis is to provide an up-to-date comparison of RLR versus open liver resections (OLR), evaluating its safety and efficacy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov for articles published from January 2000 until January 2022 was undertaken.

RESULTS

Thirteen non-randomized retrospective and one prospective clinical study enlisting 1801 patients met our inclusion criteria, with 640 patients undergoing RLR and 1161 undergoing OLR. RLR resulted in significantly lower overall morbidity (p < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (p = 0.002), and less intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.001). Operative time was found to be significantly higher in the RLR group (p < 0.001). Blood transfusion requirements, R0 resection, and mortality rates presented no difference among the two groups. The cumulative rate of conversion was 5% in the RLR group.

CONCLUSION

The increasing experience in the implementation of the robot will undoubtedly generate more prospective randomized studies, necessary to assess its potential superiority over the traditional open approach, in a variety of hepatic lesions.

Comparison of surgical outcomes and learning curve for robotic versus laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Both laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy (LLDRH) and robotic living donor right hemihepatectomy (RLDRH) have been developed for minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH), although comparative analysis between the two surgical modalities is lacking. This study aims to compare surgical outcomes of LLDRH and RLDRH at a single institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From March 2016 to March 2022, 171 patients who underwent MILH of right liver were enrolled and divided into RLDRH and LLDRH. Two surgeons with experience in both techniques performed all procedures. Clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes of donor and recipient, and donor anatomic variations were compared between both groups, and learning curves were estimated. Subgroup analysis was also performed, including only donors recruited after 2019, when LLDRH was initiated at our institution.

RESULTS

RLDRH and LLDRH were performed for 102 and 69 patients, respectively. Operative time was significantly longer for RLDRH than LLDRH (464 vs. 407 min, P < 0.001), although estimated blood loss was lower in RLDRH (104 vs. 238 mL, P = 0.002). Incidence of major complications was similar in both groups. After 2019, significantly more RLDRH vs. LLDRH patients had variation in the hepatic artery (14.3% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.020) and portal vein (16.1% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.027). Learning curve for RLDRH was stabilized after approximately the 16th case, whereas that of LLDRH stabilized immediately.

CONCLUSION

RLDRH resulted in less intraoperative bleeding and comparable postoperative outcomes than LLDRH. Moreover, since 2019, RLDRH has been employed more frequently for donors with hilar structure anatomic variations. Based on our single-center experience, we propose that standardized procedures for RLDRH might help set up pure minimally invasive procedures for donor hepatectomy and facilitate safe implementation of laparoscopic approaches.

Robotic surgery and liver transplantation: A single-center experience of 501 robotic donor hepatectomies

BACKGROUND

Over the past two decades robotic surgery has been introduced to many areas including liver surgery. Laparoscopic liver surgery is an alternative minimally invasive approach. However, moving on to the complexity of living donor hepatectomies, the advantages of robotic versus laparoscopic approach have convinced us to establish the robotic platform as a standard for living donor hepatectomy.

METHODS

From November 2018 to January 2022, 501 fully robotic donor hepatectomies, including 177 left lateral donor lobes, 112 full left lobes and 212 full right lobes were performed. Grafts were donated to 296 adult recipients and 205 pediatric recipients. Donor age, sex, body weight, body mass index (BMI), graft weight, graft to body weight ratio (GBWR), operative time, blood loss, first warm ischemic time, pain score, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and hospital stay, and complications were retrospectively analyzed based on a prospectively kept database. Recipients were evaluated for graft and patient survival, age, sex, BMI, body weight, model of end-stage liver disease score, blood loss, transfusions, operative time, cold ischemic time, length of hospital stay and complications.

RESULTS

There was no donor mortality. Two cases needed to be converted to open surgery. The median blood loss was 60 mL (range 20-800), median donor operative time was 6.77 h (range 2.93-11.53), median length of hospital stay was 4 days (range 2-22). Complication rate in donors classified following Clavien-Dindo was 6.4% (n = 32) with one grade III complication. Three-year actual recipient overall survival was 91.4%; 87.5% for adult recipients and 97.1% for pediatric recipients. Three-year actual graft overall survival was 90.6%; 87.5% for adult recipients and 95.1% for pediatric recipients. In-hospital mortality was 6%, 9.1% (27/296) for adult recipients and 1.4% (3/205) for pediatric recipients. The recipients' morbidity was 19.8% (n = 99). Twenty-eight recipients (5.6%) had biliary and 22 (4.4%) vascular complications. Six (12.0%) recipients needed to be re-transplanted.

CONCLUSIONS

With growing experience it is nowadays possible to perform any donor hepatectomy by robotic approach regardless of anatomical variations and graft size. Donor morbidity and quality for life results are encouraging and should motivate other transplant centers with interest in minimally invasive donor surgery to adopt this robotic technique.

OPEN TO ROBOTIC RIGHT DONOR HEPATECTOMY: A TECTONIC SHIFT IN SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Robotic right live donor hepatectomy(r-LDRH) has been reported with reduced morbidity compared to open donor right hepatectomy(o-LDRH) in few recent series. Nevertheless, its routine use is debated. We present a large series comparing pure r-LDRH with o-LDRH. Consecutive r-LDRH performed from June 2018 to June 2020 (n = 102) were compared with consecutive donors undergoing o-LDRH (n = 152) from February 2016 to February 2018, a period when r-LDRH was not available at this centre. Propensity score matched (PSM) analysis of 89 case-control pairs was additionally performed. Primary endpoints were length of high dependency unit (HDU) & hospital stay and Clavien-Dindo graded complications among donors. Although r-LDRH took longer to perform (540 versus 462 mins, P<0.001), the post-operative peak transaminases levels(P<0.001), the length of HDU (3 versus 4 days, P<0.001) and hospital stay (8 versus 9 days, P<0.001) were lower in in donors undergoing r-LDRH. Clavien-Dindo graded complications were similar (16.67% in r-LDRH and 13.16% in o-LDRH). The rates of early allograft dysfunction (1.6% versus 3.3%), bile leak (14.7% versus 10.7%), and 1-year mortality (13.7% versus 11.8%) were comparable between r-LDRH and o-LDRH recipients. PSM analysis yielded similar results between the groups. These data support the safety and feasibility of r-LDRH in select donors. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Robot-assisted liver resection: the real benefit so far

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay. However, the added benefit of the robotic platform over conventional laparoscopy is a matter of ongoing investigation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an up-to-date and balanced evaluation of the benefits and shortcomings of robotic liver surgery for the modern hepatobiliary surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

Advantages of a robotic approach to liver resection include a shortened learning curve, the ability to complete more extensive or complex minimally invasive operations, and integrated fluorescence guidance. However, the robotic platform remains limited by a paucity of parenchymal transection devices, complete lack of haptic feedback, and added operating time associated with docking and instrument exchange. Like laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy may provide patients with more rapid recovery and a shorter hospital stay, which can help offset the substantial costs of robot acquisition and maintenance. The oncologic outcomes of robotic hepatectomy appear to be equivalent to laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for appropriately selected patients.

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.

Leaping the Boundaries in Laparoscopic Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Simple Summary

Recent advances in surgical techniques and perioperative management lead to a redefinition of the actual frontiers of Laparoscopic Liver Resection (LLR) by including patients with more advanced disease. Nonetheless, because of both underlying liver conditions and technical difficulty, LLR for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) is still considered as a challenging procedure. Specific concerns exist about LLR in cirrhotic patients, posterosuperior segments, giant and multiple tumors, as well as repeat resections. This review focuses on the specific limits of this approach in HCC patients in order to put into practice all the pre- and intra-operative precautions to overcome their boundaries, making this technique the standard of care within high-volume hepatobiliary centers.

Abstract

The minimally invasive approach for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) had a slower diffusion compared to other surgical fields, mainly due to inherent peculiarities regarding the risks of uncontrollable bleeding, oncological inadequacy, and the need for both laparoscopic and liver major skills. Recently, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been associated with an improved postoperative course, including reduced postoperative decompensation, intraoperative blood losses, length of hospitalization, and unaltered oncological outcomes, leading to its adoption within international guidelines. However, LLR for HCC still faces several limitations, mainly linked to the impaired function of underlying parenchyma, tumor size and numbers, and difficult tumor position. The aim of this review is to highlight the state of the art and future perspectives of LLR for HCC, focusing on key points for overcoming currents limitations and pushing the boundaries in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS).

Extended criteria donors for Robotic Right Hepatectomy- A Propensity Score matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic right donor hepatectomy (RDH) has been reported from experienced centers with reduced morbidity when compared to open RDH. However, outcomes in donors with large grafts/ complex biliovascular anatomy are unknown.

METHODS

Out of 170 robotic RDH, 100 had one or more of the following: graft weight ≥ 800gms, type 2/3 portal vein, >1 bile duct or hepatic artery and inferior hepatic veins >5mm requiring reconstruction (extended criteria donors- ExRDH), while the remaining 70 had standard anatomy (SRDH). After propensity score matching, 66 ExRDH were compared with 66 SRDH. Additionally, all robotic RDH performed were analysed in 3 temporal phases (60, 60 and 50).

RESULTS

Peak AST and ALT were higher among donors and recipients in the ExRDH arm compared to SRDH. Other intraoperative parameters and post-operative complications were similar between the two groups. During the last phase, donors demonstrated reduction in duration of surgery, postoperative complications and hospital stay while recipients showed decreased blood loss and hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Robotic right hepatectomy performed in donors with extended criteria have similar perioperative outcomes as standard donors. However, a significant learning curve needs to be traversed. Further studies are required before safely recommending robotic RDH for all donors.

Advanced Robotic Surgery: Liver, Pancreas, and Esophagus - The State of the Art?

Background

The trend in performing robotic-assisted operations in visceral surgery has been increasing in the last decade, also reaching the challenging field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery. Nevertheless, solid data about advantages and disadvantages of the robotic approach are still missing. The aim of this review is to analyze the benefit and impact of robotic surgery in the field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery, focusing on the comparison with the conventional laparoscopic or open approach.

Summary

The well-known advantages of laparoscopic surgery in comparison to the open approach are also valid for robotic surgery, with the addition of a 3D-view camera, wristed instrumentation, and an ergonomic console. On the other hand, the use of a robotic system leads to longer operating time and higher costs. Randomized controlled trials comparing the robotic approach with the laparoscopic one are still missing.

Key Message

Recent meta-analyses show promising results of the usage of robotic systems in advanced surgical procedures, like hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal resections. Further randomized studies are needed to validate the postulated benefit.

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.

Technique of robotic right donor hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive right donor hepatectomy (RDH) has been reported, this innovation is yet to be widely accepted by transplant community. Bleeding during transection, division of right hepatic duct (RHD), suturing of donor duct as well as retrieval with minimal warm ischemia are the primary concerns of most donor surgeons. We describe our simplified technique of robotic RDH evolved over 144 cases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Right lobe mobilization is performed in a clockwise manner from right triangular ligament over inferior vena cavae up to hepatocaval ligament. Transection is initiated using a combination of bipolar diathermy and monopolar shears controlled by console surgeon working in tandem with lap CUSA operated by assistant surgeon. With the guidance of indocyanine green cholangiography, RHD is divided with robotic endowrist scissors (Potts), and remnant duct is sutured with 6-0 PDS. Final posterior liver transection is completed caudocranial without hanging manoeuvre. Right lobe with intact vascular pedicle is placed in a bag, vascular structures then divided, and retrieved through Pfannenstiel incision.

CONCLUSION

Our technique may be easy to adapt with the available robotic instruments. Further innovation of robotic platform with liver friendly devices could make robotic RDH the standard of care in future.

Robotic donor hepatectomy: A major breakthrough in living donor liver transplantation

Living donation in many countries is the main resource of organs. Healthy, volunteering individuals deserve the highest safety standards possible in addition to the least invasive technique to procure the organs. Since the introduction of living donor liver transplantation, many efforts have been made to minimize the surgical trauma inherent to living donor surgery. The journey started with a large Mercedes incision and evolved to reverse L-shaped and small upper midline incisions before the introduction of minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques originated. The technical difficulties of the laparoscopic approach due to suboptimal instrumentation, challenging ergonomics, and the long learning curve limited the application of the fully laparoscopic approach to a few centers. The recent introduction of the robotic platform with its superb optical system and advanced instruments allows for the first time, a genuine emulation of open donor surgery in a closed abdomen, thus allowing all liver donors to benefit from minimally invasive surgery (better cosmesis, less pain and morbidity, and better quality of life) without compromising donor safety. This attribute in combination with the ubiquitous presence of the robot in major transplant centers may well lead to the desired endpoint of this technology, namely, the widespread dissemination of minimally invasive donor surgery.

Minimally invasive versus open living donors right hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive technology has been widely used in hepatectomy, it remains controversial with regards to liver transplantation, especially in donors right hepatectomy. Herein, we compared the short-term safety and efficacy of minimally invasive donors right hepatectomy (MIDRH) with open donors right hepatectomy (ODRH).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library database in order to identify comparison studies of MIDRH and ODRH. Next, we obtained the relevant data, and carried out the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 12 studies, which included 1755 cases that underwent donors right hepatectomy. Compared to ODRH, patients that underwent MIDRH had less bleeding (SWD = -0.52, p<0.001), shorter hospital stays (SWD = -0.58, p < 0.001) and lower overall postoperative complications of donors (RR = 0.74, p = 0.008). However, MIDRH was found to be associated with prolonged operative times (SWD = 0.74, p < 0.001), as well as a higher rate of biliary complications in donors (RR = 2.26, p = 0.007) and recipients (RR = 1.69, p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between MIDRH and ODRH in postoperative liver function, rate of major complications and vascular complications of both donors and recipients and overall postoperative complications.

DISCUSSION

MIDRH is superior to ODRH with regards to intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay and overall donor complications. Although biliary-related complications are higher, it is feasible to develop MIDRH in experienced liver transplant centers. However, higher-quality research is still needed for corroboration.

Can Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States Reach Its Potential?

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a vital tool to address the growing organ shortage in the United States caused by increasing numbers of patients diagnosed with end-stage liver disease. LDLT still only makes up a very small proportion of all liver transplantations performed each year, but there are many innovations taking place in the field that may increase its acceptance among both transplant programs and patients. These innovations include ways to improve access to LDLT, such as through nondirected donation, paired exchange, transplant chains, transplant of ABO-incompatible donors, and transplants in patients with high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores. Surgical innovations, such as laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy, and portal flow modulation, are also increasingly being implemented. Policy changes, including decreasing the financial burden associated with LDLT, may make it a more feasible option for a wider range of patients. Lastly, center-level behavior, such as ensuring surgical expertise and providing culturally competent education, will help toward LDLT expansion. Although it is challenging to know which of these innovations will take hold, we are already seeing LDLT numbers improve within the past 2 years.

Why are there so many liver transplants from living donors in Asia and so few in Europe and the US?

Acceptance of liver transplantation (LT) as an established treatment modality for end-stage liver disease has led to an exponential increase in the demand for organs, resulting in an ever-increasing gap between the availability of organs and the number of sick patients waiting for them. Interestingly, influenced by cultural, socio-economic and other constraints, the West and the East have attempted to address this problem of shortage in different ways. Living donor LT (LDLT) became polarised to the East with over 90% of LT in this region being LDLT. On the other hand, the West chose to concentrate their efforts on optimising the use of cadaveric livers with techniques such as split LT, or by using extended criteria donors (including donation after cardiac death donors) and machine perfusion devices etc. Consequently, LDLT did not find the widespread acceptance it did in the East and hence over 90% of all LT are DDLT in this region. We review each regions' perspective and attempt to provide a globally viable roadmap to bridge the widening gap between the demand and availability of livers for LT.

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.

Robotic donor hepatectomy: Are we there yet?

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) the safety of the live donor (LD) is of paramount importance. Despite all efforts, the morbidity rates approach 25%-40% with conventional open donor hepatectomy (DH) operations. However, most of these complications are related to the operative wound and despite increased self- esteem and satisfaction in various quality of life analyses on LD, the most common grievance is that of the scar. Performing safe and precise DH through a conventional laparoscopic approach is a formidable task with a precipitous learning curve for the whole team. Due to the ramifications the donor operation carries for the donor, the recipient, the transplant team and for the LDLT program in general, the development and acceptance of minimally invasive DH (MIDH) has been slow. The robotic surgical system overcomes the reduced visualization, restricted range of motion and physiological tremor associated with laparoscopic surgery and allows for a comparatively easier transition from technical feasibility to reproducibility. However, many questions especially with regards to standardization of surgical technique, comparison of outcomes, understanding of the learning curve, etc. remain unanswered. The aim of this review is to provide insights into the evolution of MIDH and highlight the current status of robotic DH, appreciating the existing challenges and its future role.

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.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robotic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Following the publication of reports from landmark international consensuses (Louisville 2008 and Morioka 2014), minimally invasive hepatectomy became widely accepted as a legitimate alternative to open surgery. We aimed to compare the operative, hospitalization, and total economic costs of open (OLR) vs. laparoscopic (LLR) vs. robotic liver resection (RLR).

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review (end-of-search date: July 3, 2020) according to the PRISMA statement. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Quality assessment was performed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies reporting on 3847 patients (1783 OLR; 1674 LLR; 390 RLR) were included. The operative costs of LLR were significantly higher than those of OLR, while subgroup analysis also showed higher operative costs in the LLR group for major hepatectomy, but no statistically significant difference for minor hepatectomy. Hospitalization costs were significantly lower in the LLR group, with subgroup analyses indicating lower costs for LLR in both major and minor hepatectomy series. No statistically significant difference was observed regarding total costs between LLR and OLR both overall and on subgroup analyses in either major or minor hepatectomy series. Meta-analyses showed higher operative, hospitalization, and total costs for RLR vs. LLR, but no statistically significant difference regarding total costs for RLR vs. OLR.

CONCLUSION

LLR's higher operative costs are offset by lower hospitalization costs compared to OLR leading to no statistically significant difference in total costs, while RLR appears to be a more expensive alternative approach.

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.

Robotic Liver Surgery - Current Standards and Future Perspectives

BACKGROUND

 Robotic liver surgery is emerging as the future of minimal invasive surgery. The robotic surgical system offers a stable camera platform, elimination of physiologic tremor, augmented surgical dexterity as well as improved ergonomics because of a seated operating position. Due to the theoretical advantages of the robotic assisted system, complex liver surgery might be an especially interesting indication for a robotic approach since it demands delicate tissue dissection, precise intracorporeal suturing as well as difficult parenchymal transection with subsequent need for meticulous hemostasis and biliostasis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

 An analysis of English and German literature on open, laparoscopic and robotic liver surgery was performed and this review provides a general overview of the existing literature along with current standards and aims to specifically point out future directions of robotic liver surgery.

RESULTS

 Robotic liver surgery is safe and feasible compared to open and laparoscopic surgery, with improved short-term postoperative outcomes and at least non-inferior oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSION

 In complex cases including major hepatectomies, extended hepatectomies with biliary reconstruction and difficult segmentectomies of the posterior-superior segments, robotic surgery appears to emerge as a reasonable alternative to open surgery rather than being an alternative to laparoscopic procedures.

The impact of robotics in liver surgery: A worldwide systematic review and short-term outcomes meta-analysis on 2,728 cases

BACKGROUND

The dissemination of robotic liver surgery is slow-paced and must face the obstacle of demonstrating advantages over open and laparoscopic (LLS) approaches. Our objective was to show the current position of robotic liver surgery (RLS) worldwide and to identify if improved short-term outcomes are observed, including secondary meta-analyses for type of resection, etiology, and cost analysis.

METHODS

A PRISMA-based systematic review was performed to identify manuscripts comparing RLS vs open or LLS approaches. Quality analysis was performed using the Newcatle-Ottawa score. Statistical analysis was performed after heterogeneity test and fixed- or random-effect models were chosen accordingly.

RESULTS

After removing duplications, 2728 RLS cases were identified from the final set of 150 manuscripts. More than 75% of the cases have been performed on malignancies. Meta-analysis from the 38 comparative reports showed that RLS may offer improved short-term outcomes compared to open procedures in most of the variables screened. Compared to LLS, some advantages may be observed in favour of RLS for major resections in terms of operative time, hospital stay and rate of complications. Cost analyses showed an increased cost per procedure of around US$5000.

CONCLUSIONS

The advantages of RLS still need to be demonstrated although early results are promising. Advantages vs open approach are demonstrated. Compared to laparoscopic surgery, minor perioperative advantages may be observed for major resections although cost analyses are still unfavorable to the robotic approach.

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.

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).

Current status of liver transplantation in Asia

In spite of early adoption of the brain death legislation, and all efforts at promoting deceased donation, various social, economic and cultural factors have acted as road blocks to the furthering of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) in most Asian societies. On the other hand, Asian liver transplant centers have been the pioneers, innovators, and technical advancement catalysts for the world to follow, especially with regards to living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). With some high volume centers performing more than 200 LDLTs a year with good outcomes in the donor and recipient, techniques to expand the living donor pool have also been adopted like ABO-incompatible, paired exchange and dual lobe living donor liver transplants. Although large multicenter, and registry data as regards safety and outcomes of minimally invasive donor hepatectomy are awaited, expert centers have pioneered, and now regularly perform purely laparoscopic and robotic living donor hepatectomies, especially in Korea.