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

Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH) involves either laparoscopic or robot-assisted technique, with the graft being retrieved through a remote incision. Current evidence reports faster recovery and better quality of life following MIDH than open donor hepatectomy, although these are limited to a handful of high-volume transplant centers. Nonetheless, grafts obtained by MIDH have a slight disadvantage of having shorter vein lengths than its open counterpart. Additionally, biliary complications are more prevalent in recipients of grafts retrieved by laparoscopic technique, while those obtained by the robotic platform demonstrate biliary complication rates comparable to, or even better than, those from open donor hepatectomy. Widespread application of MIDH has still not occurred across the world. This narrative review explores the challenges faced by the transplant surgeons when transitioning from open donor hepatectomy to MIDH, standard technique of robotic donor hepatectomy and suggests strategies to overcome the learning curve. It compares laparoscopic and robotic donor hepatectomies, detailing the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, as well as their outcomes.

[Status of Robotics in Living Donor Liver and Kidney Transplantation - Review of the Literature and Results of a Survey among German Transplant Centres]

The advantages of minimally invasive surgical techniques are undisputed. With the introduction of robotic assistance systems, classic laparoscopy has been further developed and is now also being utilized in transplant surgery, which was previously mainly characterised by open surgical procedures, particularly in living donor liver and kidney donations. In order to assess the current implementation status of robotic assistance systems in transplant surgery, international studies in this field were summarized and correlated with a national survey on the use of robotic assistance systems in living donation.First, a narrative summary of the MEDLINE-listed publications on robotic living kidney and liver donation was carried out. In addition, an online survey was conducted among German transplant centres with ten questions on the utilization of robotic techniques in Germany.Retrospective cohort studies at a small number of transplant centres worldwide report particular advantages of robotics, especially regarding blood loss, patient comfort and length of hospital stay. One-third of German transplant centres already perform living kidney donations with robotic assistance, and one-fifth of centres even use this technique in over 90% of cases. In contrast, living liver donations are only performed in one German transplant centre using robotic assistance for left lateral liver resection of the donor.In the context of living donation, advocates of robotics emphasise technical advantages, greater patient comfort and a steeper learning curve. A persistent and significant point of criticism regarding robotic surgical techniques remains the prolonged warm ischemia time, especially during learning curves. The survey results presented here demonstrate that there is still a substantial need for discussion on this current topic. However, there is a lack of prospective randomised controlled studies.

Propensity Score-matched Donor and Recipient Outcomes: Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Donor Right Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined the long-term outcomes of recipients in minimally invasive donor hepatectomies, particularly comparing robotic and laparoscopic donor procedures. Understanding these outcomes is crucial for optimizing surgical approaches and improving the overall success of living donor liver transplantation. This study aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of robotic donor right hepatectomy (RDRH) and laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) by evaluating total follow-up patient outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-center study included 117 and 118 donors who underwent RDRH and LDRH between March 2016 and June 2023, respectively. After performing 1:1 propensity score matching, 71 donor-recipient pairs were included in each group. Donor and recipient complications were divided into early (within 90 d) and late (after 90 d) biliary and vascular complications.

RESULTS

In the matched cohort, major complication rates of donors were similar in both groups. Bile duct (BD) variation was not significantly different; however, the rates of multiple BD openings (26.8% versus 54.9%; P  =   0.001) and major biliary complications in recipients were higher in the LDRH group (22.5% versus 42.3%; P  =   0.012). The cumulative biliary complication rate was significantly higher in the LDRH group. Early biliary complications were not significantly different; however, the rate of late biliary complications was higher in the LDRH group (11.3% versus 23.9%; P  =   0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

RDRH demonstrated comparable postoperative complications to LDRH in donors but showed fewer recipient biliary complications. This could be attributed to the precision of robotic dissection and BD division, resulting in fewer multiple BD openings.

The learning curve for robotic living donor right hepatectomy: Analysis of outcomes in 2 specialized centers

Robotic surgery is an emerging minimally invasive option for living donor hepatectomy. Currently, there are no studies on the learning curve of robotic donor hepatectomy. Thus, we evaluated the learning curve for robotic donor right hepatectomy. We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data from consecutive living donors who underwent robotic hepatectomy at 2 specialized centers between 2016 and 2022. We estimated the number of cases required to achieve stable operating times for robotic donor right hepatectomy using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. The complication rates were similar between the 2 centers (22.8% vs. 26.7%; p = 0.74). Most complications were graded as minor (70.4%). Analysis of the total operative time demonstrated that the learning curves reached a peak at the 17th case in center 1 and the 9th case in center 2. The average operation times for cases 1-17 versus 18-99 in center 1 were 603 versus 438 minutes ( p < 0.001), and cases 1-9 versus 10-15 in center 2 were 532 versus 418 minutes ( p = 0.002). Complication rates were lower after the learning curves were achieved, although this did not reach statistical significance. A comparison of outcomes between centers suggests that a standardized approach to this complex operation can be successfully transferred.

Recommendations on Robotic Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery. The Paris Jury-Based Consensus Conference

OBJECTIVE

To establish the first consensus guidelines on the safety and indications of robotics in Hepato-Pancreatic-Biliary (HPB) surgery. The secondary aim was to identify priorities for future research.

BACKGROUND

HPB robotic surgery is reaching the IDEAL 2b exploration phase for innovative technology. An objective assessment endorsed by the HPB community is timely and needed.

METHODS

The ROBOT4HPB conference developed consensus guidelines using the Zurich-Danish model. An impartial and multidisciplinary jury produced unbiased guidelines based on the work of 10 expert panels answering predefined key questions and considering the best-quality evidence retrieved after a systematic review. The recommendations conformed with the GRADE and SIGN50 methodologies.

RESULTS

Sixty-four experts from 20 countries considered 285 studies, and the conference included an audience of 220 attendees. The jury (n=10) produced recommendations or statements covering 5 sections of robotic HPB surgery: technology, training and expertise, outcome assessment, and liver and pancreatic procedures. The recommendations supported the feasibility of robotics for most HPB procedures and its potential value in extending minimally invasive indications, emphasizing, however, the importance of expertise to ensure safety. The concept of expertise was defined broadly, encompassing requirements for credentialing HPB robotics at a given center. The jury prioritized relevant questions for future trials and emphasized the need for prospective registries, including validated outcome metrics for the forthcoming assessment of HPB robotics.

CONCLUSIONS

The ROBOT4HPB consensus represents a collaborative and multidisciplinary initiative, defining state-of-the-art expertise in HPB robotics procedures. It produced the first guidelines to encourage their safe use and promotion.

Laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy in living liver donors. Current state and prospects

Minimally invasive living-donor hepatectomy is a relatively new surgical technique that can improve donor safety and expedite donor rehabilitation. Following an early stage of research where donor safety was not adequately established, the minimally invasive approach nowadays yields better outcomes when carried out by experienced surgeons. Important factors include donor selection criteria, hospital equipment, and surgeon’s learning curve. This review describes the current status of laparoscopic and robotic living-donor hepatectomy, along with the challenges facing the advancement of these surgical techniques.

Robotic surgery in the aspect of liver transplantation

Introduction. Almost 60 years have passed since the first liver transplant performed by Thomas Starzl. During this time, medical technologies have gradually improved, which has made it possible to use more and more new methods and approaches in this type of medical care. One of the new techniques of recent decades is robotic surgery, which is gradually being introduced into medical practice, including in the field of transplant medicine.

Objective. The purpose of writing this review was to summarize knowledge and describe the current status of development of robotic surgery in the aspect of liver transplantation, namely: liver resection in donors, as well as graft implantation in the recipient.

Material and methods. The review includes foreign and domestic publications on minimally invasive donor liver surgery. Publications on the topic of robotic liver resection in the aspect of liver transplantation were also processed.

Conclusion. Robotic surgery using advanced robotic systems represents the next step in the development of minimally invasive technologies in liver transplantation. Robotic systems provide more precise and dexterous control of instruments, allowing surgeons to perform complex procedures with greater precision and less risk to patients. However, the robotic approach is still very limited in geographical distribution and requires much more experience than laparoscopy. The upcoming introduction of new robotic systems that support haptic feedback or cavitronic ultrasonic surgical aspirators will further promote a widespread adoption of robotic liver resection in liver donors and liver recipients.

Evaluation and Management of Living Donors in the Setting of Living Donor Liver Transplant Program in the Republic of Uzbekistan

In the Republic of Uzbekistan, the history of liver transplantation began in 2018, but this type of medical care was introduced regularly only in 2021. The selection, preparation, and perioperative management of living liver donors can be complicated and have importance in the type of responsible medical care, which requires maximum doctor involvement at all stages. This review has detailed the donor selection algorithm in the Republic of Uzbekistan, donor preparation for liver resection, and basic principles of liver resection surgery in living donors. Algorithms for postoperative donor management and rehabilitation have also been described in detail.

Perioperative impact of liver cirrhosis on robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of robotic liver resection (RLR) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been reported worldwide. However, the exact role of RLR in HCC patients with liver cirrhosis is not sufficiently determined.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study on consecutive patients with cirrhosis or non-cirrhosis who received RLR for HCC from 2018 to 2023. Data on patients' demographics and perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the risk factors of prolonged postoperative length of stay (LOS) and morbidity.

RESULTS

Of the 571 patients included, 364 (64%) had cirrhosis. Among the cirrhotic patients, 48 (13%) were classified as Child-Pugh B. After PSM, the cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis group (n = 183) had similar operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative blood transfusion, LOS, overall morbidity (p > 0.05). In addition, the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were similar between the two groups in the subgroup analyses of patients with tumor size ≥ 5 cm, major hepatectomy, and high/expert IWATE difficulty grade. However, patients with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis had longer LOS and more overall morbidity than that of Child-Pugh A. Child-Pugh B cirrhosis, ASA score > 2, longer operative time, and multiple tumors were risk factors of prolonged LOS or morbidity in patients with cirrhosis.

CONCLUSION

The presence of Child-Pugh A cirrhosis didn't significantly influence the difficulty and perioperative outcomes of RLR for selected patients with HCC. However, even in high-volume center, Child-Pugh B cirrhosis was a risk factor for poor postoperative outcomes.

Trends of liver transplantation in Asia

Liver transplantation (LT) in Asia started comparatively early in 1964, just 1 year after Starzl's trail-blazing first attempt. Despite the quick start, LT was slow to develop in this region. Limited access to universal healthcare, lack of public understanding and support as well as the absence of strong legislation, on a backdrop of a wide range of diverse social, religious, economic and cultural background are all contributory factors. Through strong administrative efforts, the number of DDLTs in selected Asian countries has been slowly rising in recent years. However, Asians are generally still less likely to donate organs than Caucasians after death. The strong demand for LT with limited access to deceased organs has, therefore, led to constant need for innovation in LT this region, with the pioneering of various LDLT techniques and safe expansion of donor pool being driven primarily by Asian centers. Familiarity and the development of technical expertise in donor surgery have also resulted in Asian centers repeatedly pushing the boundaries on minimally invasive donor and recipient surgery. In this article, we focus on the past and present states of LT in Asia and explore the future trends of LT in this region.

Recent trends and new developments in liver transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) has been an established treatment for end-staged liver disease for acute, chronic, metabolic diseases and liver cancer. Advanced surgical techniques, refined indications and contraindications for LT, improvements of donor selection, prognostic scorings system and immunosuppressive regimens have contributed to the improved outcomes of liver transplantation. The etiologies of cirrhosis have been shifting from viral hepatitis to metabolic associated fatty liver disease. New indications include peripheral or mass forming bile duct cancer, metastases from bowel cancers or neuroendocrine tumors. Resection and partial liver segments 2-3 transplantation with delayed total hepatectomy has been performed to the limited cases, which was the explored technique of auxiliary partial orthotopic LT. Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (laparoscopic or robotic) has been increasingly done. In this review are described the recent pressing topics in LT.

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.

Artificial Intelligence and liver: Opportunities and barriers

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has recently been shown as an excellent tool for the study of the liver; however, many obstacles still have to be overcome for the digitalization of real-world hepatology. The authors present an overview of the current state of the art on the use of innovative technologies in different areas (big data, translational hepatology, imaging, and transplant setting). In clinical practice, physicians must integrate a vast array of data modalities (medical history, clinical data, laboratory tests, imaging, and pathology slides) to achieve a diagnostic or therapeutic decision. Unfortunately, machine learning and deep learning are still far from really supporting clinicians in real life. In fact, the accuracy of any technological support has no value in medicine without the support of clinicians. To make better use of new technologies, it is essential to improve clinicians' knowledge about them. To this end, the authors propose that collaborative networks for multidisciplinary approaches will improve the rapid implementation of AI systems for developing disease-customized AI-powered clinical decision support tools. The authors also discuss ethical, educational, and legal challenges that must be overcome to build robust bridges and deploy potentially effective AI in real-world clinical settings.

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.

Preventing Small-for-size Syndrome in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) is a well-recognized complication following liver transplantation (LT), with up to 20% developing this following living donor LT (LDLT). Preventing SFSS involves consideration of factors before the surgical procedure, including donor and recipient selection, and factors during the surgical procedure, including adequate outflow reconstruction, graft portal inflow modulation, and management of portosystemic shunts. International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplant Society of India Consensus Conference was convened in January 2023 to develop recommendations for the prediction and management of SFSS in LDLT. The format of the conference was based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. International experts in this field were allocated to 4 working groups (diagnosis, prevention, anesthesia, and critical care considerations, and management of established SFSS). The working groups prepared evidence-based recommendations to answer-specific questions considering the currently available literature. The working group members, independent panel, and conference attendees served as jury to edit and confirm the final recommendations presented at the end of the conference by each working group separately. This report presents the final statements and evidence-based recommendations provided by working group 2 that can be implemented to prevent SFSS in LDLT patients.

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.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting

PURPOSE

In the era of minimal-invasive surgery, the introduction of robotic liver surgery (RS) was accompanied by concerns about the increased financial expenses of the robotic technique in comparison to the established laparoscopic (LS) and conventional open surgery (OS). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RS, LS and OS for major hepatectomies in this study.

METHODS

We analyzed financial and clinical data on patients who underwent major liver resection for benign and malign lesions from 2017 to 2019 at our department. Patients were grouped according to the technical approach in RS, LS, and OS. For better comparability, only cases stratified to the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) H01A and H01B were included in this study. Financial expenses were compared between RS, LS, and OS. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify parameters associated with increased costs.

RESULTS

RS, LS and OS accounted for median daily costs of 1,725 €, 1,633 € and 1,205 €, respectively (p < 0.0001). Median daily (p = 0.420) and total costs (16,648 € vs. 14,578 €, p = 0.076) were comparable between RS and LS. Increased financial expenses for RS were mainly caused by intraoperative costs (7,592 €, p < 0.0001). Length of procedure (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7-16.9, p = 0.004), length of stay (HR [95% CI] = 8.8 [1.9-41.6], p = 0.006) and development of major complications (HR [95% CI] = 2.9 [1.7-5.1], p < 0.0001) were independently associated with higher costs.

CONCLUSIONS

From an economic perspective, RS may be considered a valid alternative to LS for major liver resections.

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.

Pure Laparoscopic Donor Left Hepatectomy Reduces Postoperative Analgesic Use and Pain Scale

BACKGROUND

Many recent reports have described the efficacy and safety of pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH). Here we investigated the extent to which this technique could reduce patients' experienced pain.

METHODS

Among donor left hepatectomy procedures performed between July 2011 and November 2022, we retrospectively analyzed 20 open donor hepatectomy (ODH), 20 laparoscopy-assisted donor hepatectomy (LADH), and 5 PLDH cases. We compared these 3 procedures regarding the total amount of postoperative analgesic use (narcotics and non-narcotics) and the first date when the donor was completely pain-free, as evaluated by the patients using a pain scale.

RESULTS

Total postoperative fentanyl use did not significantly differ among the 3 procedures: median (range), ODH, 0.5 mg (0-2 mg); LADH 1.2 mg (0-7 mg); PLDH, 0.5 mg (0-3.5; P = .172). The percentage of patients who completely discontinued analgesics on postoperative day (POD) 5 was significantly higher for PLDH (80%) than for ODH (35%) or LADH (20%) (P = .041). The day when 50% of donors were completely pain-free on a pain scale was POD9 for ODH, POD11 for LADH, and POD5 for PLDH, significantly shorter in the PLDH group (P = .004).

CONCLUSION

At our institution, we found that PLDH was a useful technique for postoperative pain management compared with PDH and LADH. Our results suggest that PLDH effectively reduces the duration of postoperative analgesia use. Further studies are warranted as the number of PLDH cases gradually increases.

Machine learning improves the accuracy of graft weight prediction in living donor liver transplantation

Precise graft weight (GW) estimation is essential for planning living donor liver transplantation to select grafts of adequate size for the recipient. This study aimed to investigate whether a machine-learning model can improve the accuracy of GW estimation. Data from 872 consecutive living donors of a left lateral sector, left lobe, or right lobe to adults or children for living-related liver transplantation were collected from January 2011 to December 2019. Supervised machine-learning models were trained (80% of observations) to predict GW using the following information: donor's age, sex, height, weight, and body mass index; graft type (left, right, or left lateral lobe); computed tomography estimated graft volume and total liver volume. Model performance was measured in a random independent set (20% of observations) and in an external validation cohort using the mean absolute error (MAE) and the mean absolute percentage error and compared with methods currently available for GW estimation. The best-performing machine-learning model showed an MAE value of 50 ± 62 g in predicting GW, with a mean error of 10.3%. These errors were significantly lower than those observed with alternative methods. In addition, 62% of predictions had errors <10%, whereas errors >15% were observed in only 18.4% of the cases compared with the 34.6% of the predictions obtained with the best alternative method ( p  < 0.001). The machine-learning model is made available as a web application ( http://graftweight.shinyapps.io/prediction ). Machine learning can improve the precision of GW estimation compared with currently available methods by reducing the frequency of significant errors. The coupling of anthropometric variables to the preoperatively estimated graft volume seems necessary to improve the accuracy of GW estimation.

Robotic Liver Surgery: Technical Advantages Over Laparoscopic Technique Based on Parameters of Surgical Complexity and Perioperative Outcomes

Introduction: In view of the limited availability, our study addresses the issue of optimal case selection for robotic liver surgery over standard laparoscopy offering an in-detail analysis of intra- and postoperative outcomes. Materials and Methods: Clinical and technical data of all consecutive cases of robotic liver surgery of a single high-volume center from 2018 to 2020 were collected prospectively. Second, we performed a retrospective analysis of all laparoscopic liver resections from 2015 to 2020. Parameters of surgical complexity were extracted and descriptive analysis and statistical hypothesis testing were performed to assess parameters of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Results: A total of 121 robotic resections were compared with 435 laparoscopic resections. Shorter robotic operating times were shown for segmentectomies of the right liver lobe compared with laparoscopic procedures (P = .003) with an according trend for extended resections. A shorter duration of applied Pringle's maneuver was observed for robotic procedures. This advantage was further enhanced in cases with close proximity of the tumor to major vessels. There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidity and mortality between both groups. Conclusion: Our study offers the first in-detail analysis of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery depending on established parameters of surgical complexity. The results indicate potential technical advantages of robotic technology in liver surgery based on parameters that can be studied before the operation. When evaluating robotic technology, future studies should focus not only at overall postoperative outcomes, but rather at potential technical intraoperative advantages to allow optimal case selection for robotic liver surgery. Clinical Trial Registration Number: DRKS00017229.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pure laparoscopic versus open donor hepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation - A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) for adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of donor outcomes following PLDH for adult LDLT.

Materials and Methods

Systematic review in line with the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology guidelines.

Results

Eight studies were included in the systematic review and six in the meta-analysis. A total of 575 donors underwent PLDH for adult LDLT. The mean donor age was 32.8 years with a BMI of 23.4 kg/m² and graft weight of 675 g. The mean operative time was 353 min and the conversion rate was 2.8% (n = 16). Overall morbidity was 10.8% with 1.6% major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 3b), zero mortality and 9.0 days length of stay (LOS). The meta-analysis demonstrated that the operative time was significantly shorter for the open donor hepatectomy group (mean difference 29.15 min; P = 0.006) and the LOS was shorter for the PLDH group (mean difference -0.73 days; P = 0.02), with a trend towards lesser estimated blood loss in PLDH group. However, no difference between the two groups was noted in terms of overall morbidity or major complications.

Conclusions

Perioperative outcomes of PLDH are similar to the standard open approach in highly specialised centers with trend towards lesser blood loss and overall shorter hospital stay. Careful donor selection and standardisation of the technique are imperative for the successful implementation and adoption of the procedure worldwide.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Primary Hepatobiliary Tumors-Possibilities and Limitations

Simple Summary

Primary liver malignancies are some of the most common and fatal tumors today. Robotic-assisted liver surgery is becoming increasingly interesting for both patients and surgeons alike. Up to date, prospective comparative studies around the topic are scarce. This leads us to an ever existing controversy about the efficacy, safety, and economic benefits of robotic surgery as an extension of traditional minimally invasive surgery over open liver surgery. However, there is evidence that robotic-assisted surgery is, after passing the learning curve, equivalent in terms of feasibility and safety, and in some cases superior to traditional laparoscopic hepatic resection. With this work, we want to provide an overview of the latest and most significant reviews and meta-analyses focusing on robotic hepatectomy in primary liver malignancies. We outline the technical aspects of robotic-assisted surgery and place them into the context of technical, surgical, and oncological outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open resection. When chosen per case individually, any hepatic resection can be performed robotically to overcome limitations of laparoscopic surgery by an experienced team. In this paper, we propose that prospective studies are needed to prove efficacy for robotic-assisted resection in liver malignancy.

Abstract

Hepatocellular and cholangiocellular carcinoma are fatal primary hepatic tumors demanding extensive liver resection. Liver surgery is technically challenging due to the complex liver anatomy, with an intensive and variant vascular and biliary system. Therefore, major hepatectomies in particular are often performed by open resection and minor hepatectomies are often performed minimally invasively. More centers have adopted robotic-assisted surgery, intending to improve the laparoscopic surgical limits, as it offers some technical benefits such as seven degrees of freedom and 3D visualization. The da Vinci^® Surgical System has dominated the surgical robot market since 2000 and has shown surgical feasibility, but there is still much controversy about its economic benefits and real benefits for the patient over the gold standard. The currently available retrospective case studies are difficult to compare, and larger, prospective studies and randomized trials are still urgently missing. Therefore, here we summarize the technical, surgical, and economic outcomes of robotic versus open and laparoscopic hepatectomies for primary liver tumors found in the latest literature reviews and meta-analyses. We conclude that complex robotic liver resections (RLR) are safe and feasible after the steep learning curve of the surgical team has plateaued. The financial burden is lower in high volume centers and is expected to decrease soon as new surgical systems will enter the market.

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.