Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy Regarding the Anatomical Variation of the Portal Vein: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Multivariable linear model for predicting graft weight based on 3-dimensional volumetry in regards to body weight change of living liver donor: an observational cohort study

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to build a prediction model for estimating graft weight about different graft volumetry methods combined with other variables.

Methods

Donors who underwent living-donor right hepatectomy from March 2021 to March 2023 were included. Estimated graft volume measured by conventional method and 3-dimensional (3D) software were collected as well as the actual graft weight. Linear regression was used to build a prediction model. Donor groups were divided according to the 3D volumetry of <700 cm3, 700-899 cm3, and ≥900 cm3 to compare the performance of different models.

Results

A total of 119 donors were included. Conventional volumetry showed R2 of 0.656 (P < 0.001) while 3D software showed R2 of 0.776 (P < 0.001). The R2 of the multivariable model was 0.842 (P < 0.001) including for 3D volume (β = 0.623, P < 0.001), body mass index (β = 7.648, P < 0.001), and amount of weight loss (β = -7.252, P < 0.001). The median errors between different models and actual graft weight did not differ in donor groups (<700 and 700-899 cm3), while the median error of univariable linear model using 3D software (122.5; interquartile range [IQR], 61.5-179.8) was significantly higher than multivariable-adjusted linear model (41.5; IQR, 24.8-69.8; P = 0.003) in donors with estimated graft weight ≥900 cm3.

Conclusion

The univariable 3D volumetry model showed an acceptable outcome for donors with an estimated graft volume <900 cm3. For donors with an estimated graft volume ≥900 cm3, the multivariable-adjusted linear model showed higher accuracy.

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.

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Comparison of pure laparoscopic donor right posterior sectionectomy versus right hemihepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation

The right posterior section (RPS) graft for living donor liver transplantation is an alternative graft in a live liver donor with insufficient remnant left lobe volume and portal vein anomaly. Although there have been some reports regarding pure laparoscopic donor right posterior sectionectomy (PLDRPS), no study has compared PLDRPS versus pure laparoscopic donor right hemihepatectomy (PLDRH). The aim of our study was to compare the surgical outcomes of PLDRPS versus PLDRH at centers achieving a complete transition from open to laparoscopic approach in liver donor surgery. From March 2019 to March 2022, a total of 351 living donor liver transplantations, including 16 and 335 donors who underwent PLDRPS and PLDRH, respectively, were included in the study. In the donor cohort, there were no significant differences in major complication (≥grade III) rate and comprehensive complication index between the PLDRPS versus PLDRH group (6.3% vs. 4.8%; p = 0.556 and 2.7 ± 8.6 vs.1.7 ± 6.4; p = 0.553). In the recipient cohort, there was a significant difference in major complication (≥grade III) rate (62.5% vs. 35.2%; p = 0.034) but no significant difference in comprehensive complication index (18.3 ± 14.9 vs. 15.2 ± 24.9; p = 0.623) between the PLDRPS and PLDRH groups. PLDRPS in live liver donors with portal vein anomaly and insufficient left lobe was technically feasible and safe with experienced surgeons. The PLDRPS group might be comparable with the PLDRH group based on the surgical outcomes of donors and recipients. However, in terms of recipient outcomes, more careful selection of donors of the RPS graft and further research in a large number of cases are necessary to evaluate the usefulness of PLDRPS.

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.

Pure Laparoscopic Donor Right Hepatectomy for Rare Non-Bifurcation Portal Vein Variation Donor and Reconstruction Technique

BACKGROUND

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) is a technical demanding procedure, and many centers have strict selection criteria especially an anatomical variation. Portal vein variation is considered as a contra-indication for this procedure in most centers. We presented a case of PLDRH in donor who had rare non-bifurcation portal vain variation. The donor was 45-year-old female. Pre-operative imaging showed a rare non-bifurcation portal vain variation. The procedure was following the routine step of laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy except the hilar dissection phase. All portal branches should not be dissected before division of bile duct to prevent vascular injury. Regarding bench surgery, all portal branches were reconstructed together. Finally, the explanted portal vein bifurcation was used to reconstruct all portal vein branches as a single orifice. The liver graft was successfully transplanted. The graft was well functioned, and all portal branches were patented.

CONCLUSION

This technique facilitated identification and safely divided all portal branches. PLDRH in donor with this rare portal vein variation can be performed safely by a highly experienced team and good reconstruction technique. Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) is a technical demanding procedure, and many centers have strict selection criteria especially an anatomical variation. Portal vein variation is considered as a contra-indication for this procedure in most centers. Lapisatepun and colleagues report PLDRH in rare non-bifurcation portal vein variation, and reconstruction technique was scanty reported.

Risk Factors Associated With Surgical Morbidities of Laparoscopic Living Liver Donors

OBJECTIVE

This study analyzed the incidence and risk factors for surgical morbidities of laparoscopic living donors.

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic living donor programs have been established safely in leading centers, donor morbidities have not been discussed sufficiently.

METHODS

Laparoscopic living donors operated on from May 2013 to June 2022 were reviewed. Donor complications were reviewed, and factors related to bile leakage and biliary stricture were analyzed using the multivariable logistic regression method.

RESULTS

A total of 636 donors underwent laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy. The open conversion rate was 1.6%, and the 30-day complication rate was 16.8% (n=107). Grade IIIa and IIIb complications occurred in 4.4% (n=28) and 1.9% (n=12) of patients, respectively. The most common complication was bleeding (n=38, 6.0%). Fourteen donors (2.2%) required reoperation. Portal vein stricture, bile leakage, and biliary stricture occurred in 0.6% (n=4), 3.3% (n=21), and 1.6% (n=10) of cases, respectively. The readmission rate and reoperation rate were 5.2% (n=33) and 2.2% (n=14), respectively. Risk factors related to bile leakage were 2 hepatic arteries in the liver graft (OR=13.836, CI=4.092-46.789, P <0.001), division-free margin<5 mm from the main duct (OR=2.624, CI=1.030-6.686, P =0.043), and estimated blood loss during operation (OR=1.002, CI=1.001-1.003, P =0.008), while the Pringle maneuver (OR=0.300, CI=0.110-0.817, P =0.018) was protective against leakage. Regarding biliary stricture, bile leakage was the only significant factor (OR=11.902, CI=2.773-51.083, P =0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic living donor surgery showed excellent safety for the majority of donors, and critical complications were resolved with proper management. To minimize bile leakage, cautious surgical manipulation is needed for donors with complex hilar anatomy.

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.

Living liver donor hilar anatomical variations and impact of variant anatomy on transplant outcomes

Donor anatomy is an essential part of donor selection and operative planning in living donor liver transplantation. In this study, variations of hilar structures, and the effects of variant anatomy on donor and recipient outcomes were evaluated. Living donor liver transplantations in a single center between January 2013 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 203 liver transplantations were analyzed. Type 1 arterial anatomy, type 1 portal vein anatomy and type 1 bile duct anatomy were observed in 144 (70.9%), 173 (85.2%), and 129 (63.5%) donors, respectively. Variant biliary anatomy was observed more frequent in donors with variant portal vein branching than in those with type 1 portal anatomy (60.0% vs 32.3%, P = .004). The overall survival rates calculated for each hilar structure were similar between recipients receiving grafts with type 1 anatomy and those receiving grafts with variant anatomy. When donors with variant anatomy and donors with type 1 anatomy were compared in terms of hilar structure, no significant difference was observed in the frequency of complications and the frequency of serious complications. Biliary variations are more common in individuals with variant portal vein anatomy. Donor anatomic variations are not risk factors for inferior results of recipient survival or donor morbidity.

Complete transition from open surgery to laparoscopy: 8-year experience with more than 500 laparoscopic living donor hepatectomies

This study was designed to review laparoscopic living donor liver transplantations (LDLTs) at a single center that achieved complete transition from open surgery to laparoscopy. LDLTs performed from January 2013 to July 2021 were reviewed. Comparisons between open and laparoscopic surgeries were performed according to periods divided into initial, transition, and complete transition periods. A total of 775 LDLTs, 506 laparoscopic and 269 open cases, were performed. Complete transition was achieved in 2020. Bile duct variations were significantly abundant in the open group both in the initial period (30.2% vs. 8.1%; p < 0.001) and transition period (48.1% vs. 24.3%; p < 0.001). Portal vein variation was more abundant in the open group only in the initial period (13.0% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.03). Although the donor reoperation rate (0.0% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.02) and Grade III or higher complication rate (5.6% vs. 13.5%; p = 0.03) were significantly higher in the laparoscopy group in the initial period, there were no differences during the transition period as well as in overall cases. Median number of opioids required by the donor (three times [interquartile range, IQR, 1-6] vs. 1 time [IQR, 0-3]; p < 0.001) was lower, and the median hospital stay (10 days [IQR, 8-12] vs. 8 days [IQR, 7-9]; p < 0.001) was shorter in the laparoscopy group. Overall recipient bile leakage rate (23.8% vs. 12.8%; p < 0.001) and overall Grade III or higher complication rate (44.6% vs. 37.2%; p = 0.009) were significantly lower in the laparoscopy group. Complete transition to laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy was possible after accumulating a significant amount of experience. Because donor morbidity can be higher in the initial period, donor selection for favorable anatomy is required for both the donor and recipient.

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.

Healthy Spouses can be Considered as Living Liver Donors

BACKGROUND

Spousal donors have gradually been accepted as an alternative living liver donors to alleviate the organ shortage and prevent donations from children. No information is available regarding the effects of spousal donation on donor safety and recipient outcomes. Our purpose in this study was to determine how spousal liver grafts in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) affect donor safety and recipient outcomes compared with those of LDLT from children.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 656 patients, including spouses and children, who underwent a right or extended right hepatectomy for living liver donation between January 2009 and December 2018.

RESULTS

Spouses represented 18.8% (n = 123) of living liver donors. Female donors comprised 78.9% (n = 97) of spousal donors, and the proportion of male donors in the children group was 72.6% (n = 387). The mean donor operation time of the spousal group was shorter than that of the children group (330 min vs. 358 min; P = 0.011), and the complication rate in the spousal group was lower than that in the children group (12.2% vs. 22.9%; P = 0.006). However, there were no differences in severe complication rates, hospitalization, or liver function tests between the 2 groups at 3 months after donor surgery. The overall survival of recipients in the spousal group was not reduced compared to that of recipients in the children group.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests that, with careful selection, spousal donation is feasible and safe in LDLT.

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.