Comparison of laparoscopy-assisted and open donor right hepatectomy: a prospective case-matched study from china

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.

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

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

Safely Implementing a Program of Pure Laparoscopic Donor Right Hepatectomy: The Experience From a Southeast Asian Center

Laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) is a technically challenging procedure. There is increasing evidence demonstrating the safety of LDRH in high-volume expert centers. We report our center's experience in implementing an LDRH program in a small- to medium-sized transplantation program.

Methods

Our center systematically introduced a laparoscopic hepatectomy program in 2006. We started with minor wedge resections followed by major hepatectomies with increasing complexities. In 2017, we performed our first laparoscopic living donor left lateral sectionectomy. Since 2018, we have performed 8 cases of right lobe living donor hepatectomy (laparoscopy-assisted: 4 and pure laparoscopic: 4).

Results

The median operative time was 418 (298-540) min, whereas the median blood loss was 300 (150-900) mL. Two patients (25%) had surgical drain placed intraoperatively. The median length of stay was 5 (3-8) d, and the median time to return to work was 55 (24-90) d. None of the donors sustained any long-term morbidity or mortality.

Conclusions

Small- to medium-sized transplant programs face unique challenges in adopting LDRH. Progressive introduction of complex laparoscopic surgery, a mature living donor liver transplantation program, appropriate patient selection, and the invitation of an expert to proctor the LDRH are necessary to ensure success.

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.

Liver transplantation in China: Achievements over the past 30 years and prospects for the future

Over the last three decades, liver transplantation (LT) in China has made breakthroughs from scratch. Now, new techniques are being continuously incorporated. However, LT in China differs from that in other countries due to cultural differences and the disease burden. The advances made in and the current issues with LT in China need to be summarized. Living donor LT (LDLT) has developed dramatically in China over the last 30 years, with the goal of increasing transplant opportunities and dealing with the shortage of donors. Western candidate selection criteria clearly are not appropriate for Chinese patients. Thus, the current authors reviewed the literature, and this review has focused on the topics of technological advancements in LDLT and Chinese candidate selection. The Milan criteria in wide use emphasize tumor morphology rather than pathology or biomarkers. α-fetoprotein (AFP) and pathology were incorporated as predictors for the first time in the Hangzhou criteria. Moreover, Xu et al. divided the Hangzhou criteria into type A (tumor size ≤ 8 cm or tumor size > 8 cm but AFP ≤ 100 ng/mL) and type B (tumor size > 8 cm but AFP between 100 and 400 ng/mL), with type B serving as a relative contraindication in the event of a liver donor shortage. In addition, surgeons in Chengdu and Shanghai have the ability to perform a laparoscopic hepatectomy for right and left lobe donors, respectively. China has established a complete LT system, including recipient criteria suitable for Chinese people, a fair donor allocation center, a transplant quality monitoring platform, and mature deceased donor or living donor LT techniques.

Sarcopenia defined by psoas muscle index independently predicts long-term survival after living donor liver transplantation in male recipients

Background

The effect of sarcopenia on long-term outcomes in recipients after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), including overall survival and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence, remains unclear, especially in China.

Methods

From 2009 to 2015, 117 adult patients underwent LDLT in our center. In all, 82 patients who had computed tomography images reaching the third lumbar vertebra level within 1 month of LDLT were included; 70 male patients were included in the final analysis after excluding 12 female patients because of poor performance of the calculated cutoff value. Sarcopenia was defined according to the psoas muscle index (PMI) cutoff value, which was calculated based on dynamic time-dependent outcomes using X-tile software. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess multivariate-adjusted hazards ratios (HRs) to seek potential correlations between sarcopenia and posttransplant outcomes.

Results

According to the cutoff value of PMI (6.25 cm²/m²), 38 patients (54.3%) were diagnosed with sarcopenia. After an average of 63.3 months of follow-up, 21 patients died after LDLT, 16 in the sarcopenia group and 5 in the non-sarcopenia group, respectively. Sarcopenia was identified as being significantly associated with worse posttransplant overall survival in multivariate analysis, resulting in an HR of 3.22 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.15-8.98]. Among the 50 recipients with HCC, sarcopenia was significantly associated with HCC recurrence in univariate analysis (HR 2.87, 95% CI, 1.06-7.80) but was not detected as an independent risk factor of HCC recurrence in multivariate analysis, although a trend (tendency)towards significance was observed (HR 2.60, 95% CI, 0.95-7.10; P=0.062).

Conclusions

Sarcopenia defined by PMI is a feasible and reliable independent predictor of posttransplant overall survival in male LDLT candidates. However, its correlation with posttransplant HCC recurrence remains uncertain.

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

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

Laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy: Review of its current status

The laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy procedure has been developing rapidly. Although its use has increased worldwide, it is still only performed by experienced surgeons at a limited number of institutions. However, technical innovations have improved the feasibility of more widespread use of laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy. The advantages of laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy should not be overemphasized, and the fundamental principle of "living-donor safety first" cannot be neglected. This review aims to summarize the current status of laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy and to emphasize that, while this procedure may soon be used as a reliable, donor-friendly substitute for traditional open donor hepatectomy, its safety and efficacy require further substantiation first.

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.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy for adult liver transplantation: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) was a controversial topic due to its unknown safety and feasibility.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing LDRH with open living donor right hepatectomy (ODRH), which were published between the date of database establishment and June 2020. Revman5.3 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included. For the donors, there was no significant difference in warm ischemic time, hospital stay, graft weight, hepatic arterial anomalies (HAA), hepatic vein anomalies (HVA), portal vein anomalies (PVA), biliary anomalies, bleeding, wound infection, severe complication rate and readmission rate. The estimated blood loss, incidence of complication, intra-abdominal fluid rate in the LDRH group were significantly lower than those in the ODRH group, while the operation time, time to remove liver in the LDRH group were significantly higher than those in the ODRH group. For the recipients, there was no significant difference in complication rate, bleeding, HAA, PVA, biliary anomalies, graft failure and mortality. The HVA rate in the LDRH group was significantly higher than that in the ODRH group.

CONCLUSION

LDRH is safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared with ODRH and it can reduce intraoperative bleeding and postoperative complication in donors, which requires further verification by more multi-center comparative studies with large sample and high quality.

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.

Laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy in a donor with type III portal vein anomaly: A case report

RATIONALE

Laparoscopic right donor hepatectomy has been reported sporadically in several experienced centers for selected donors. This report introduced a case of a donor with an independent right posterior segmental portal branching from the main portal vein.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 47-year-old woman volunteered to donate her right liver to her 48-year-old husband.

DIAGNOSES

The recipient has been diagnosed as hepatocellular carcinoma meeting the Milan criteria and hepatitis B virus related cirrhosis.

INTERVENTIONS

The parenchymal transection was performed by ultrasonic aspirator and Hem-o-Lok clips. The right hepatic artery, right hepatic duct, and the anterior and posterior branches of right portal vein were meticulously dissected, clamped, and transected. The right hepatic vein was transected by vascular stapler. A Y-graft of the recipient's own portal confluence was reconstructed with the donor's separate right anterior and posterior portal veins.

OUTCOMES

The donor's operation time was 420 minutes and the warm ischemia time was about 9 minutes. Blood loss was less than 600 ml without transfusion. The donor was discharged at the 10th postoperative day without any complications.

LESSONS

Laparoscopic right hepatectomy for donors with anomalous portal vein branching and subsequent inflow reconstruction for adult living donor liver transplantation is safe and feasible in highly experienced center.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Impact of abdominal shape on living liver donor outcomes in mini-incision right hepatic lobectomy: Comparison among 3 techniques

Although minimally invasive techniques for living donor hepatectomy have been developed, the surgical feasibility and limitations remain to be elucidated. The risks and outcomes involved need to be better understood prior to their widespread application. The aim of this study was to assess feasibility of minimally invasive donor hepatectomy by reviewing our experience. A total of 99 living donor liver transplantations performed between 2000 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. All 99 living liver donors underwent right hepatectomy. The breakdown of the techniques is as follows: the standard technique in 33 patients; the laparoscopic-assisted minilaparotomy technique (hybrid technique group) in 19 patients; and the upper midline incision technique without laparoscopic assistance (minilaparotomy group) in 47 patients. An association between donor operative outcomes and body habitus, such as body mass index (BMI), abdominal truncal depth (approximated by celiac axis [CA] depth ratio), and umbilical circumference (UC) were assessed. Perioperative factors were compared between the standard technique and the minimally invasive technique. The minilaparotomy group had significantly shorter operative time (P = 0.046) and hospital stay (P = 0.005) than the standard technique group. Postoperative complication rates were similar between the 3 groups (P = 0.16). In the minilaparotomy group, greater BMI (P = 0.02), CA depth ratio (P = 0.04), and UC (P = 0.004) were found to be risk factors for postoperative complications. In the minilaparotomy group, CA depth ratio > 0.41, UC > 90 cm, and BMI > 30 kg/m² were significantly associated with longer operative time and hospital stay. In the standard technique group, none of the body size factors were associated with postoperative outcomes. In conclusion, the minilaparotomy technique is safe and feasible, though technical difficulties may be encountered when performed on donors with larger body habitus. Ongoing efforts are required to ensure living donor safety. Liver Transplantation 24 516-527 2018 AASLD.

Different techniques for harvesting grafts for living donor liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on minimally vs conventional invasive techniques for harvesting grafts for living donor liver transplantation.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched comprehensively for studies comparing MILDH with conventional living donor hepatectomy (CLDH). Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes (operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative liver function, length of hospital stay, analgesia use, complications, and survival rate) were analyzed in donors and recipients. Articles were included if they: (1) compared the outcomes of MILDH and CLDH; and (2) reported at least some of the above outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 937 articles identified, 13, containing 1592 patients, met our inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. For donors, operative time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 20.68, 95%CI: -6.25-47.60, P = 0.13] and blood loss (WMD = -32.61, 95%CI: -80.44-5.21, P = 0.18) were comparable in the two groups. In contrast, analgesia use (WMD = -7.79, 95%CI: -14.06-1.87, P = 0.01), postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.44-0.89, P = 0.009], and length of hospital stay (WMD): -1.25, 95%CI: -2.35-0.14, P = 0.03) significantly favored MILDH. No differences were observed in recipient outcomes, including postoperative complications (OR = 0.93, 95%CI: 0.66-1.31, P = 0.68) and survival rate (HR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.27-3.47, P = 0.95). Funnel plot and statistical methods showed a low probability of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

MILDH is safe, effective, and feasible for living donor liver resection with fewer donor postoperative complications, reduced length of hospital stay and analgesia requirement than CLDH.

Are Hybrid Liver Resections Truly Minimally Invasive? A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hybrid liver resection is considered a modality of minimally invasive surgery; however, there are doubts regarding loss of benefits of laparoscopy due to the use of an auxiliary incision. We compared perioperative results of patients undergoing hybrid × open and hybrid × pure laparoscopic resections.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing liver resection between June 2008 and January 2016 were studied. Study groups were compared after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Six hundred forty-four resections were included in the comparative analysis: 470 open, 120 pure laparoscopic, and 54 hybrids. After PSM, 54 patients were included in each group. Hybrid × open: hybrid technique had shorter operative time (319.5 ± 108.6 × 376.2 ± 155.8 minutes, P = .033), shorter hospital stay (6.0 ± 2.7 × 8.1 ± 5.6 days, P = .001), and lower morbidity (18.5% × 40.7%, P = .003). Hybrid × pure laparoscopic: hybrid group had lower conversion rate (0% × 13%, P = .013). There was no difference regarding estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, hospital stay, complications, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid resection has better perioperative results than the open approach and is similar to pure laparoscopy. The hybrid technique should be considered a minimally invasive approach.

Comparison of Upper Midline Incision With and Without Laparoscopic Assistance for Living-Donor Right Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Since minimally invasive procedures for living-donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) became popular in recent years, several studies comparing the outcomes of donors undergoing an upper midline incision (UMI) under laparoscopic assistance for LDRH with those undergoing the traditional open LDRH have been published. However, there are very few comparative studies of outcomes for a UMI for LDRH with and without laparoscopic-assistance. We designed the present study to compare the benefits and shortcomings of a UMI for LDRH with and without laparoscopic assistance.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients in our center were included in the study: group hybrid (n = 28) versus group UMI (n = 20). Their surgical outcomes, postoperative course, and cosmetic outcomes were studied from medical records.

RESULTS

No differences existed between the 2 groups regarding their baseline characteristics except that group Hybrid had more donors with positive hepatitis B core antibody. No difference was observed in operative time, graft weight, warm ischemia time, blood loss, incision length, liver and coagulation function test results, postoperative complications, or cosmetic parameters. No deaths occurred in both groups. The length of postoperative hospital stay was similar for both groups, but the hospital cost was significantly lower for group UMI than for group hybrid (6,906.7 ± 777.4 USD vs 7,643.3 ± 918.6 USD; P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

An UMI without laparoscopic assistance can be considered as the first-line incision of choice for LDRH.

Cost-Effective Surgical Management of Liver Disease Amidst a Financial Crisis

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative use of specialized equipment and disposables contributes to the increasing cost of modern liver surgery. As a response to the recent severe financial crisis in our country we have employed a highly standardized protocol of liver resection that minimizes intraoperative and postoperative costs. Our goal is to evaluate cost-effectiveness of this protocol.

STUDY DESIGN

We evaluated retrospectively all patients who underwent open hepatic resections for 4 years. All resections were performed by the same surgical team under selective hepatic vascular exclusion, i.e., occlusion of the hepatoduodenal ligament and the major hepatic veins, occasionally combined with extrahepatic ligation of the ipsilateral portal vein. Sharp parenchymal transection was performed with a scalpel and hemostasis was achieved with sutures without the use of energy devices. In each case we performed a detailed analysis of costs and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 146 patients (median age 63 years). 113 patients were operated for primary or metastatic malignancies and 33 for benign lesions. Operating time was 121 ± 21 min (mean ± SD), estimated blood loss was 310 ± 159 ml (mean ± SD), and hospital stay was 7 ± 5 days (mean ± SD). Six patients required admission in the ICU postoperatively. 90-day mortality was 2.74 %, and 8.9 % of patients developed grade III/IV postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification). Total in-hospital cost excluding physician fees was 6987.63 ± 3838.51 USD (mean ± SD).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that, under pressing economic conditions, the proposed surgical protocol can significantly lessen the financial burden of liver surgery without compromising patient outcomes.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Donor Safety in Adult-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Single-Center Experience of 356 Cases

Background

As an important means to tackle the worldwide shortage of liver grafts, adult-adult living donor liver transplantation (A-ALDLT) is the most massive operation a healthy person could undergo, so donor safety is of prime importance. However, most previous research focused on recipients, while complications in donors have not been fully described or investigated.

Material/Methods

To investigate donor safety in terms of postoperative complications, the clinical data of 356 A-ALDLT donors in our center from January 2002 to September 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. These patients were divided into a pre-2008 group (before January 2008) and a post-2008 group (after January 2008). Donor safety was evaluated with regard to the type, frequency, and severity of postoperative complications.

Results

There were no donor deaths in our center during this period. The overall complication rate was 23.0% (82/356). The proportion of Clavien I, II, III, and IV complications was 51.2% (42/82), 25.6% (21/82), 22.0% (18/82), and 1.2% (1/82), respectively. In all the donors, the incidence of Clavien I, II, III, and IV complications was 11.8% (42/356), 5.9% (21/356), 5.1% (18/356), and 0.3% (1/356), respectively. The overall complication rate in the post-2008 group was significantly lower than that in the pre-2008 group (18.1% (41/227) vs. 32.6% (42/129), P<0.01). Biliary complications were the most common, with an incidence of 8.4% (30/356).

Conclusions

The risk to A-ALDLT donors is controllable and acceptable with improvement in preoperative assessment and liver surgery.

Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy: a review of current status

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

Video assisted resections. Increasing access to minimally invasive liver surgery?

Objective: To evaluate perioperative outcomes, safety and feasibility of video-assisted resection for primary and secondary liver lesions. Methods : From a prospective database, we analyzed the perioperative results (up to 90 days) of 25 consecutive patients undergoing video-assisted resections in the period between June 2007 and June 2013. Results : The mean age was 53.4 years (23-73) and 16 (64%) patients were female. Of the total, 84% were suffering from malignant diseases. We performed 33 resections (1 to 4 nodules per patient). The procedures performed were non-anatomical resections (n = 26), segmentectomy (n = 1), 2/3 bisegmentectomy (n = 1), 6/7 bisegmentectomy (n = 1), left hepatectomy (n = 2) and right hepatectomy (n = 2). The procedures contemplated postero-superior segments in 66.7%, requiring multiple or larger resections. The average operating time was 226 minutes (80-420), and anesthesia time, 360 minutes (200-630). The average size of resected nodes was 3.2 cm (0.8 to 10) and the surgical margins were free in all the analyzed specimens. Eight percent of patients needed blood transfusion and no case was converted to open surgery. The length of stay was 6.5 days (3-16). Postoperative complications occurred in 20% of patients, with no perioperative mortality. Conclusion : The video-assisted liver resection is feasible and safe and should be part of the liver surgeon armamentarium for resection of primary and secondary liver lesions.

Comparison between minimally invasive and open living donor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Living donor liver transplantation is a valid alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation, and its safety and feasibility have been well determined. Minimally invasive living donor hepatectomy (MILDH) has taken some time to be accepted because of inherent technical difficulties and the highly demanding surgical skills needed to perform the procedure, and its role is still being debated. Because of the lack of data, a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing MILDH and open living donor hepatectomy (OLDH) was performed. A systematic literature search was performed with PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library Central. Treatment outcomes, including blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, analgesia use, donor-recipient morbidity and mortality, and donor procedure costs, were analyzed. There were 573 articles, and a total of 11, dated between 2006 and 2014, fulfilled the selection criteria and were, therefore, included. These 11 studies included a total of 608 adult patients. Blood loss [mean difference (MD) = -46.35; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -94.04-1.34; P = 0.06] and operative times [MD = 19.65; 95% CI = -4.28-43.57; P = 0.11] were comparable between the groups, whereas hospital stays (MD = -1.56; 95% CI = -2.63 to -0.49; P = 0.004), analgesia use (MD = -0.54; 95% CI = -1.04 to -0.03; P = 0.04), donor morbidity rates [odds ratio (OR) = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.40-0.98; P = 0.04], and wound-related complications (OR = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.17-0.97; P = 0.04) were significantly reduced in MILDH. MILDH for right liver procurement was associated with a significantly reduced hospital stay (OR = -0.92; 95% CI = 0.17-0.97; P = 0.04). In conclusion, MILDH is associated with intraoperative results that are comparable to results for OLDH and with surgical outcomes that are no worse than those for the open procedure.

Donor safety in live donor laparoscopic liver procurement: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Donor safety is a major concern in live organ donation. Live donor laparoscopic liver procurement is an advanced surgical procedure that is performed in highly specialized centers. Since its first report, not much progress has been endeavored for that procedure.

METHODS

We planned to include all the randomized and comparative nonrandomized studies. Patients' population: live donors who are submitted to organ procurement via laparoscopy.

RESULTS

Out of 5,636 records retrieved from the literature, only seven nonrandomized studies were included in this review, which encompassed 418 patients, 151 patients of whom underwent laparoscopic procurement. The quality scores for the included studies ranged from 66 to 76 %. The operative time was significantly shorter in the conventional open group (SD = 0.863, 95 % CI 0.107-1.819). Blood loss in the laparoscopic group was comparable with the conventional open approach (SD = -0.307, 95 % CI -0.807 to 0.192). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy was protective against blood loss in laparoscopic parenchymal dissection (SD = -1.168, 95 % CI -1.758 to -0.577). The hospital stay was equal in both groups. Patients in laparoscopic group consumed fewer analgesics compared with conventional open group (SD = -0.33, 95 % CI -0.63 to -0.03). Analgesics use was lower in the laparoscopic group compared with the conventional approach. The rate of Clavien complications was equal in both groups (OR 0.721, 95 % CI 0.303-1.716). No difference was found between subgroup analysis based on the harvested liver lobe. Funnel plot and statistical methods used revealed low probability of publication BIAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Live donor laparoscopic liver procurement could be as safe as the conventional open approach. Lower blood loss and lower consumtion of analgesics might be offered in the laparoscopic approach.

Laparoscopic liver resection for living donation: Where do we stand?

In Western countries, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) may represent a valuable alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation. Yet, after an initial peak of enthusiasm, reports of high rates of complications and of fatalities have led to a certain degree of reluctance towards this procedure especially in Western countries. As for living donor kidney transplantation, the laparoscopic approach could improve patient’s tolerance in order to rehabilitate this strategy and reverse the current trend. In this setting however, initial concerns regarding patient’s safety and graft integrity, need for acquiring surgical expertise in both laparoscopic liver surgery and living donor transplantation and lack of evidence supporting the benefits of laparoscopy have delayed the development of this approach. Similarly to what is performed in classical resectional liver surgery, initial experiences of laparoscopy have therefore begun with left lateral sectionectomy, which is performed for adult to child living donation. In this setting, the laparoscopic technique is now well standardized, is associated with decreased donor blood loss and hospital stays and provides graft of similar quality compared to the open approach. On the other hand laparoscopic major right or left hepatectomies for adult-adult LDLT currently lack standardization and various techniques such as the full laparoscopic approach, the hand assisted approach and the hybrid approach have been reported. Hence, even-though several reports highlight the feasibility of these procedures, the true benefits of laparoscopy over laparotomy remain to be fully assessed. This could be achieved through standardization of the procedures and creation of international registries especially in Eastern countries where LDLT keeps on flourishing.