Influence of Large Grafts Weighing ≥ 1000 g on Outcome of Pure Laparoscopic Donor Right Hepatectomy

Donor body mass index over 30 is no barrier for pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy

Backgrounds/Aims

Challenges arise when translating pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) results from Asian to Western donors, due to differences in body mass index (BMI). This study compares the outcomes of PLDRH and conventional open donor right hepatectomy (CDRH) in donors with BMI over 30.

Methods

Medical records of live liver donors (BMI > 30) undergoing right hepatectomy (2010-2021) were compared: 25 PLDRH cases vs. 19 CDRH cases. Donor and recipient demographics, operative details, and outcomes were analyzed.

Results

PLDRH and CDRH had similar donor and recipient characteristics. PLDRH had longer liver removal and warm ischemic times, but a shorter post-liver removal duration than CDRH. Donor complication rates were comparable, with the highest complication being grade IIIa in PLDRH, necessitating needle aspiration for biloma on postoperative day 11. Fortunately, this donor fully recovered without additional treatment. No complications exceeding Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa occurred in either group. Recipient outcomes between the groups were similar.

Conclusions

This study supports PLDRH as a viable option for donors with BMI over 30, challenging the notion that high BMI should deter considering PLDRH. The findings provide valuable insights into the safety and feasibility of PLDRH, encouraging further exploration of this technique in diverse donor populations.

Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy: Experience of 556 cases at Seoul National University Hospital

Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) has become a routine procedure at Seoul National University Hospital, and the pure laparoscopic method is now being applied to liver recipients as well. This study aimed to review the procedure and outcomes of PLDH to identify any areas that required improvement. Data from 556 donors who underwent PLDH between November 2015 and December 2021 and their recipients were retrospectively reviewed. Among these, 541 patients underwent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH). The mean hospital stay of the donor was 7.2 days, and the rate of grade I, II, IIIa, and IIIb complications was 2.2%, 2.7%, 1.3%, and 0.9%, respectively, without any irreversible disabilities or mortalities. The most common early and late major complications in the recipient were intraabdominal bleeding (n = 47, 8.5%) and biliary problems (n = 198, 35.6%), respectively. Analysis of the PLDRH procedure showed that operative time, liver removal time, warm ischemic time, Δhemoglobin%, Δtotal bilirubin%, and postoperative hospital stay decreased significantly as the number of cases accumulated. In conclusion, the operative outcomes of PLDRH improved as the number of cases increased. However, continuous caution is needed because major complications still occur in donors and recipients even after hundreds of cases.

[The Caring Experience of Family Caregivers for Patients of Living Donor Liver Transplantation from the Family Members]

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to understand the care experiences of the family of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) patients where the donation had occurred within the family.

METHODS

Participants were eight family caregivers who cared for recipients and donors of LDLT. Data were collected through individual in-depth interviews from November, 2020 to April, 2021. Data analysis was performed through a cyclical process of data collection and analysis by applying Giorgi's phenomenological research method.

RESULTS

The five main components extracted from the experiences of the family caregivers were: "A double-edged choice to save the family", "The harsh daily life of liver transplantation care", "The yoke of double care on both shoulders", "The power to withstand the adversity of caring", and "The recovery and growth of life pursued by trusting each other".

CONCLUSION

The participants tried to do their best in their daily lives, while providing reassurance and care to the LDLT patients in the family; however, they expressed some worry and hardship while doing so. The results of this study provide a deeper understanding of the caring experience of the family caregivers, which may contribute to the development of nursing interventions that will aid these caregivers in providing care to their LDLT family members. Furthermore, the development and application of an integrated management program for LDLT patients in the family is required.

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.

Comparative outcomes of pure laparoscopic and open donor right hepatectomy: the first report from a Southeast Asian transplant center

Background

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) can provide better operative outcomes for the donor than conventional open donor right hepatectomy (CODRH). However, the complexity of the procedure typically makes transplant teams reluctant to perform it, especially in low-volume transplant centers. We compared the outcomes of PLDRH and CODRH to demonstrate the feasibility of PLDRH in a low-volume transplant program.

Methods

We carried out a retrospective study of adult living donor liver transplantation in Chiang Mai University Hospital from January 2015 to March 2021. The patients were divided into a PLDRH group and a CODRH group. Baseline characteristics, operative parameters, and postoperative complications of donors and recipients were compared between the two groups.

Results

Thirty patients underwent donor hepatectomy between the dates selected (9 PLDRH patients and 21 CODRH patients). The baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were not significantly different. The median graft volume of the PLDRH group was 693.8 mL, which was not significantly different from that of the CODRH group (726.5 mL) The PLDRH group had a longer operative time than the CODRH group, but the difference was not statistically significant (487.5 min vs 425.0 min, p = 0.197). The overall complication rate was not significantly different between the two groups (33.3% vs 22.2%, p = 0.555). Additionally, for the recipients, the incidence of major complications was not significantly different between the groups (71.3 vs 55.6%, p = 0.792).

Conclusion

Even in the context of this low-volume transplant program, whose staff have a high level of experience in minimally invasive hepatobiliary surgery, PLDRH showed similar results to CODRH in terms of perioperative outcomes for donors and recipients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-022-01507-0.

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.

Pure laparoscopic versus open right donor hepatectomy including the middle hepatic vein: a comparison of outcomes and safety

Purpose

Analyses on pure laparoscopy in donor hepatectomies, including the middle hepatic vein (MHV), are still scarce. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of donor right hepatectomy, including the MHV, when performed laparoscopically with conventional open surgery.

Methods

Data from living donors who underwent donor right hepatectomy between January 2012 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The intraoperative and postoperative complication rates of the pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) with MHV inclusion (PLDRHM) group were compared with the conventional open donor right hepatectomy with MHV inclusion (CDRHM) group and the PLDRH without MHV inclusion [PLDRHM(–)] group.

Results

Compared to the CDRHM group, the PLDRHM group had a longer bench time (P < 0.001) and higher Δ%, calculated as [(preoperative value – postoperative value)/preoperative value] × 100, of AST (P < 0.001), ALT (P < 0.001), and total bilirubin (P = 0.023), but shorter hospital stay (P = 0.004) and a lower rate of complications (P = 0.005). Compared to the PLDRHM(–) group, the PLDRHM group had fewer male donors (P < 0.001) and a lower body mass index (P < 0.001), estimated total liver volume (P < 0.001), and real graft weight (P < 0.001). Results of laboratory changes, hospital stays, and complication rates were similar between the 2 groups.

Conclusion

PLDRH with the inclusion of the MHV in selected donors and recipients is feasible and safe when performed by surgeons experienced in laparoscopic surgery, with favorable complication rates compared to CDRHM and PLDRHM(–).

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.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy for tumors located in right posterior segment: A single institution study

OBJECT

With the gradual advancement of laparoscopic technology, surgeries can be successfully performed with the help of laparoscopy increasingly. This study initially explored the difference between laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS)of liver in our center, discussed the effectiveness, benefits and safety of LRPS and introduce some surgical techniques in our center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyze 96 cases of liver tumor located in the right posterior lobe of liver in our institution from January 2015 to January 2018. There were 46 cases performed the LRPS surgery and 50 cases performed the ORPS surgery. Through analysis of the perioperative outcomes of these two groups by a case control study, we compare the differences between these two groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the LRPS and ORPS group in demographic and baseline characteristics before surgery. Patients in the LRPS group were significantly superior to ORPS in terms of postoperative liver function recovery, postoperative inflammatory factor level, pain sensation (3.03 ± 0.79 vs 4.58 ± 1.25), abdominal incision length (6.25 ± 2.34 vs 32.15 ± 3.21), carrying abdominal drainage tube time (3.26 ± 0.77 vs 4.83 ± 0.76), recovery of bowel function time (1.6 ± 0.61 VS 3.05 ± 0.85)and postoperative hospital stay (5.73 ± 0.99 vs 7.16 ± 0.95) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the traditional ORPS, LRPS has the advantages of minor injury, faster recovery and mild inflammatory reaction. The LRPS is safe and feasible, and it should be gradually promoted in clinical practice.