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

The aim of donor safety: surgical approaches and current results

Living liver donation (LLD) has been suggested as a potential solution to reduce the waitlist mortality for liver transplantation (LT) recipients by facilitating living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Ensuring both donor and recipient safety is a critical aspect of LDLT. An accurate understanding of the complexity and extend of safety outcomes of the donor is imperative to maintain the high-quality standard this medical program requires. This review seeks to outline safety outcome parameters of interest for donors. Early postoperative mortality is very low with no significant differences comparing left lobe to right lobe LLD. Complications most commonly are biliary (leakage or strictures), bleeding, respiratory or pulmonary, gastrointestinal or infectious. Return to full-time work and quality of life are essential parameters in the mid and long term. As evidence continues to accumulate, outcomes may evolve with the expansion of minimal invasive surgery practice and currently laparoscopic approach is recommended in large experienced centers. By offering safer operations that require fewer incisions or liver resections, living liver donations can be further encouraged, and the perception of the procedure can be improved. Rational consideration of the safety of the donor and in-depth discussion and evaluation with the patient is of utmost importance.

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.

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.

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.

High-resolution MR imaging with gadoxetate disodium for the comprehensive evaluation of potential living liver donors

OBJECTIVE

Several major transplantation centers have used composite multimodality evaluation for the preoperative evaluation of potential living liver donors. This approach can be time-consuming and, although rare, can cause complications. We aimed to demonstrate the clinical feasibility of our comprehensive preoperative MR protocol for the preoperative assessment of living liver donor candidates instead of composite multimodality evaluation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-five consecutive living liver donor candidates underwent multiphasic liver CT and comprehensive donor protocol MR examinations for preoperative evaluation in a single large-volume liver transplantation (LT) center. Three blinded abdominal radiologists reviewed the CT and MR images for vascular and biliary variations. The strength of agreement between CT and MR angiography was assessed using the kappa index. The detection rate of biliary anatomical variations was calculated. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting significant steatosis (>5%) were calculated. The estimated total volume and right lobe volumes measured by MR volumetry were compared with the corresponding CT volumetry measurements using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Among the 35 patients, 26 underwent LT. The measurement of agreement showed a moderate to substantial agreement between CT and MR angiography interpretations (kappa values, 0.47-0.79; p < 0.001). Combining T2-weighted and T1-weighted MR cholangiography techniques detected all biliary anatomical variations in 9 of the 26 patients. MR-proton density fat fraction showed a sensitivity of 100% (3/3) and a specificity of 91.3% (21/23) for detecting pathologically determined steatosis (>5%). MR volumetry reached an excellent agreement with CT volumetry (reviewers 1 and 2: ICC, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96).

CONCLUSION

Our one-stop comprehensive liver donor MR imaging protocol can provide complete information regarding hepatic vascular and biliary anatomies, hepatic parenchymal quality, and liver volume for living liver donor candidates and can replace composite multimodality evaluation.

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.

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 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(–).