Minimally invasive versus open living donors right hepatectomy: A systematic review and 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.

Robotic and laparoscopic right lobe living donation compared to the open approach: A multicenter study on 1194 donor hepatectomies

Due to the success of minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive donor hepatectomies (MIDH) are increasingly performed worldwide. We conducted a retrospective, multicentre, propensity score-matched analysis on right lobe MIDH by comparing the robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches to assess the feasibility, safety, and early outcomes of MIDHs. From January 2016 until December 2020, 1194 donors underwent a right donor hepatectomy performed with a robotic (n = 92), laparoscopic (n = 306), and open approach (n = 796) at 6 high-volume centers. Donor and recipients were matched for different variables using propensity score matching (1:1:2). Donor outcomes were recorded, and postoperative pain was measured through a visual analog scale. Recipients' outcomes were also analyzed. Ninety-two donors undergoing robotic surgery were matched and compared to 92 and 184 donors undergoing laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. Conversions to open surgery occurred during 1 (1.1%) robotic and 2 (2.2%) laparoscopic procedures. Robotic procedures had a longer operative time (493 ± 96 min) compared to laparoscopic and open procedures (347 ± 120 and 358 ± 95 min; p < 0.001) but were associated with reduced donor blood losses ( p < 0.001). No differences were observed in overall and major complications (≥ IIIa). Robotic hepatectomy donors had significantly less pain compared to the 2 other groups ( p < 0.001). Fifty recipients of robotic-procured grafts were matched to 50 and 100 recipients of laparoscopic and open surgery procured grafts, respectively. No differences were observed in terms of postoperative complications, and recipients' survival was similar ( p =0.455). In very few high-volume centers, robotic right lobe procurement has shown to be a safe procedure. Despite an increased operative and the first warm ischemia times, this approach is associated with reduced intraoperative blood losses and pain compared to the laparoscopic and open approaches. Further data are needed to confirm it as a valuable option for the laparoscopic approach in MIDH.

Laparoscopic Living donor liver transplantation in irresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in primary sclerosing cholangitis associated liver cirrhosis

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is the second most common primary liver tumor and usually associated with a poor oncological prognosis. The current gold standard is the surgical resection of the tumor with subsequent adjuvant therapy. However, in case of irresectability e.g. in case of liver cirrhosis, a palliative treatment regime is conducted.This report demonstrates the case of an irresectable iCCA in liver cirrhosis due to primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) treated by living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) facilitated by minimal invasive donor hepatectomy. No postoperative complications were observed in the donor and the donor was released on the 6th postoperative day. Further, after a follow-up of 1.5 years, no disease recurrence was detected in the recipient.According to the recent international literature, liver transplantation can be evaluated in case of small solitary iCCA (< 3 cm) in cirrhosis. Less evidence is provided for transplantation in advanced tumors which are surgically not resectable due to advanced liver disease or infiltration of major vessels, however some reports display adequate long-term survival after strict patient selection. The selection criteria comprise the absence of distant metastases and locoregional lymph node metastases as well as partial remission or stable disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Due to no established graft allocation for iCCA in Germany, LDLT is currently the best option to realize transplantation in these patients. Developments in the last decade indicate that LDLT should preferentially be performed in minimal invasive manner (laparoscopic or robotic) as this approach is associated with less overall complications and a shorter hospitalization. The presented case illustrates the possibilities of modern surgery and the introduction of transplant oncology in the modern therapy of patients combining systemic therapy, surgical resection and transplantation to achieve optimal long-term results in patients which were initially indicated for palliative treatment.

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.

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.

Laparoscopic liver resection with "ultrasonic scalpel mimic CUSA" technique

BACKGROUND

Liver parenchymal transection is the most critical step for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). Ultrasonic scalpel (Harmonic) is a common used energy instrument in LLR; however, it is only recommended for superficial layer transection and the Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA) is recommended for deep layer dissection. We herein introduce the "Harmonic mimic CUSA" technique for LLR.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of the patients who underwent LLR using CUSA or the "Harmonic mimic CUSA" for parenchymal transection between July 2018 and October 2020 at West China Hospital of Sichuan University. Observation indicators included general demographic information, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion volume, complication rate, hospital stay, and the costs. Perioperative data was compared between the two groups by propensity score matching analysis (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 298 patients, including 192 in Harmonic group and 106 in CUSA group, were enrolled in this study. After a 1:1 PSM, 99 patients using "Harmonic mimic CUSA" were matched with 99 patients via CUSA for parenchymal transection in LLRs. The Harmonic group had significantly less intraoperative blood loss (mean, 150 ml vs. 250 ml, P < 0.001), shorter operative time (mean 170 min vs. 250 min, P < 0.001) and less costs (mean 6723$ vs. 8307$, P < 0.001). The conversion to laparotomy, length of postoperative hospital stay, complications were comparable between the two groups. There perioperative mortality was nil.

CONCLUSION

The "Harmonic mimic CUSA" technique is safe, simple and feasible for LLR, which may be an alternative to CUSA for LLR.

Abdominal Organ Transplantation: Noteworthy Literature in 2021

This review highlights noteworthy literature pertinent to anesthesiologists and critical care physicians caring for patients undergoing abdominal organ transplantation. In 2021, we identified noteworthy papers from over 1,200 peer-reviewed publications on pancreatic transplantation, over 1,400 on intestinal transplantation, and over 9,000 on kidney transplantation. The liver transplantation section focuses on clinical trials and systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in 2021 and features 20 selected papers. COVID-19 and abdominal organ transplantation are featured in an independent section.

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.

Perioperative management of living donor liver transplantation: Part 2 - Donors

Living donor liver transplantation was first developed to mitigate the limited access to deceased donor organs in Asia in the 1990s. This alternative liver transplantation method has become a widely practiced and established transplantation option for adult patients suffering with end-stage liver disease, and it has successfully helped address the shortage of deceased donors. The Society for the Advancement of Transplant Anesthesia and the Korean Society of Transplantation Anesthesiologists jointly reviewed published studies on the perioperative management of adult live liver donors undergoing donor hemi-hepatectomy. The goal of the review is to offer transplant anesthesiologists and critical care physicians a comprehensive overview of the perioperative management of adult live donors. We featured the current status, donor selection process, outcomes and complications, surgical procedure, anesthetic management, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols, avoidance of blood transfusion, and considerations for emergency donation. Recent surgical advances, including laparoscopic donor hemi-hepatectomy and robotic laparoscopic donor surgery, are also addressed.