Video-assisted living donor hemihepatectomy through a 12-cm incision for adult-to-adult liver transplantation

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.

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.

Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Hepatectomy With/Without Fluorescence-Assisted Technology and Conventional Open Procedure: A Retrospective Study in Mainland China

Background: The application of laparoscopy in donor liver acquisition for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become increasingly popular in the past decade. Indole cyanide green (ICG) fluorescence technique is a new adjuvant method in surgery. The purpose was to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic and open surgery in living donor left lateral hepatectomy, and to evaluate the application of ICG in laparoscopy.

Methods: Donors received LDLT for left lateral lobe resection from November 2016 to November 2020 were selected and divided into pure laparoscopy donor hepatectomy (PLDH) group, fluorescence-assisted pure laparoscopy donor hepatectomy (FAPLDH) group and open donor hepatectomy (ODH) group. We compared perioperative data and prognosis of donors and recipients. Quality of life were evaluated by SF-36 questionnaires.

Results: The operation time of PLDH group (169.29 ± 26.68 min) was longer than FAPLDH group (154.34 ± 18.40 min) and ODH group (146.08 ± 25.39 min, p = 0.001). The blood loss was minimum in FAPLDH group (39.48 ± 10.46 mL), compared with PLDH group (52.44 ± 18.44 mL) and ODH group (108.80 ± 36.82 mL, p=0.001). The post-operative hospital stay was longer in PLDH group (5.30 ± 0.98 days) than FAPLDH group (4.81 ± 1.03 days) and ODH group (4.64 ± 1.20 days; p = 0.001). Quality of life of donors undergoing laparoscopic surgery was better.

Conclusion: Laparoscopic approaches for LDLT contribute to less blood loss, better cosmetic satisfaction. The fluorescence technique can further reduce bleeding and shorten operation time. In terms of quality of life, laparoscopic surgery is better than open surgery. Laparoscopy procedure for living-donor procurement with/without fluorescence-assist can be performed as safely as open surgery.

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.

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.

Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: An International, Multi-Institutional Evaluation of Safety, Efficacy and Early Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Evaluating the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive (MIV) donor hepatectomy for adult live donor liver transplants in a large multi-institutional series from both Eastern and Western centers.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection has become standard practice for minor resections in selected patients in whom it provides reduced postoperative morbidity and faster rehabilitation. Laparoscopic approaches in living donor hepatectomy for transplantation, however, remain controversial because of safety concerns. Following the recommendation of the Jury of the Morioka consensus conference to address this, a retrospective study was designed to assess the early postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic donor hepatectomy. The collective experience of 10 mature transplant teams from Eastern and Western countries was reviewed.

METHODS

All centers provided data from prospectively maintained databases. Only left and right hepatectomies performed using a MIV technique were included in this study. Primary outcome was the occurrence of complications using the Clavien-Dindo graded classification and the Comprehensive Complication Index during the first 3 months. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for complications.

RESULTS

In all, 412 MIV donor hepatectomies were recorded including 164 left and 248 right hepatectomies. Surgical technique was either pure laparoscopy in 175 cases or hybrid approach in 237. Conversion into standard laparotomy was necessary in 17 donors (4.1%). None of the donors died. Also, 108 experienced 121 complications including 9.4% of severe (Clavien-Dindo 3-4) complications. Median Comprehensive Complication Index was 5.2.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows favorable early postoperative outcomes in more than 400 MIV donor hepatectomy from 10 experienced centers. These results are comparable to those of benchmarking series of open standard donor hepatectomy.

UPPER MIDLINE INCISION IN RECIPIENTS OF DECEASED-DONORS LIVER TRANSPLANTATION

BACKGROUND

Liver transplant (LT) is the only effective and long-lasting option for patients with end-stage liver disease. Innovations and refinements in surgical techniques occurred with the advent of transplants with partial grafts and laparoscopy. Despite these modifications, the abdominal incision remains with only few changes.

AIM

Demonstrate the experience with the upper midline incision in LT recipients with whole liver grafts from deceased donors.

METHODS

Retrospective study with patients submitted to LT. Data were collected from the recipients who performed the surgical procedure through the upper midline incision.

RESULTS

The upper midline incision was used in 20 LT, 19 of which were performed in adult recipients. The main cause was liver disease secondary to alcohol. Male, BMI>25 kg/m² and MELD greater than 20 were prevalent in the study. Biliary complications occurred in two patients. Hemoperitoneum was an indication for reoperation at one of the receptors. Complication of the surgical wound occurred in two patients, who presented superficial surgical site infection and evisceration (omental). Two re-transplant occurred in the first postoperative week due to severe graft dysfunction and hepatic artery thrombosis, which were performed with the same incision, without the need to increase surgical access. There were two deaths due to severe graft dysfunction after re-transplant in 72 h and respiratory sepsis with multiple organ dysfunction in the third week.

CONCLUSION

The upper midline incision can be safely used in LT recipients with whole grafts from deceased donors. However, receptor characteristics and hepatic graft size should be considered in the option of abdominal surgical access.

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.

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy, are we ready for prime time?

Minimally invasive surgery potentially reduces operative morbidities. However, pure laparoscopic approaches to donor hepatectomy have been limited by technical complexity and concerns over donor safety. Reduced-wound donor hepatectomy, either in the form of a laparoscopic-assisted technique or by utilizing a mini-laparotomy wound, i.e., hybrid approach, has been developed to bridge the transition to pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, offering some advantages of minimally invasive surgery. To date, pure laparoscopic donor left lateral sectionectomy has been validated for its safety and advantages and has become the standard in experienced centres. Pure laparoscopic approaches to major left and right liver donation have been reported for their technical feasibility in expert hands. Robotic-assisted donor hepatectomy also appears to be a valuable alternative to pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, providing additional ergonomic advantages to the surgeon. Existing reports derive from centres with tremendous experience in both laparoscopic hepatectomy and donor hepatectomy. The complexity of these procedures means an arduous transition from technical feasibility to reproducibility. Donor safety is paramount in living donor liver transplantation. Careful donor selection and adopting standardized techniques allow experienced transplant surgeons to safely accumulate experience and acquire proficiency. An international prospective registry will advance the understanding for the role and safety of pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy.

Laparoscopic donor hepatectomy

Laparoscopic liver resection has been applied to treat most indications for liver resection during the past two decades. According to the literature, patient numbers have increased exponentially as a result, and surgical difficulty has increased as well. In expert centers, laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy and major liver resection more than 3 segments have become the acceptable treatment. Moreover, with surgical innovations and accumulated experience, living donor liver transplantation has become an established treatment choice for patients on the transplant waiting list. It is even considered an inevitable choice in regions with limited access to organs from deceased donors. However, significant morbidity and rare but catastrophic mortality are associated with donor hepatectomy and remain major concerns. Therefore, to decrease the incidence of complications, a minimally invasive approach in donor hepatectomy was adopted in the early 2000s. Initially, a minimally invasive approach was used for left lateral sectionectomy for pediatric liver transplant, then for laparoscopy-assisted hemihepatectomy and pure laparoscopic/robotic right donor hepatectomy, and more recently, for adult living donor liver transplantation. The extent of procedure complexity and potential complications depends on the approach and the size of the graft to be harvested. Early results from expert teams have seemed promising in terms of shortened donor recovery and improved perioperative outcomes. However, the combination of these two highly sophisticated surgical procedures raise more concerns about donor safety, especially with regard to unexpected events during the operation. A high level of evidence is very difficult to achieve in this highly specialized surgical practice with limited penetration. Therefore, an international registry has been suggested to determine the risks and benefits before the use of laparoscopic right donor hepatectomy spreads.

The First Comparative Study of the Perioperative Outcomes Between Pure Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy and Laparoscopy-Assisted Donor Hepatectomy in a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

In a statement from the second International Consensus Conference for Laparoscopic Liver Resection, adult-to-adult laparoscopic donor surgery was the earliest phase of development. It was recommended that the procedure be performed under institutional ethical approval and a reporting registry.

METHOD

At our institute, we started laparoscopy-assisted donor hepatectomy (LADH) in 2007 and changed to pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) in 2012. This study included 40 living donors who underwent LADH and 14 live donors who underwent PLDH. We describe the technical aspects and outcomes of our donor hepatectomy from assist to pure and examine the liver allograft outcomes of the recipients after LADH and PLDH.

RESULTS

There was significantly less blood loss in the PLDH group (81.07 ± 52.78 g) than that in the LADH group (238.50 ± 177.05 g), although the operative time was significantly longer in the PLDH group (454.93 ± 85.60 minutes) than in the LADH group (380.40 ± 44.08 minutes). And there were no significant differences in postoperative complication rate in the 2 groups. The liver allograft outcomes were acceptable and comparable with open living donor hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

By changing our routine approach from assist to pure, PLDH can be performed safely, with better exposure due to magnification, and with less blood loss under pneumoperitoneal pressure. PLDH, which has become our promising donor procedure, results in less blood loss, better cosmesis, and the donor's complete rehabilitation without deterioration in donor safety.

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.

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.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted hybrid living donor hepatectomy: a comparison with the conventional open procedure

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive living donor surgery has been increasingly accepted, its safety remains to be fully clarified in a large-scale study. This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of our laparoscopy-assisted hybrid living donor surgery (LAHDS) procedure with an upper median incision in comparison with conventional open donor hepatectomy (ODH).

METHODS

From 2011 to 2016, 153 adult living donors [right lobe (RL) graft: 80 donors; left lobe (LL) graft: 73 donors] were enrolled and divided into LAHDS (n = 76) and ODH (n = 77) groups. Donor characteristics, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications were compared between the 2 groups in each graft subgroup. Postoperative liver function tests (LFTs), inflammatory markers, pain parameters, incision-related symptoms, and recipient outcomes were compared between the 2 groups in all donors.

RESULTS

In RL donors, operative blood loss was significantly lower in the LAHDS group than in the ODH group (201 vs. 313 g; p = 0.034). In LL donors, duration of surgery was significantly longer in the LAHDS group than in the ODH group (459 vs. 403 min; p = 0.034). The incidence of complications, length of hospital stay, and postoperative changes in both LFTs and inflammatory markers were comparable. The incidence of postoperative scar discomfort or tightness was significantly lower in the LAHDS group than in the ODH group (2.6 vs. 31.2%; p < 0.001), whereas postoperative pain parameters were comparable. The incidence of wound problems and abdominal wall numbness tended to be lower, but not significantly so, in the LAHDS group.

CONCLUSIONS

This large consecutive case series demonstrates that our LAHDS procedure can be performed as safely as ODH, and it can improve quality of life without impaired donor and recipient outcomes.

Donor Left-Sided Heptectomy by Use of the Real-Time Moving Windows Method With 8-Centimeter Transverse Skin Incision

BACKGROUND

In this study, we demonstrated our new device for open donor liver surgery with left-sided heptectomy by use of the real-time moving windows (RTMW) method with 8-cm transverse skin incision for living donors from the viewpoints of cosmetic, economic, and safety procedures.

METHODS

After the upper abdominal 8-cm transverse skin incision was made, the subcutaneous area was exfoliated and the reverse T-shaped-abdominal incision was made, as in open surgery. After that, the 2 Kent hooks for the upper region and the 2 surgical arms for the lower region were placed. The operative fields of hepatic vein, hepatic hilus, and common hepatic artery were explored, respectively, by use of the RTMW method with the use of the 4 surgical hooks. Hepatic parenchymal dissection was carried out with the use of CUSA and laparosonic coagulating shears. Manipulations of 3 hepatic vessels and the hepatic duct were done by the usual procedure of open surgery.

RESULTS

This operative procedure could be performed without laparoscopic techniques. The operative time was 7 hours, without blood transfusion. The operative course was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on postoperative day 11.

CONCLUSIONS

Our RTMW method for donor left-sided hepatectomy is considered to be a useful operative procedure from the viewpoints of donor safety, cosmetic advantage, and cost performance.

The Impact of a Surgical Protocol for Enhanced Recovery on Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Single-Center Cohort Study

The concept of surgery for enhanced recovery (SFER) program has never been an issue in the context of living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH), much less its effects. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes after the establishment of an SFER protocol for LDRH in a single center.A single-center cohort study was performed in 500 consecutive living donors who underwent right hepatectomy from January 2005 to June 2014 by analyzing the outcomes before and after an established SFER protocol that evolved with continuous refinements in surgical technique and management over 300 LDRHs, being in place on September 2011. Donor characteristics, operative outcomes, and postoperative complications divided into 2 groups (group 1, stepwise adjustment; group 2, complete adherence to the protocol) were compared.Donor characteristics were comparable in the 2 groups. Overall complication rate was 10.0% with no mortality. In group 2, operative time, hospital stay, and overall complication rate decreased significantly, and the morbidity was 1% and confined in grade I complication without reoperation, perioperative blood transfusion, or readmission. All donors in this series recovered fully and returned to the previous functional lifestyle.An SFER protocol on LDRH can be established by the gradual implementation of various refinements of surgical technique, and the recent outcomes achieved after the establishment of an SFER protocol could provide a current guidance on LDRH toward the ultimate goal of zero morbidity.

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.

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.

Clinical outcomes of and patient satisfaction with different incision methods for donor hepatectomy in living donor liver transplantation

With the decrease in the average donor age and the increase in the proportion of female donors, both donor safety and cosmetic appearance are major concerns for some living donors in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) because a large abdominal incision is needed that may influence the donor's quality of life. In all, 429 donors who underwent donor hepatectomy for LDLT from April 2010 to February 2013 were included in the study. Donors were divided into 3 groups based on the type of incision: conventional inverted L incision (n = 268; the C group), upper midline incision (n = 147; the M group), and transverse incision with laparoscopy (n = 14; the T group). Demographics, perioperative outcomes, postoperative complications for donors and recipients, and questionnaire-derived donor satisfaction with cosmetic appearance were compared. The mean age was lower (P < 0.001), the female ratio was higher (P < 0.001), and the body mass index (BMI) was lower (P = 0.017) in the M and T groups versus the C group. The operation time (P < 0.001) and the hospital stay duration (P = 0.010) were lowest in the M group. The postoperative complications did not differ by the type of incision and also did not show any significant effect in a multivariate analysis (P = 0.867). In the assessment of questionnaire-derived donor satisfaction matched by age (±5 years), sex, graft, height, weight, and BMI, a more satisfactory cosmetic result and more self-confidence were noted in the M and T groups versus the C group. In conclusion, the use of a minimal incision is technically feasible for some donor hepatectomy cases with a favorable safety profile. The patient satisfaction levels were greater with improved cosmetic outcomes in cases of minimal incision versus cases of conventional incision.

Experience of laparoscopic liver resection for various liver diseases

Backgrounds/Aims

We present our experience of laparoscopic liver resection for various liver diseases.

Methods

From April 2008 to August 2012 in Chungnam National University, 68 of 253 liver resections were performed laparoscopically. During the first year, laparoscopy-assisted liver resection was mainly performed and subsequently totally laparoscopic liver resection was the main operative type. Surgery type for treatment purposes was decided preoperatively. Clinical data were collected retrospectively and analyzed.

Results

Preoperatively, 43 patients (63.2%) were diagnosed with benign disease, 19 patients (27.9%) were malignant liver tumors and 6 patients (8.8%) were indeterminate liver tumor but favorable towards malignancy. Anatomical major liver resection was performed in 58 cases (85.3%) and 10 cases (14.7%) were non-anatomical resection. Left hemihepatectomy was performed in 38 cases (55.8%) followed by left lateral sectionectomy in 18 cases (26.5%), and segment IV and IVa segmentectomy, were each in 1 case. Mean operation time was 235.0 minutes (range, 60-470) and 14 patients (18.6%) had intraoperative transfusion. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 10.2 days (range, 4-32). Mean operation time of laparoscopy-assisted left lobectomy was 317 minutes and totally laparoscopic left lobectomy was 281 minutes, but there was no significant statistical difference between these two operation types. There were 11 episodes of postoperative complications in 8 patients. There was no mortality after laparoscopic liver resection.

Conclusions

We concluded that laparoscopic liver resection is a feasible operation, but needs to be carefully conducted in malignant tumors.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Wedge resections to living donor hepatectomy, are we heading in the right direction?

Despite inception over 15 years ago and over 3000 completed procedures, laparoscopic liver resection has remained mainly in the domain of selected centers and enthusiasts. Requirement of extensive open liver resection (OLR) experience, in-depth understanding of anatomy and considerable laparoscopic technical expertise may have delayed wide application. However healthy scepticism of its actual benefits and presence of a potential publication bias; concern about its safety and technical learning curve, are probably equally responsible. Given that a large proportion of our work, at least in transplantation is still OLR, we have attempted to provide an entirely unbiased, mature opinion of its pros and cons in the current invited review. We have divided this review into two sections as we believe they merit separate attention on technical and ethical grounds. The first part deals with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in patients who present with benign or malignant liver pathology, wherein we have discussed its overall outcomes; its feasibility based on type of pathology and type of resection and included a small section on application of LLR in special scenarios like cirrhosis. The second part deals with the laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy (LDH) experience to date, including its potential impact on transplantation in general. Donor safety, graft outcomes after LDH and criterion to select ideal donors for LLR are discussed. Within each section we have provided practical points to improve safety in LLR and attempted to reach reasonable recommendations on the utilization of LLR for units that wish to develop such a service.

Role of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery in living-donor right liver harvest

OBJECTIVE

The cosmetic aspects of abdominal skin incisions are a matter of concern for both live liver donors and surgeons. We performed a prospective comparative study on the use of minilaparotomy to perform right liver graft harvests with and without hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS).

METHODS

Young donors were indicated for surgery using minilaparotomy with or without HALS. In the non-HALS group (n = 20), a 10-12-cm-long right subcostal incision was used for right liver graft harvest. In the HALS group (n = 20), an 8-cm-sized right subcostal incision was used for hand assistance and 3 laparoscopic holes made for manipulation. The retrohepatic inferior vena cava (IVC) was initially laparoscopically dissected while using air inflation. The skin incision was extended to 10-12 cm, and then hilar dissection and hepatic transection were performed through the skin incision.

RESULTS

In all 40 donors in the study cohort, safe uneventful harvesting of the right liver grafts was successfully achieved through the minilaparotomy incisions. The HALS group required an additional 30 minutes for laparoscopic preparation and dissection compared with the non-HALS group. HALS facilitated retrohepatic IVC dissection, and the remaining part of the surgery was the same as that for minimal-incision surgery. The minimal skin incision for the delivery of the liver from the abdomen was an average 10 cm for grafts <500 g and 12 cm for grafts ≥700 g. Compared with the patient profiles, there were no differences regarding donor age, body mass index, graft weight, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative increase in peak liver enzymes, total hospital stay, and incidence of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

HALS facilitates the performance of donor hepatectomy with the use of a minimal incision, which probably allows for a wider selection of living donors.

Laparoscopy-assisted hybrid left-side donor hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection developed for live liver donors has the advantage of reducing the physical and mental stress in donors. However, its safety and efficacy still remain to be established. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted hybrid donor hepatectomy (LADH) to obtain left side grafts.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 31 consecutive live liver donors of left side liver grafts underwent LADH, including left lateral segmentectomy (n = 17) and left liver resection with or without the caudate lobe (n = 14) (LADH group). We compared the clinical data between the LADH group and the group of donors in whom traditional open donor hepatectomy was performed to procure the liver graft (open donor hepatectomy [ODH] group, n = 79).

RESULTS

Laparoscopy-assisted hybrid donor hepatectomy was feasible in all patients, and there was no mortality over a follow-up period of 13.9 ± 9.8 months. The operative time to procure a left-lobe graft was significantly longer in the LADH group (510 ± 90 min) than in the ODH group (P < 0.001). A large right lobe on CT (RPv distance) was identified as a significant risk factor for prolonged operative time (P = 0.007). Evaluation using the SF36-v2 questionnaire revealed faster recovery of the physical component summary score and bodily pain score in the LADH group than in the ODH group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy-assisted hybrid donor hepatectomy for procuring left side grafts was safe and effective up to the left liver with the caudate lobe. Left-lobe LADH in donors with a large right lobe should be carefully planned in view of the potential surgical difficulty.

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

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted hepatectomy is a new minimally invasive approach for graft harvesting in living donors. Only a few liver transplant centers have introduced this surgical procedure.

METHODS

A prospective case-matched study was conducted on 25 consecutive donors who underwent laparoscopy-assisted donor right hepatectomy (LADRH) between July 2011 and March 2013 at our transplant center. These donors were matched 1:1 according to age, gender, and body mass index with 25 donors who underwent open donor right hepatectomy (ODRH).

RESULTS

LADRH was successfully performed in all 25 of the donors. Donor complications, estimated blood loss, and operative time were similar between the groups. Hospital stay and periods of analgesic use were significantly shorter in the LADRH group [7.0 ± 1.4 (LADRH) vs. 8.7 ± 2.4 (ODRH), p = 0.003, and 2.4 ± 1.0 (LADRH) vs. 3.2 ± 1.0 (ODRH), p = 0.011, respectively). The total in-hospital cost is higher with LADRH, primarily due to the additional material costs for LADRH. Finally, there were no differences in graft size, graft survival, or recipient complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study show that LADRH is a feasible and safe procedure compared with ODRH. Although higher material costs for laparoscopic assisted procedures are inevitable, LADRH may have an advantage over ODRH by causing less pain and facilitating earlier recovery. Efforts can be made to improve the technical success of LADRH for some overweight donors.

Totally laparoscopic full left hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation in adolescents and adults

In recent years different minimal access strategies have been designed in order to perform living donor liver surgery for adult recipients with less morbidity. Techniques involve shortening the length of the incision with or without previous laparoscopic mobilization of the liver. Herein we present two cases of totally laparoscopic living donor left hepatectomy, with and without removal of the middle hepatic vein, respectively. We describe in detail the anatomical and technical aspects of the procedure focusing on relevant points to enhance safety.

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy: pure laparoscopic approach versus hand-assisted technique

Laparoscopic liver resections are being performed with increasing frequency, with several groups having reported minimally invasive approaches for major anatomic hepatic resections. Some surgeons favor a pure laparoscopic approach, while others prefer a hand-assisted approach for major laparoscopic liver resections. There are clear advantages and disadvantages to a hand-assisted technique. The purpose of this study is to summarize the literature comparing pure laparoscopic and hand-assisted approaches for minimally invasive hepatic resection, and to describe our approach in 432 laparoscopic liver resections.

Upper midline incision for liver resection

OBJECTIVES

The optimal incision for liver resection in living donors or patients with small tumours should be revisited. This study introduces the upper midline incision (UMI) above the umbilicus for various liver resections using a conventional open-surgery technique.

METHODS

A retrospective study based on a prospectively collected database of 308 liver resections performed by a single surgeon was conducted to evaluate the feasibility, safety and applicability of the UMI.

RESULTS

From September 2006 to September 2010, this incision was used successfully in 308 consecutive liver resections in all patients with tumours measuring ≤ 5 cm and all living donors without any extension of the incision. The median length of the incision was 16.4 cm (range: 12-20 cm).The median operating time was 189 min (range: 54-305 min). The median postoperative hospital stay was 8 days (range: 6-17 days). One patient died in the postoperative period from heart failure. All other patients fully recovered and returned to their previous level of activity. Over a median follow-up of 31 months (range: 20-68 months), 25 complications (8.1%) developed. Seven wound infections (2.3%) occurred with no incisional hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

The UMI can be used safely and effectively in conventional open surgery in various liver resections and should therefore be given priority as the first-line technique in living liver donors and patients with tumours measuring ≤ 5 cm.

Mini-incision right hepatic lobectomy with or without laparoscopic assistance for living donor hepatectomy

Minimally invasive procedures are considered to be safe and effective approaches to the management of surgical liver disease. However, this indication remains controversial for living donor hepatectomy. Between 2000 and 2011, living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) was performed 58 times. Standard right hepatectomy was performed in 30 patients via a subcostal incision with a midline extension. Minimally invasive procedures began to be used for LDRH in 2008. A hybrid technique (hand-assisted laparoscopic liver mobilization and minilaparotomy for parenchymal dissection) was developed and used in 19 patients. In 2010, an upper midline incision (10 cm) without laparoscopic assistance for LDRH was innovated, and this technique was used in 9 patients. The perioperative factors were compared, and the indications for minimally invasive LDRH were investigated. The operative blood loss was significantly less for the patients undergoing a minimally invasive procedure versus the patients undergoing the standard procedure (212 versus 316 mL, P = 0.001), and the operative times were comparable. The length of the hospital stay was significantly shorter for the minimally invasive technique group (5.9 versus 7.8 days, P < 0.001). The complication rates were 23% and 25% for the standard technique and minimally invasive technique groups, respectively (P = 0.88). Patients undergoing minilaparotomy LDRH had a body mass index (24.0 kg/m(2)) similar to that of the hybrid technique patients (25.8 kg/m(2), P = 0.36), but the graft size was smaller (780 versus 948 mL, P = 0.22). In conclusion, minimally invasive LDRH can be performed without safety being impaired. LDRH with a 10-cm upper midline incision and without laparoscopic assistance may be appropriate for donors with a smaller body mass. Laparoscopic assistance can be added as needed for larger donors. This type of LDRH with a 10-cm incision is innovative and is recommended for experienced centers.

Laparoscopy in Liver Transplantation: The Future has Arrived

In the last two decades, laparoscopy has revolutionized the field of surgery. Many procedures previously performed with an open access are now routinely carried out with the laparoscopic approach. Several advantages are associated with laparoscopic surgery compared to open procedures: reduced pain due to smaller incisions and hemorrhaging, shorter hospital length of stay, and a lower incidence of wound infections. Liver transplantation (LT) brought a radical change in life expectancy of patients with hepatic end-stage disease. Today, LT represents the standard of care for more than fifty hepatic pathologies, with excellent results in terms of survival. Surely, with laparoscopy and LT being one of the most continuously evolving challenges in medicine, their recent combination has represented an astonishing scientific progress. The intent of the present paper is to underline the current role of diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy in patients waiting for LT, in the living donor LT and in LT recipients.

Single-port laparoscopy-assisted donor right hepatectomy in living donor liver transplantation: sensible approach or unnecessary hindrance?

BACKGROUND

Single-port laparoscopic (SPL) surgery has rapidly gained attention worldwide. Since May 2008, we have propagated the use of SPL surgery, mainly for cholecystectomy and appendectomy. Recently, we have used this modality of minimally invasive surgery for various liver surgeries. We hereby discuss our outcomes of SPL-assisted donor right hepatectomies.

METHODS

The preoperative workup is the same as for a standard donor hepatectomy. We retrospectively reviewed the data of 150 patients who underwent donor right hepatectomy from October 2008 to May 2011. We divided them into 3 groups depending on the type of surgical procedure.

RESULTS

Among 150 patients, 20 underwent laparoscopy-assisted donor right hepatectomy (LADRH); 40 underwent single-port laparoscopy-assisted donor right hepatectomy (SPLADRH); and 90 underwent open donor right hepatectomy (ODRH). The donor demographics were comparable among the groups. Postoperative complication and reoperation rates revealed no significant differences. The SPLADRH group showed the lowest level of postoperative pain, thereby leading to a better quality of life postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

SPLADRH seems to be a simple, feasible approach.

Trends in liver transplantation 2011

This review will highlight some of the important recent trends in liver transplantation. When possible, we will compare and contrast these trends across various regions of the world, in an effort to improve global consensus and better recognition of emerging data.

Laparoscopic liver resection

More than 3,000 laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) are performed worldwide for benign disease, malignancy, and living donor hepatectomy. Minimally invasive hepatic resection approaches include pure laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and a laparoscopic-assisted open "hybrid" approach, where the operation is started laparoscopically to mobilize the liver and begin the dissection, followed by a small laparotomy for completion of the parenchymal transection. Surgeons should have an advanced understanding of hepatic anatomy, extensive experience in open liver surgery, and technical skill to control major vascular and biliary structures laparoscopically before embarking on LLR. Although there is no absolute size criterion, smaller, peripheral lesions (<5 cm) that lie far from major vessels and anticipated transection planes are most amenable to LLR. Although the majority of reported LLR are non-anatomic resections or segmentectomies, several surgical groups are now performing laparoscopic major hepatic resections with excellent safety profiles. Patient benefits from LLR include less operative blood loss, less postoperative pain and narcotic requirement, and a shorter length of hospital stay, with comparable postoperative morbidity and mortality to open liver resection. Comparison studies between LLR and open resection have revealed no differences in width of resection margins for malignant lesions or overall survival after resection for hepatocellular cancer or colorectal cancer liver metastases. Advantages of LLR for HCC in particular include avoidance of collateral vessel ligation, decreased postoperative hepatic insufficiency, and fewer postoperative adhesions, all of which are features that enhance subsequent liver transplantation.

Elective living donor liver transplantation by hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and short upper midline laparotomy

BACKGROUND

Although the technique of liver transplantation is well developed, the invasiveness of the operation can be decreased with laparoscopic procedures.

METHODS

We performed elective living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) through a short midline incision combined with hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS). Nine selected patients with end stage liver disease underwent the procedure between July, 2010 and February, 2011 (median age 60, median Child-Pugh 9, median MELD score 14). Splenectomy was performed simultaneously in 7 cases. The liver (and spleen) were mobilized by a sealing device under a HALS procedure with an 8-cm upper midline incision, followed by explantation of the diseased liver (and spleen) through the upper midline incision which was extended to 12 to 15 cm. Partial liver grafts were implanted through the upper midline incision.

RESULTS

The median duration of the operation was 741 minutes, the median time needed for anastomosis was 48 minutes, the median blood loss was 3,940 g, and the median liver weight was 866 g. Eight recipients are alive and have good graft function. A difficult implantation for one patient required an additional right transverse incision. When compared with 13 recent liver recipients who underwent LDLT with a regular Mercedes-Benz-type incision, no clinically relevant drawbacks of the HALS hybrid procedure were observed.

CONCLUSION

We have shown the feasibility and safety of LDLT performed through a short midline incision without abdominal muscle disruption with the aid of HALS.

Liver allograft outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted and minimal access live donor hepatectomy for transplantation

BACKGROUND

The critical shortage of deceased organ donors has led to live-donor hepatectomy as an alternative donor option for transplantation. Although laparoscopic hepatectomy has been well described for management of liver tumors and can be performed safely, few studies have examined early recipient allograft outcomes after laparoscopic live-donor hepatectomy. We describe our initial experience with laparoscopic-assisted and minimal-access donor hepatectomy and its potential as a safe alternative with graft function comparable with open resection in live-donor liver transplantation.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of our past 30 successive live-donor transplants between 2005 and 2009. Fifteen allografts were procured by standard open live-donor (OLD) hepatectomy, and 15 by laparoscopic-assisted (LALD) or minimal-access (MA) live-donor hepatectomy. Left lateral segment grafts were subcategorized and analyzed further.

RESULTS

Mean donor age, sex, and liver anatomy were comparable between donor groups. Early graft function as measured by peak total bilirubin level, aspartate aminotransferase level, alanine aminotransferase level, and international normalized ratio on postoperative days 2, 7, 30, and 90 were similar between groups, although the international normalized ratio was slightly more increased on postoperative day 7 in LALD grafts (1.75 ± .45 vs 1.28 ± .16; P = .02). Perioperative allograft biliary (2 of 15 vs 0 of 15; P = .48) and vascular (3 of 15 vs 1 of 15; P = .6) complication rates also were comparable between OLD and LALD/MA grafts. One-year graft and patient survival for LALD/MA was 100% compared with 93% for OLD.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience shows that LALD or MA live-donor hepatectomy is a safe procedure and produces early graft function comparable with standard OLD hepatectomy. Multicenter, larger-volume experience will determine the widespread application of this technique.

Laparoscopy-assisted donor right hepatectomy using a hand port system preserving the middle hepatic vein branches

BACKGROUND

This report reviews our experience with a modified right hepatectomy (MRH) using laparoscopic or laparoscopy-assisted techniques preserving the middle hepatic vein (MHV) branches in living donor liver transplantation.

METHODS

Nine female donors (17-36 years) underwent a laparoscopic MRH under pneumoperitoneum (L-MRH; n = 2) or a laparoscopy-assisted MRH (LA-MRH; n = 7) with a hand port device. The donors for this minimally invasive surgery were volunteers with the willingness to undergo laparoscopic surgery and recipients who were not in urgent need of transplantation. Mobilization of the right liver was performed under pneumoperitoneum in all cases. Hilar dissection and parenchymal transection were performed under pneumoperitonuem (n = 2) or with a mini-laparotomy incision (n = 7) using an ultrasonic aspirator without the Pringle maneuver. The major MHV branches (>5 mm) were preserved using Hem-o-lock clips. The graft was extracted through the site of the hand port device or the mini-laparotomy. On the back table, the MHV branches were reconstructed with an artificial vascular graft.

RESULTS

There were no open conversions, and the graft was transplanted without any problem in every case. The operative time for the donors was 765 min and 898 min in the L-MRH patients, and it ranged from 310 to 575 min for the laparoscopy-assisted surgery. None of the donors required transfusion or reoperation; they were discharged on postoperative day 8-14 with normal liver function. A major complication occurred in one donor; fluid collection along the liver resection margin with fever was treated and resolved after percutaneous drainage.

CONCLUSIONS

A right hepatectomy preserving the MHV or its branches by minimally invasive techniques including total laparoscopic surgery was technically feasible. However, further refinements of the procedure are required prior to wide clinical application.

World review of laparoscopic liver resection-2,804 patients

OBJECTIVE

To provide a review of the world literature on laparoscopic liver resection.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Initially described for peripheral, benign tumors resected by nonanatomic wedge resections, minimally invasive liver resections are now being performed more frequently, even for larger, malignant tumors located in challenging locations. Although a few small review articles have been reported, a comprehensive review on laparoscopic liver resection has not been published.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search using Pubmed, screening all English publications on laparoscopic liver resections. All data were analyzed and apparent case duplications in updated series were excluded from the total number of patients. Tumor type, operative characteristics, perioperative morbidity, and oncologic outcomes were tabulated.

RESULTS

A total of 127 published articles of original series on laparoscopic liver resection were identified, and accounted for 2,804 reported minimally invasive liver resections. Fifty percent were for malignant tumors, 45% were for benign lesions, 1.7% were for live donor hepatectomies, and the rest were indeterminate. Of the resections, 75% were performed totally laparoscopically, 17% were hand-assisted, and 2% were laparoscopic-assisted open hepatic resection (hybrid) technique, with the remainder being other techniques or conversions to open hepatectomies. The most common laparoscopic liver resection was a wedge resection or segmentectomy (45%) followed by anatomic left lateral sectionectomy (20%), right hepatectomy (9%), and left hepatectomy (7%). Conversion from laparoscopy to open laparotomy and from laparoscopy to hand-assisted approach occurred in 4.1% and 0.7% of reported cases, respectively. Overall mortality was 9 of 2,804 patients (0.3%), and morbidity was 10.5%, with no intraoperative deaths reported. The most common cause of postoperative death was liver failure. Postoperative bile leak was observed in 1.5% of cases. For cancer resections, negative surgical margins were achieved in 82% to 100% of reported series. The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates after laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma were 50% to 75% and 31% to 38.2%, respectively. The 3-year overall and disease-free survival rates after laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal metastasis to the liver were 80% to 87% and 51%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, laparoscopic liver resections are safe with acceptable morbidity and mortality for both minor and major hepatic resections. Oncologically, 3- and 5-year survival rates reported for hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal cancer metastases are comparable to open hepatic resection, albeit in a selected group of patients.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy for a modified right graft in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

We performed a modified right hepatectomy completely by laparoscopic techniques preserving the middle hepatic vein (MHV) branches in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two young women (24 and 25 years old) volunteered to be live donors for their parents who had hepatocellular carcinomas. As the donors expressed concerns about scarring, we performed a laparoscopic procedure using a hand port device. Mobilization of the right liver and the hepatic parenchymal transection were performed under pneumoperitoneum. Parenchymal transection was performed using a laparoscopic ultrasonic aspirator without the Pringle maneuver. During parenchymal transection, major MHV branches >5 mm were preserved using Hem-o-lock clips. The graft was extracted through the hand port site. On the back table, the 3 MHV branches were reconstructed using an artificial vascular graft. The livers were transplanted without complications.

RESULTS

The operative times for the donors were 765 and 898 minutes. The donors did not require transfusions or reoperation; they were discharged on postoperative days 10 and 14 with normal liver functions.

CONCLUSION

A hepatectomy performed completely by laparoscopic techniques for a right graft with preservation of the MHV branches was technically feasible.

Upper midline incision for living donor right hepatectomy

Innovations and refinements in the techniques of living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) have been made over the past decades, but the type and size of abdominal incision have been at a standstill since its inception. We introduce herein the upper midline incision for LDRH using the standard open technique. A prospective case-matched study was conducted on 23 consecutive donors who underwent LDRH under a supraumbilical upper midline incision (I group) from February to May 2008. These donors were matched 1:1 to 23 right liver donors with a conventional J-shaped incision (J group) according to age, gender, and body mass index. Under the mean incision length of 13.5 cm, LDRH was successfully completed in all 23 donors without extension of the incision, with a mean operative time of 232.3 +/- 29.2 minutes. No donors required blood transfusion during surgery. There were 2 cases of postoperative bleeding immediately controlled under the same incision and a case of pleural effusion. All donors fully recovered and returned to their previous activities. All grafts have been functioning well. Compared with the J group, the I group had a shorter operative time, a shorter period of analgesic use, and, after discharge, infrequent complaints of wound pain. This upper midline incision, even without laparoscopic assistance, can be used for LDRH with less pain and without impairing safety, reproducibility, or effectivity, allowing the seemingly insufficient incision to be recommended to the transplant centers that are practicing living donor liver transplantation.

Current trends in live liver donation

The introduction of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been one of the most remarkable steps in the field of liver transplantation (LT), able to significantly expand the scarce donor pool in countries in which the growing demands of organs are not met by the shortage of available cadaveric grafts. Although the benefits of this procedure are enormous, the physical and psychological sacrifice of the donors is immense, and the expectations for a good outcome for themselves, as well as for the recipients, are high. We report a current overview of the latest trends in live liver donation in its different aspects (i.e. donor's selection, evaluation, operation, morbidity, mortality, ethics and psychology). This review is based on our center's personal experience with almost 200 LDLTs and a detailed analysis of the international literature of the last 7 years about this topic. Knowing in detail how to approach to the different aspects of living liver donation may be helpful in further improve donor's safety and even recipient's outcome.