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

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.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Technical Innovations

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has found a place to serve the end-stage liver disease community as the donor safety and recipient suitability has been elucidated. Donor safety is of paramount importance and transplant programs must continue endeavors to maintain the highest possible standards. At the same time, adequacy of grafts based on recipient clinical status via their model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and volumetric studies to achieve a GRBWR >0.8, along with special attention to anatomic tailoring and portal venous flow optimization are necessary for successful transplantation. Technical innovations have improved sequentially the utility and availability of LDLT.

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.

Section 17. Laparoscopic and minimal incisional donor hepatectomy

Living donor hepatectomy is now a well-established surgical procedure. However, a large abdominal incision is still required, which results in a large permanent scar, especially for a right liver graft. This report reviews our techniques of minimally invasive or minimal incisional donor hepatectomy using a transverse incision.Twenty-five living donors underwent right hepatectomy with a transverse incision and 484 donors with a conventional incision between April 2007 and December 2012. Among the donors with a transverse incision, two cases were totally laparoscopic procedures using a hand-port device; 11 cases were laparoscopic-assisted hepatectomy (hybrid technique), and 14 cases were open procedures using a transverse incision without the aid of the laparoscopic technique. Currently, a hybrid method has been exclusively used because of the long operation time and surgical difficulty in totally laparoscopic hepatectomy and the exposure problems for the liver cephalic portion during the open technique using a transverse incision.All donors with a transverse incision were women except for one. Twenty-four of the grafts were right livers without middle hepatic vein (MHV) and one with MHV. The donors' mean BMI was 21.1 kg/m. The median operation time was 355 minutes, and the mean estimated blood loss was 346.1±247.3 mL (range, 70-1200). There was no intraoperative transfusion. These donors had 29 cases of grade I [14 pleural effusions (56%), 11 abdominal fluid collections (44%), 3 atelectasis (12%), 1bile leak (4%)], 1 case of grade II (1 pneumothorax) and two cases of grade III complications; two interventions were needed because of abdominal fluid collections by Clavien-Dindo classification. Meanwhile, donors with a conventional big incision, which included the Mercedes-Benz incision or an inverted L-shaped incision, had 433 cases of grade I, 19 cases of grade II and 18 cases of grade III complications. However, the liver enzymes and total bilirubin of all donors were normalized within 1 month, and they recovered fully. Additionally, in a survey inquiring about cosmetic outcomes with a numeric scale of 1 through 10 (1, Not confident; 10, Very confident), the transverse incision had more satisfactory scores compared to the conventional big incision (9.80 vs. 6.17, P=0.001). In conclusion, the hybrid technique can be safely performed in donor right hepatectomy, with a minimal transverse skin incision, resulting in a good cosmetic outcome.

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.

Surgical and oncologic outcomes following laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis

AIM

  Laparoscopic hepatectomy has become a common method for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) nowadays, but the oncologic risks of laparoscopic liver resection for HCC are still under investigation. We performed a meta-analysis to quantitatively compare surgical and oncologic outcomes of patients with HCC undergoing laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy.

METHODS

  Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing laparoscopic with open liver resection for HCC. Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. All data were analyzed using RevMan 5.

RESULTS

  Ten studies comprising 627 patients were eligible for inclusion. The overall rate of conversion to open surgery was 6.6%. The laparoscopic group had significantly less blood loss by 223.17 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: -331.81, -114.54; P < 0.0001), fewer need for transfusions (odds ratio [OR]: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.22, .079; P = 0.007), shorter hospital stay by 5.05 days (95% CI: -7.84, -2.25; P = 0.0004) and fewer postoperative complications (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.32, 0.77; P = 0.002). No significant differences were found concerning surgery margin (weighted mean differences [WMD], 0.55; 95% CI: -0.71, 1.80; P = 0.39), resection margin positive rate (OR, 0.63; 95% CI: 0.25, 1.54; P = 0.31) and tumor recurrence (OR, 0.79; 95% CI: 0.49, 1.27; P = 0.33). In the 244 patients that underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy of all 10 studies included, no patients developed tumor recurrence at the site of resection margin, peritoneal dissemination or trocar-site metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

  On currently available evidence, laparoscopic resection appears not to affect oncologic outcomes and increase tumor recurrence. It also offers less blood loss, decreased rate of intraoperative transfusion and shorter lengths of hospital stay. Laparoscopic resection is a safe and feasible choice for selected patients with HCC.

Use of an upper midline incision for living donor partial hepatectomy: a series of 143 consecutive cases

Over a period of 2 years, we used an upper midline incision (UMI) without laparoscopic assistance in 143 consecutive living donor partial hepatectomy (LDPH) procedures, regardless of the graft type or the donor age, sex, body mass index, or body shape. Here we report surgical recommendations based on our experience with the use of UMIs in this context. The celiac axis (CA) depth ratio (the depth-to-width ratio for the trunk at the CA) was measured to define the shape of the abdominal cavity. A questionnaire was used to assess satisfaction and cosmetic outcomes in this population of donors. One hundred forty-one of the grafts (98.6%) were right grafts or extended right grafts; there were no donor deaths. The mean time of the operation up to graft retrieval in 141 right side grafts was 3 hours 1 minute. All donors recovered fully and returned to their previous activities. Major complications occurred in 9 patients (6.4%) and included reoperation due to bleeding (4), the insertion of a percutaneous drain (4), and rhabdomyolysis (1). Male sex, a large graft (>900 kg), a fatty liver (large fatty changes ≥ 10%), and a deep truncal cavity (a CA depth ratio > 0.35) were significant risk factors for a long graft retrieval time. The use of a wound protector significantly reduced wound complications. The cosmetic outcomes were more satisfactory when a UMI preceded partial hepatectomy instead of a conventional J-shaped incision (P = 0.01). In conclusion, a UMI without laparoscopic assistance can be safely used for LDPH, regardless of the graft type or the donor characteristics. However, the procedure after a UMI is more difficult in male donors with large fatty livers and deep truncal cavities. Accordingly, these features can be used as exclusion criteria for surgeons not accustomed to this modified procedure.