Comparison of Upper Midline Incision With and Without Laparoscopic Assistance for Living-Donor Right Hepatectomy

The long-term follow-up of the living liver donors

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been proposed in many countries to reduce organ shortage. While the early postoperative outcomes have been well investigated, little is known about the long-term follow-up of the living donors. We, therefore, designed a systematic review of the literature to explore long-term complications and quality of life among living donors. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE registries for studies published since 2013 that specifically addressed long-term follow-up following living-donor liver donation, concerning both physical and psychological aspects. Publications with a follow-up shorter than 1 year or that did not clearly state the timing of outcomes were excluded. A total of 2505 papers were initially identified. After a thorough selection, 17 articles were identified as meeting the eligibility criteria. The selected articles were mostly from North America and Eastern countries. Follow-up periods ranged from 1 to 11.5 years. The most common complications were incision site discomfort (13.2-38.8%) and psychiatric disorders (1-22%). Biliary strictures occurred in 1-14% of cases. Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy could improve quality of life, but long-term data are limited. About 30 years after the first reported LDLT, little has been published about the long-term follow-up of the living donors. Different factors may contribute to this gap, including the fact that, as healthy individuals, living donors are frequently lost during mid-term follow-up. Although the reported studies seem to confirm long-term donor safety, further research is needed to address the real-life long-term impact of this procedure.

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.

The impact of mini-invasive right hepatectomy in the setting of living donation: a meta-analysis

Adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation (A2ALDLT) represents a challenging procedure, mainly when the right hepatic lobe is donated. Therefore, especially in Western countries, the medical community still considers it a “risky procedure”. The present meta-analysis investigated the postoperative results reported in donors undergoing right hepatectomy for A2ALDLT through a minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) vs. open liver resection (OLR) approach, with the intent to clarify the hypothesis that the MILR approach should minimize the risks for the donor. A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE electronic databases. The primary outcome investigated was the complication rate after transplant. Fifteen studies were included (n = 2094; MILR = 553 vs. OLR = 1541). The MILR group only merged the statistical relevance in terms of advantage in terms of a lower number of complications (OR = 0.771, 95% CI 0.578–1.028; P value = 0.077). Investigating the complications ≥ IIIa according to the Dindo-Clavien classification, the estimated blood loss, and the length of hospital stay, no statistical difference was reported between the two groups. MILR represents a novel and promising approach for improving the results in A2ALDLT. However, no benefits have been reported regarding blood loss, length of stay, and postoperative complications. More extensive experiences are needed to re-evaluate the impact of MILR in right lobe live donation.

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.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robotic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Following the publication of reports from landmark international consensuses (Louisville 2008 and Morioka 2014), minimally invasive hepatectomy became widely accepted as a legitimate alternative to open surgery. We aimed to compare the operative, hospitalization, and total economic costs of open (OLR) vs. laparoscopic (LLR) vs. robotic liver resection (RLR).

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review (end-of-search date: July 3, 2020) according to the PRISMA statement. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Quality assessment was performed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies reporting on 3847 patients (1783 OLR; 1674 LLR; 390 RLR) were included. The operative costs of LLR were significantly higher than those of OLR, while subgroup analysis also showed higher operative costs in the LLR group for major hepatectomy, but no statistically significant difference for minor hepatectomy. Hospitalization costs were significantly lower in the LLR group, with subgroup analyses indicating lower costs for LLR in both major and minor hepatectomy series. No statistically significant difference was observed regarding total costs between LLR and OLR both overall and on subgroup analyses in either major or minor hepatectomy series. Meta-analyses showed higher operative, hospitalization, and total costs for RLR vs. LLR, but no statistically significant difference regarding total costs for RLR vs. OLR.

CONCLUSION

LLR's higher operative costs are offset by lower hospitalization costs compared to OLR leading to no statistically significant difference in total costs, while RLR appears to be a more expensive alternative approach.

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.

Current Status of Surgical Incisions Used in Donors During Living Related Liver Transplantation-A Nationwide Survey in Japan

BACKGROUND

Smaller surgical incisions have recently been introduced in living donor liver procurement. This study used national data from Japan to clarify the present status of surgical incisions in living donor liver procurement.

METHODS

A nationwide, questionnaire-based survey related to 3121 donors and recipients was used. Donors were divided into 2 groups: left lateral segment graft (LLSG) procurement (n = 690) and other types (n = 2431). Incisions were classified into 6 types: type I, upper midline and bilateral subcostal; type II, upper midline and right subcostal; type III, upper midline and right subcostal to the right lateral margin of the abdominal rectus muscle; type IV, upper midline without laparoscopy; type V, upper midline with laparoscopy; and type VI, lower abdominal using the full laparoscopic technique. Types I, II, and III were regarded as standard, and types IV, V, and VI as small incisions.

RESULTS

In LLSGs, blood transfusion and postoperative complication rates were significantly less frequent in the small incision group than in the standard group. In other graft types, there were no significant differences in blood transfusion, postoperative complication, and recipients' graft loss rates. The rates of wound extension during surgery were 2.8% and 2.1% in the small incision group in LLSGs and in other graft types, respectively. A small incision was adapted more frequently and postoperative complications were less common in high-volume centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Various incisions have been adopted in living donor liver procurement. Donor safety and graft integrity appear to have been retained for donors receiving small incisions.

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.

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.

Impact of abdominal shape on living liver donor outcomes in mini-incision right hepatic lobectomy: Comparison among 3 techniques

Although minimally invasive techniques for living donor hepatectomy have been developed, the surgical feasibility and limitations remain to be elucidated. The risks and outcomes involved need to be better understood prior to their widespread application. The aim of this study was to assess feasibility of minimally invasive donor hepatectomy by reviewing our experience. A total of 99 living donor liver transplantations performed between 2000 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. All 99 living liver donors underwent right hepatectomy. The breakdown of the techniques is as follows: the standard technique in 33 patients; the laparoscopic-assisted minilaparotomy technique (hybrid technique group) in 19 patients; and the upper midline incision technique without laparoscopic assistance (minilaparotomy group) in 47 patients. An association between donor operative outcomes and body habitus, such as body mass index (BMI), abdominal truncal depth (approximated by celiac axis [CA] depth ratio), and umbilical circumference (UC) were assessed. Perioperative factors were compared between the standard technique and the minimally invasive technique. The minilaparotomy group had significantly shorter operative time (P = 0.046) and hospital stay (P = 0.005) than the standard technique group. Postoperative complication rates were similar between the 3 groups (P = 0.16). In the minilaparotomy group, greater BMI (P = 0.02), CA depth ratio (P = 0.04), and UC (P = 0.004) were found to be risk factors for postoperative complications. In the minilaparotomy group, CA depth ratio > 0.41, UC > 90 cm, and BMI > 30 kg/m² were significantly associated with longer operative time and hospital stay. In the standard technique group, none of the body size factors were associated with postoperative outcomes. In conclusion, the minilaparotomy technique is safe and feasible, though technical difficulties may be encountered when performed on donors with larger body habitus. Ongoing efforts are required to ensure living donor safety. Liver Transplantation 24 516-527 2018 AASLD.

Standardized hybrid living donor hemihepatectomy in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of the most updated version and largest group of our standardized hybrid (laparoscopic mobilization and hepatectomy through midline incision) living donor (LD) hemihepatectomy compared with those from a conventional laparotomy in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Of 237 adult-to-adult LDLTs from August 1997 to March 2017, 110 LDs underwent the hybrid procedure. Preoperative and operative factors were analyzed and compared with conventional laparotomy (n = 126). The median duration of laparoscopic usage was 26 minutes in the hybrid group. Although there was improvement in applying this procedure over time from the beginning of the series of cases studied, blood loss and operative duration were still smaller and shorter in the hybrid group. There was no significant difference between the groups in the incidence of postoperative complications greater than or equal to Clavien-Dindo class III. There was no difference in recipient outcome between the groups. Our standardized procedure of hybrid LD hepatectomy is applicable and safe for all types of LD hepatectomies, and it enables the benefit of both the laparoscopic and the open approach in a transplant center without a laparoscopic expert. Liver Transplantation 24 363-368 2018 AASLD.

Laparoscopy-Assisted versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donor: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of laparoscopy-assisted living donor hepatectomy (LADH) in comparison with open living donor hepatectomy (ODH) for liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND

LADH is becoming increasingly common for living donor liver transplant around the world. We aim to determine the efficacy of LADH and compare it with ODH.

METHODS

A systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted in May 2017.

RESULTS

Nine studies were suitable for this analysis, involving 979 patients. LADH seemed to be associated with increased operation time (WMD = 24.85 min; 95% CI: -3.01~52.78, P = 0.08), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -59.92 ml; 95% CI: -94.58~-25.27, P = 0.0007), similar hospital stays (WMD = -0.47 d; 95% CI: -1.78~0.83, P = 0.47), less postoperative complications (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51~0.94, P = 0.02), less analgesic use (SMD = -0.22; 95% CI: -0.44~-0.11, P = 0.04), similar transfusion rates (RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.24~3.12, P = 0.82), and similar graft weights (WMD = 7.31 g; 95% CI: -23.45~38.07, P = 0.64).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that LADH is a safe and effective technique and, when compared to ODH.