Systematic review and meta-analysis of open versus laparoscopy-assisted versus pure laparoscopic versus robotic living donor hepatectomy

Abdominal Organ Transplantation: Noteworthy Literature in 2023

This review highlights noteworthy literature published in 2023 and pertinent to anesthesiologists and critical care physicians caring for patients undergoing abdominal organ transplantation. We feature 9 studies from 593 peer-reviewed papers on pancreatic transplantation, 3 from 194 on intestinal transplantation, and 28 from over 4513 on kidney transplantation. The liver transplantation section includes a special focus on 20 studies from 5666 clinical trial publications. We explore a broad range of topics, including donor management, perioperative recipient management, and innovative pharmacologic and mechanical interventions tested for the improvement of patient and graft outcomes and survival.

Current status and future perspectives of robotic liver surgery

Robotic liver resection has been reported in case series since the early 2000s. The surgical robot is capable of precise operation using articulated forceps with seven degrees of freedom. The robot also eliminates tremors and provides a good surgical field with highly detailed 3D high-definition images. The clinical results demonstrating their usefulness have been increasing year by year. Initially, a shorter hospital stay was observed in comparison with open hepatectomy. Recent reports have also shown lower conversion and complication rates in comparison with laparoscopic hepatectomy. The clamp and crush method with bipolar forceps, sealing devices, ultrasonic shears, and the combined procedure of Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator and robotic forceps as hybrid procedures have been reported as effective methods of parenchymal transection in robotic surgery. Theoretically, the advantages of the robotic platform allow for more complex liver resection around hilar structures and major blood vessels, as well as for vascular reconstruction or biliary reconstruction. The application of robotic liver surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma, living donor hepatectomy, and living donor liver transplantation has been reported. Robotic liver surgery is becoming more popular for certain indications; however, it is important to further evaluate its long-term surgical and oncological outcomes and costs in comparison with conventional laparoscopic and open liver surgery, based on accumulated experience.

The future of liver transplantation

Over the last 50 years, liver transplantation has evolved into a procedure routinely performed in many countries worldwide. Those able to access this therapy frequently experience a miraculous risk-benefit ratio, particularly if they face the imminently life-threatening disease. Over the decades, the success of liver transplantation, with dramatic improvements in early posttransplant survival, has aggressively driven demand. However, despite the emergence of living donors to augment deceased donors as a source of organs, supply has lagged far behind demand. As a result, rationing has been an unfortunate focus in recent decades. Recent shifts in the epidemiology of liver disease combined with transformative innovations in liver preservation suggest that the underlying premise of organ shortage may erode in the foreseeable future. The focus will sharpen on improving equitable access while mitigating constraints related to workforce training, infrastructure for organ recovery and rehabilitation, and their associated costs. Research efforts in liver preservation will undoubtedly blossom with the aim of optimizing both the timing and conditions of transplantation. Coupled with advances in genetic engineering, regenerative biology, and cellular therapies, the portfolio of innovation, both broad and deep, offers the promise that, in the future, liver transplantation will not only be broadly available to those in need but also represent a highly durable life-saving therapy.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic liver resection: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to compare short-term outcomes between robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) using data collected from propensity score-matched studies.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to collect propensity score-matched studies comparing RLR and LLR. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed. Odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models. Meta-regression analysis was performed for primary outcome measures. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed for outcomes exhibiting high heterogeneity. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-two propensity score-matched studies were included to comprise 5272 patients (RLR group, 2422 cases; LLR group, 2850 cases). Intraoperative blood loss (SMD=-0.31 ml, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.14; P =0.0005), open conversion (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.37-0.58; P <0.0001), and severe complications (OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.95; P =0.02) were significantly lower in the RLR group. Operation time, odds of use, and duration of Pringle maneuver, length of hospital stay, and odds of intraoperative blood transfusion, overall complications, R0 resection, reoperation, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality did not significantly differ between the groups. Further subgroup and sensitivity analyses suggested that the results were stable. Meta-regression analysis did not suggest a correlation between primary outcomes and study characteristics. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was medium or low, while that for the secondary outcomes was medium, low, or very low.

CONCLUSION

Although some short-term outcomes are similar between RLR and LLR, RLR is superior in terms of less blood loss and lower odds of open conversion and severe complications. In the future, RLR may become a safe and effective replacement for LLR.

Management of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases

Ivey et al [...].

Top Hepatobiliary Articles from 2022 to Inform Your Cancer Practice

Until recently, there have been only modest therapeutic advances in the treatment of hepatobiliary malignancies. However, the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with targeted therapy or chemotherapy has changed the therapeutic landscape of hepatocellular carcinoma and biliary tract cancers. As such, revisions have been made to guidelines reflecting therapeutic advances for patients who can be considered for surgical options including resection and liver transplantation. This article highlights recently published studies that have impacted both the oncological and surgical approach to the treatment of patients with hepatobiliary malignancies.

Preventing Small-for-size Syndrome in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) is a well-recognized complication following liver transplantation (LT), with up to 20% developing this following living donor LT (LDLT). Preventing SFSS involves consideration of factors before the surgical procedure, including donor and recipient selection, and factors during the surgical procedure, including adequate outflow reconstruction, graft portal inflow modulation, and management of portosystemic shunts. International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplant Society of India Consensus Conference was convened in January 2023 to develop recommendations for the prediction and management of SFSS in LDLT. The format of the conference was based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. International experts in this field were allocated to 4 working groups (diagnosis, prevention, anesthesia, and critical care considerations, and management of established SFSS). The working groups prepared evidence-based recommendations to answer-specific questions considering the currently available literature. The working group members, independent panel, and conference attendees served as jury to edit and confirm the final recommendations presented at the end of the conference by each working group separately. This report presents the final statements and evidence-based recommendations provided by working group 2 that can be implemented to prevent SFSS in LDLT patients.