Pure laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy in living donors: from innovation to development in France. Ann Surg. 2015;261:506-512. [PMID: 24646560 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000000642]

Laparoscopic Donor Left Lateral Sectionectomy Using the Glissonean Pedicle Approach: Technical Details With Video

INTRODUCTION

Pure laparoscopy for living donor hepatectomy is gaining popularity due to its advantages. However, despite the long-standing application of laparoscopic donor left lateral sectionectomy, the dissection of the Glisson branch, portal vein, and biliary ducts, particularly those of the caudate lobe, remains insufficiently described. Although the Glissonean approach offers easy standardization for hilar dissection, clear landmarks for parenchymal transection, and reduces postoperative bile leakage, it has not been widely adopted in laparoscopic donor hepatectomy. Here, we introduce a modified Glissonean pedicle approach to address the movement restrictions in laparoscopic surgery.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

After liver mobilization, the Glisson of Spiegel lobe (G1L) was divided, followed by encircling the left Glissonean pedicle. A tape for the liver hanging maneuver was placed from the right edge of the left Glissonean pedicle, along the Arantius plate, to the left edge of the left hepatic vein. When the parenchymal transection was completed, the left hepatic vein was automatically taped. The left hepatic artery and left portal vein were exposed, and some branches of P1 were divided to lengthen for anastomosis. The left hepatic duct was taped by removing the left hepatic artery and left hepatic vein from the left Glissonean pedicle. The left hepatic duct was divided under intraoperative cholangiography. Next, the left hepatic artery, left portal vein, and left hepatic vein were sequentially divided, and the graft liver was retrieved.

DISCUSSION

Our Glissonean approach can help standardize donor left lateral sectionectomy, minimize the exposure of the left hepatic duct, and clarify B1 branch dissection.

Comprehensive deep learning-based assessment of living liver donor CT angiography: from vascular segmentation to volumetric analysis

BACKGROUND

Precise preoperative assessment of liver vasculature and volume in living donor liver transplantation is essential for donor safety and recipient surgery. Traditional manual segmentation methods are being supplemented by deep learning (DL) models, which may offer more consistent and efficient volumetric evaluations.

METHODS

This study analyzed living liver donors from Samsung Medical Center using preoperative CT angiography data between April 2022 and February 2023. A DL-based 3D residual U-Net model was developed and trained on segmented CT images to calculate the liver volume and segment vasculature, with its performance compared to traditional manual segmentation by surgeons and actual graft weight.

RESULTS

The DL model achieved high concordance with manual methods, exhibiting Dice Similarity Coefficients of 0.94±0.01 for the right lobe and 0.91±0.02 for the left lobe. The liver volume estimates by DL model closely matched those of surgeons, with a mean discrepancy of 9.18 ml, and correlated more strongly with actual graft weights (R-squared value of 0.76 compared to 0.68 for surgeons).

CONCLUSION

The DL model demonstrates potential as a reliable tool for enhancing preoperative planning in liver transplantation, offering consistency and efficiency in volumetric assessment. Further validation is required to establish its generalizability across various clinical settings and imaging protocols.

Current Status of Laparoscopic Liver Resection

The evolution of laparoscopic liver surgery, originating in the 1990s, has been marked by significant advancements and milestones, overcoming initial technical hurdles and gaining widespread acceptance within the surgical community as a precise and safe alternative to open procedures. Along this journey, numerous challenges emerged, leading to the accumulation of evidence and the development of guidelines aimed at assisting surgeons in determining the safety, suitability, and complexity of laparoscopic liver resection. This chapter provides a thorough examination of key aspects of laparoscopic liver resection, including difficulty scoring systems, criteria for patient selection, technical considerations, outcomes across different types of liver lesions, and the innovative solutions developed to address challenges, thus offering a comprehensive overview of laparoscopic liver resection, and highlighting its evolving significance in modern hepatobiliary surgery.

Towards a Standardization of Learning Curve Assessment in Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to analyze the learning curves of minimal invasive liver surgery(MILS) and propose a standardized reporting.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

MILS offers benefits compared to open resections. For a safe introduction along the learning curve, formal training is recommended. However, definitions of learning curves and methods to assess it lack standardization.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases identified studies on learning curves in MILS. The primary outcome was the number needed to overcome the learning curve. Secondary outcomes included endpoints defining learning curves, and characterization of different learning phases(competency, proficiency and mastery).

RESULTS

60 articles with 12'241 patients and 102 learning curve analyses were included. The laparoscopic and robotic approach was evaluated in 71 and 18 analyses and both approaches combined in 13 analyses. Sixty-one analyses (60%) based the learning curve on statistical calculations. The most often used parameters to define learning curves were operative time (n=64), blood loss (n=54), conversion (n=42) and postoperative complications (n=38). Overall competency, proficiency and mastery were reached after 34 (IQR 19-56), 50 (IQR 24-74), 58 (IQR 24-100) procedures respectively. Intraoperative parameters improved earlier (operative time: competency to proficiency to mastery: -13%, 2%; blood loss: competency to proficiency to mastery: -33%, 0%; conversion rate (competency to proficiency to mastery; -21%, -29%), whereas postoperative complications improved later (competency to proficiency to mastery: -25%, -41%).

CONCLUSIONS

This review summarizes the highest evidence on learning curves in MILS taking into account different definitions and confounding factors. A standardized three-phase reporting of learning phases (competency, proficiency, mastery) is proposed and should be followed.

Impact of thoracic shape on the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted living donor hepatectomy

Background

Although laparoscopic-assisted donor hepatectomy (LADH) has become the definitive procedure for harvesting living donor livers, its surgical outcomes in association with donor body shape have not been elucidated.

Methods

The impact of donor factors, including thoracic shape, on LADH outcomes was retrospectively investigated. Thoracic anthropometric data were examined in all LADHs with a left/right graft between 2013 and 2022.

Results

The study included 210 LADHs, consisting of 106 left- and 104 right-lobe donors with similar blood loss and similar operation time. Males have greater thoracic depth and greater thoracic width compared with females, respectively. Thoracic depth was associated with graft weight (p < 0.001), blood loss (p < 0.001), and operation time (p < 0.001). On multivariate analyses, blood loss >500 mL and operation time >8 h were associated with graft weight in the left-lobe donors, and blood loss >500 mL was associated with thoracic depth in the right-lobe donors.

Conclusion

The greater thoracic depth is associated with massive blood loss in right-lobe donors. Anthropometric parameters might be helpful for estimating LADH outcomes.

Minimally Invasive Surgery in Liver Transplantation: From Living Liver Donation to Graft Implantation

Since the end of the 20th century and the establishment of minimally invasive techniques, they have become the preferred operative method by many surgeons. These techniques were applied to liver surgery for the first time in 1991, while as far as transplantation is concerned their application was limited to the living donor procedure. We performed a review of the literature by searching in Pubmed and Scopus using the following keywords: Liver transplantation, Minimally invasive surgery(MIS) living liver donor surgery. Applications of MIS are recorded in surgeries involving the donor and the recipient. Regarding the recipient surgeries, the reports are limited to 25 patients, including combinations of laparoscopic, robotic and open techniques, while in the living donor surgery, the reports are much more numerous and with larger series of patients. Shorter hospitalization times and less blood loss are recorded, especially in centers with experience in a large number of cases. Regarding the living donor surgery, MIS follows the same principles as a conventional hepatectomy and is already the method of choice in many specialized centers. Regarding the recipient surgery, significant questions arise mainly concerning the safe handling of the liver graft.

Лапароскопическое изъятие левого латерального сектора печени у прижизненного донора.. [DOI: 10.61726/5567.2024.63.97.001]

В педиатрической практике трансплантация фрагментов печени позволяет достичь высоких результатов [Bowring M.G., 2020] и, при этом, полностью гарантировать безопасность родственных доноров. В то же время, при выполнении трансплантации «взрослый – ребенок», практически отсутствуют этические вопросы, поскольку, чаще всего, донором является один из родителей реципиента. Тем не менее, важной задачей остается создание условий для ускорения реабилитации и минимизации хирургической травмы у донора, в этой связи, внедрение миниинвазивных методов имеет особое значение. В последние два десятилетия миниинвазивные подходы к резекциям печени прочно вошли в арсенал крупных гепатобилиарных центров. Это стало возможным благодаря накопленному опыту открытой хирургии печени, а также технологическому прогрессу [Morise Z., 2017]. Однако, применение лапароскопического подхода у родственных доноров фрагментов печени по-прежнему остается предметом живого интереса в трансплантологических центрах всего мира. Первые сравнительные исследования оказались весьма обнадеживающими и продемонстрировали перспективность этого подхода [Broering D. C., 2018]. Накопление подобного опыта, анализ кривой обучения, стандартизация хирургической техники по-прежнему являются важными вопросами развития данного направления. В России лапароскопическое изъятие фрагмента печени для последующей трансплантации было впервые выполнено в ФГБУ «НМИЦ ТИО им. Академика В. И. Шумакова» в 2016 году. Также, в России впервые в мире произведено полностью лапароскопическое изъятие одновременно фрагмента печени и почки для последующей трансплантации детям [Готье С. В., 2016, Gautier S. V., 2019]. Цель исследования. Оптимизация хирургической техники и результатов лапароскопического изъятия левого латерального сектора у прижизненных доноров фрагмента печени на основании анализа накопленного опыта. Задачи исследования. 1. Сравнить результаты открытого и лапароскопического изъятия левого латерального сектора у прижизненных доноров. 2. Определить критерии селекции прижизненных доноров для лапароскопического изъятия левого латерального сектора печени. 3. Стандартизировать хирургическую технику выполнения лапароскопической латеральной секторэктомии печени. 4. Оценить результаты трансплантации левого латерального сектора, полученного открытым и лапароскопическим путём, у реципиентов. 5. Изучить кривую обучения выполнения лапароскопической латеральной секторэктомии печени у родственного донора. Научная новизна. На сегодняшний день, лапароскопическое изъятие левого латерального сектора печени у прижизненных доноров выполняется лишь в нескольких центрах в мире. Суммарный накопленный опыт по всему миру не превышает 500 операций. В настоящее время, по данным литературы, существует лишь несколько исследований, посвященных данной тематике. Проведение псевдорандомизации позволило объективизировать результаты и увеличить их достоверность. Изучение кривой обучения выполнения лапароскопической латеральной секторэктомии печени позволяет оценить потенциал внедрения данной методики в клинические центры. Новыми являются данные сравнительного анализа клинических результатов проведения открытого и лапароскопического изъятия левого латерального сектора печени у живых доноров, а также сравнительного анализа результатов трансплантаций у реципиентов, получивших соответствующие трансплантаты. Новыми являются разработанные рекомендации по селекции доноров для лапароскопического изъятия левого латерального сектора. Впервые разработаны алгоритмы, протоколы и рекомендации по выполнению хирургического вмешательства лапароскопической резекции левого латерального сектора печени у родственного донора. Практическая значимость исследования. Впервые в России на основании доказательной медицины установлена клиническая эффективность и безопасность лапароскопической левой латеральной секторэктомии у прижизненных доноров фрагмента печени. Разработана и стандартизирована хирургическая техника, позволяющая максимально снизить интра- и послеоперационные осложнения у доноров левого латерального сектора печени, а также получать трансплантаты высокого качества. Внедрение научных разработок в клиническую практику позволит: • обезопасить хиругическое пособие у доноров путем снижения интраоперационой кровопотери и минимизации хирургической травмы; • ускорить послеоперационную реабилитацию у доноров; • получить хороший косметический эффект после оперативного пособия. Методология и методы исследования. В исследовании проведен статистический анализ клинических данных, результатов оперативного вмешательства, лабораторных и инструментальных исследований до, во время и после резекции левого латерального сектора печени у родственных доноров и трансплантации левого латерального сектора детям. Проведен статистический анализ клинических данных, результатов трансплантаций левого латерального сектора печени у реципиентов, получивших трансплантат от доноров, оперированных открыто и лапароскопически. Основные положения, выносимые на защиту 1. Лапароскопическое изъятие левого латерального сектора является эффективным и безопасным методом, позволяющим уменьшить операционную травму и ускорить реабилитацию, а также получить хороший косметический эффект. 2. Результаты трансплантации левого латерального сектора печени детям от доноров, оперированных лапароскопически, сопоставимы с аналогичными от доноров, оперированных по классической открытой методике. 3. Унификация хирургической методики позволяет уменьшить длительность операции, а также позволяет добиться максимального снижения интра- и послеоперационных осложнений у доноров. 4. Более строгая селекция доноров для лапароскопического изъятия левого латерального сектора позволяет снизить риск интраоперационных осложнений на этапе становления методики и наработки хирургического опыта. Степень достоверности и апробация результатов Достоверность результатов определяется объемом проведенных исследований с использованием современных методов статистической обработки. Апробация работы состоялась 15 июля 2020 года на совместной конференции научных и клинических подразделений федерального государственного бюджетного учреждения «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр трансплантологии и искусственных органов имени академика В.И. Шумакова» Министерства здравоохранения Российской Федерации (ФГБУ «НМИЦ ТИО им. ак. В.И. Шумакова» Минздрава России) и кафедры трансплантологии и искусственных органов Института клинической медицины имени Н.В. Склифосовского Федерального государственного автономного образовательного учреждения высшего образования Первый осковский государственный медицинский университет имени И.М. Сеченова Министерства здравоохранения Российской Федерации (Сеченовский Университет). Материалы диссертации доложены и обсуждены на III Российском национальном конгрессе «Трансплантация и донорство органов» (Москва 2017г.), на 15-м международном конгрессе по донорству органов (ISODP, Дубай, ОАЭ), на 10-м Всероссийском съезде трансплантологов (Москва, 2020 г.), и на международном съезде трансплантологического общества (The Transplantation Society, Сеул, Южная Корея, 2020г.). Внедрение результатов исследования в практику Результаты исследования используются в хирургическом отделении № 2 федерального государственного бюджетного учреждения «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр трансплантологии и искусственных органов имени академика В.И. Шумакова» Министерства здравоохранения Российской Федерации, в отделении онкологии и детской хирургии федерального государственного бюджетного учреждения «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр детской гематологии, онкологии и иммунологии имени Дмитрия Рогачёва» Министерства здравоохранения Российской Федерации, а также в образовательной программе кафедры трансплантологии и искусственных органов Института клинической медицины имени Н.В. Склифосовского Федерального государственного автономного образовательного учреждения высшего образования Первый осковский государственный медицинский университет имени И.М. Сеченова Министерства здравоохранения Российской Федерации (Сеченовский Университет). Личный вклад автора. Автор принимал непосредственное участие в разработке концепции и постановке задач исследования; в оперативных вмешательствах у родственных доноров печени и операциях по трансплантации печени; самостоятельно осуществлял сбор материала для исследования. Автором самостоятельно сформирована база данных, проведена статистическая обработка, анализ и интерпретация полученных результатов. Публикации по теме диссертации По теме диссертации опубликовано 15 научных работ, из них 3 статьи в центральных рецензируемых журналах, рекомендованных ВАК, а также 2 статьи в международных журналах.

Laparoscopic liver resections: What have we learned after more than 20 years of experience?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to describe our experience in the last 8 years of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) for benign and malignant tumors, to evaluate indications and results, and to compare the results with our previous experience and with other reference centers worldwide.

METHODS

Based on a prospective database of the Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit of the Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, patients who underwent LLR between September 2014 and June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed (period B) and where compared to our own experience from 2000 to 2014 previously published (period A).

RESULTS

Colorectal liver metastasis was the main indication for surgery (26.4%). Major hepatectomies accounted for 15.7% of resections and the most frequently performed procedure was typical and atypical hepatectomies (58.4%) followed by left lateral hepatectomy (20.3%). The total postoperative major complications rate was 10.1% and the 90-day postoperative mortality was 1%. The median postoperative stay was four (IQR: 3-6) days. The overall survival rate estimated at 1, 3 and 5 years was 94%, 84% and 70%, respectively, with a median follow-up of 22.9 months.

CONCLUSIONS

LLRs in the hands of trained surgeons continue to grow safely, and we have seen an increase in the indication of LLR for malignant pathologies and major resections, a trend that follows the rest of the major centers in the world and has become the method of choice for surgical treatment of most liver tumors.

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.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Liver Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations 2022

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has been widely applied in liver surgery since the publication of the first ERAS guidelines in 2016. The aim of the present article was to update the ERAS guidelines in liver surgery using a modified Delphi method based on a systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. A modified Delphi method including 15 international experts was used. Consensus was judged to be reached when >80% of the experts agreed on the recommended items. Recommendations were based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations system.

RESULTS

A total of 7541 manuscripts were screened, and 240 articles were finally included. Twenty-five recommendation items were elaborated. All of them obtained consensus (>80% agreement) after 3 Delphi rounds. Nine items (36%) had a high level of evidence and 16 (64%) a strong recommendation grade. Compared to the first ERAS guidelines published, 3 novel items were introduced: prehabilitation in high-risk patients, preoperative biliary drainage in cholestatic liver, and preoperative smoking and alcohol cessation at least 4 weeks before hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines based on the best available evidence allow standardization of the perioperative management of patients undergoing liver surgery. Specific studies on hepatectomy in cirrhotic patients following an ERAS program are still needed.

Is left lateral sectionectomy of the liver without operative site drainage safe and effective?

Backgrounds/Aims

Despite its limited benefits, operative site drainage after elective hepatectomy is routinely used. This study aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of left lateral sectionectomy without operative site drainage.

Methods

This study retrospectively collected data from 31 patients who underwent elective left lateral sectionectomy between January 2017 and June 2020. Based on whether operative site drainage was used, the patients were divided into two groups: drainage and non-drainage of the operative site and a comparative analysis was conducted.

Results

A total of 31 patients underwent left lateral sectionectomy during the study period. Of these, 22 patients were diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma; three, with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; three, with liver metastasis; and three, with benign liver disease. Ten patients underwent laparoscopy. No significant differences were observed between the open and laparoscopic surgery groups. In the univariate analysis, there were no significant differences in the pre-, intra-, and postoperative clinicopathological factors between the non-drainage and drainage groups. The hospitalization period in the non-drainage group was significantly shorter than in the drainage group (8.44 days vs. 5.87 days, p < 0.05). In the operative site drainage non-use group, there were no cases of intraperitoneal fluid collection requiring additional procedures.

Conclusions

Routine use of surgical drainage for left lateral sectionectomy of the liver to prevent intraperitoneal fluid collection is unnecessary.

Robotic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The introduction of robotics in living donor liver transplantation has been revolutionary. We aimed to examine the safety of robotic living donor right hepatectomy (RLDRH) compared to open (ODRH) and laparoscopic (LADRH) approaches. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and six additional databases following PRISMA guidelines. Data on morbidity, postoperative liver function, and pain in donors and recipients were extracted from studies comparing RLDRH, ODRH, and LADRH published up to September 2020; PROSPERO (CRD42020214313). Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios and continuous variables as weighted mean differences. Four studies with a total of 517 patients were included. In living donors, the postoperative total bilirubin level (MD: −0.7 95%CI −1.0, −0.4), length of hospital stay (MD: −0.8 95%CI −1.4, −0.3), Clavien−Dindo complications I−II (RR: 0.5 95%CI 0.2, 0.9), and pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.6 95%CI −1.6, 0.4) were lower following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Furthermore, the pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.4 95%CI −0.8, −0.09) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In recipients, the postoperative AST level was lower (MD: −0.5 95%CI −0.9, −0.1) following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Moreover, the length of stay (MD: −6.4 95%CI −11.3, −1.5) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In summary, we identified low- to unclear-quality evidence that RLDRH seems to be safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared to the conventional approaches. No postoperative deaths were reported.

Comparison of Two Donor Liver Procurement Methods for Treatment of Pediatric Acute Liver Failure

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the difference and efficacy of two donor liver procurement methods for treatment of pediatric acute liver failure (PALF) by living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

A total of 17 patients (12 men, 5 women) with PALF who underwent LDLT in our hospital between October 2016 and October 2020, and prognostic efficacy of donors and recipients using two donor liver procurement methods were analyzed.

RESULTS

The donors and recipients were both divided into laparoscopic (7 cases) and open (10 cases) donor liver procurement groups. In the recipients, two deaths occurred in the laparoscopic group and one in the open group, and there were three postoperative complications in the laparoscopic group and six in the open group. The cumulative 1-year and 3-year survival rates in the laparoscopic group and the open group were 80.0% and 85.7% separately. There was no difference in the postoperative survival and complications rates between the two groups. In the donors, the operation time, postoperative hospital stay, and blood loss of the laparoscopic group was significantly reduced compared with the open group (P ≤ 0.01). No death or serious complication occurred in either donor group.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic donor liver procurement is worth recommending than open donor liver procurement for treatment of PALF combined with LDLT in qualified transplant centers.

Case report of pure single-port robotic left lateral sectionectomy using the da Vinci SP system

INTRODUCTION

Since its first appearance in the early 1990s, laparoscopic hepatic resection has become increasingly accepted and recognized as safe as laparotomy. The recent introduction of robotic surgery systems has brought new innovations to the field of minimally invasive surgery, such as laparoscopic surgery. The da Vinci line of surgical systems has recently released a true single-port platform called the da Vinci SP system, which has 3 fully wristed and elbowed instruments and a flexible camera in a single 2.5 cm cannula. We present the first case of robotic liver resection using the da Vinci SP system and demonstrate the technical feasibility of this platform.

PATIENT CONCERNS AND DIAGNOSIS

A 63-year-old woman presented with elevated liver function test results and abdominal pain. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography showed multiple intrahepatic duct stones in the left lateral section and distal common bile duct stones near the ampulla of Vater.

INTERVENTIONS

The docking time was 8 minute. The patient underwent successful da Vinci SP with a total operation time of 135 minute. The estimated blood loss was 50.0 ml. No significant intraoperative events were observed.

OUTCOMES

The numerical pain intensity score was 3/10 in the immediate postoperative period and 1/10 on postoperative day 2. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 5 after verifying that the CT scan did not show any surgical complications.

CONCLUSION

We report a technique of left lateral sectionectomy, without the use of an additional port, via the da Vinci SP system. The present case suggests that minor hepatic resection is technically feasible and safe with the new da Vinci SP system in select patients. For the active application of the da Vinci SP system in hepatobiliary surgery, further device development and research are needed.

Minimally invasive versus open living donors right hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive technology has been widely used in hepatectomy, it remains controversial with regards to liver transplantation, especially in donors right hepatectomy. Herein, we compared the short-term safety and efficacy of minimally invasive donors right hepatectomy (MIDRH) with open donors right hepatectomy (ODRH).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library database in order to identify comparison studies of MIDRH and ODRH. Next, we obtained the relevant data, and carried out the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 12 studies, which included 1755 cases that underwent donors right hepatectomy. Compared to ODRH, patients that underwent MIDRH had less bleeding (SWD = -0.52, p<0.001), shorter hospital stays (SWD = -0.58, p < 0.001) and lower overall postoperative complications of donors (RR = 0.74, p = 0.008). However, MIDRH was found to be associated with prolonged operative times (SWD = 0.74, p < 0.001), as well as a higher rate of biliary complications in donors (RR = 2.26, p = 0.007) and recipients (RR = 1.69, p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between MIDRH and ODRH in postoperative liver function, rate of major complications and vascular complications of both donors and recipients and overall postoperative complications.

DISCUSSION

MIDRH is superior to ODRH with regards to intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay and overall donor complications. Although biliary-related complications are higher, it is feasible to develop MIDRH in experienced liver transplant centers. However, higher-quality research is still needed for corroboration.

Learning curves in minimally invasive hepatectomy: systematic review and meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has become an important option for the treatment of various liver tumours. A major concern is the learning curve required. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and summarize current literature analysing the learning curve for MIH.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature pertaining to learning curves in MIH to July 2019 was performed using PubMed and Scopus databases. All original full-text articles published in English relating to learning curves for both laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), robotic liver resection (RLR), or a combination of these, were included. To explore quantitatively the learning curve for MIH, a meta-regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Forty studies relating to learning curves in MIH were included. The median overall number of procedures required in studies utilizing cumulative summative (CUSUM) methodology for LLR was 50 (range 25-58) and for RLR was 25 (16-50). After adjustment for year of adoption of MIH, the CUSUM-derived caseload to surmount the learning curve for RLR was 47.1 (95 per cent c.i. 1.2 to 71.6) per cent; P = 0.046) less than that required for LLR. A year-on-year reduction in the number of procedures needed for MIH was observed, commencing at 48.3 cases in 1995 and decreasing to 23.8 cases in 2015.

CONCLUSION

The overall learning curve for MIH decreased steadily over time, and appeared less steep for RLR compared with LLR.

Outflow vein venoplasty of left lateral section graft for living donor liver transplantation in infant recipients

The orifice size of the LHV trunk in LLS grafts is often too small for direct anastomosis. Several methods were developed to enlarge the graft and recipient hepatic vein orifices. This study described our surgical techniques to secure hepatic vein reconstruction in infant recipients and analyzed the patency outcomes. Twelve infants undergoing pediatric LDLT were selected during 2-year study period between January 2018 and December 2019. Surgical techniques and vascular complications of graft hepatic vein outflow were analyzed. The mean recipient age was 12.5 ± 4.5 months; mean body weight was 9.4 ± 1.0 Kg; and mean graft-recipient weight ratio was 2.8 ± 0.6%. Primary diseases were biliary atresia in six patients, metabolic diseases in two, hepatoblastoma in two, and acute liver failure in two. Eight LLS grafts were recovered through an open method, and four LLS grafts were recovered through a laparoscopic method. A small superficial LHV branch was present in five of 12 LLS grafts, which was opened to widen the graft hepatic vein orifice. Incision-and-patch venoplasty was performed in 10, unification venoplasty in 1 and no venoplasty in 1. All four LLS grafts recovered through a laparoscopic approach required circumferential vein patch because of very short hepatic vein stump. No patient experienced graft hepatic vein-associated vascular complications during the follow-up period of 19.3 ± 9.3 months. Our surgical techniques with incision-and-patch venoplasty for LLS grafts is beneficial to reduce the risk of hepatic vein outflow obstruction in recipients receiving LLS grafts.

Development of a novel educational tool to assess skills in laparoscopic liver surgery using the Delphi methodology: the laparoscopic liver skills scale (LLSS)

BACKGROUND

No specific performance assessment scales have been reported in laparoscopic liver resection. This study aimed at developing an objective scale specific for the assessment of technical skills for wedge resection in anterior segments (WRAS) and left lateral sectionectomy (LLS).

METHODS

A laparoscopic liver skills scale (LLSS) was developed using a hierarchical task analysis. A Delphi method obtained consensus among five international experts on relevant steps that should be included into the LLSS for assessment of operative performances. The consensus was predefined using Cronbach's alpha > 0.80.

RESULTS

A semi-structured review extracted 15 essential subtasks for full laparoscopic WRAS and LLS for evaluation in the Delphi survey. Two rounds of the survey were conducted. Three over 15 subtasks did not reach the predefined level of consensus. Based on the expert's comments, 13 subtasks were reformulated, 4 subtasks were added, and a revised skills scale was developed. After the 2nd round survey (Cronbach's alpha 0.84), 19 subtasks were adopted. The LLSS was composed of three main parts: patient positioning and intraoperative preparation (task 1 to 8), the core part of the WRAS and LLS procedure (tasks 9 to 14), and completion of procedure (task 15 to 19).

CONCLUSIONS

The LLSS was developed for measuring the skill set for the education of safe and secure laparoscopic WRAS and LLS procedures in a dedicated training program. After validation, this scale could be also used as an assessment tool in the operating room and extrapolated as an operative roadmap to other complex procedures.

Advances in the surgical outcomes of 300 cases of pure laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy divided into three periods of 100 cases: a single-centre case series

Background

Minimally invasive surgery has been widely used for hepatobiliary operations. This study aimed to determine the safety and feasibility of pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy.

Methods

From November 2015 to April 2019, 300 cases of adult pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy performed at Seoul National University Hospital were divided into three subgroups of periods 1-3 of 100 cases each: 1-100, 101-200, and 201-300, respectively. We retrospectively reviewed and analysed the safety and feasibility outcomes.

Results

The operative time (period 1: 318.9±62.2 min, period 2: 256.7±71.4 min, period 3: 227.7±57.4 min) and blood loss (period 1: 419.7±196.5 mL, period 2: 198.9±197.2 mL, period 3: 166.0±130.0 mL) gradually decreased (P<0.01). Similarly, the length of hospital stay decreased (period 1: 8.1±2.0 days, period 2: 7.3±3.1 days, period 3: 6.9±2.4 days, P<0.01). There was no requirement for intraoperative transfusions or care in the intensive care unit. The overall complication rate was 20/300 (6.7%), of which 8/300 (2.7%) were Clavien-Dindo grade III and above. Complications were not different among the three periods. In terms of anatomical variations, the incidences of multiple portal veins, multiple hepatic arteries, and multiple bile ducts were 32/300 (10.7%), 11/300 (3.7%), and 161/300 (53.7%), respectively. No differences were found among the three periods.

Conclusions

Owing to the technical improvements over time, pure laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy is currently feasible and safe even for donors with anatomical variations.

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Pure Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy in Pediatric Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy for transplantation has been well established over the past decade. This study aimed to assess its safety and feasibility in pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) by comparing the surgical and long-term survival outcomes on both the donor and recipient sides between open and laparoscopic groups. The medical records of 100 patients (≤17 years old) who underwent ABO-compatible LDLT using a left lateral liver graft between May 2008 and June 2016 were analyzed. A total of 31 donors who underwent pure laparoscopic hepatectomy and their corresponding recipients were included in the study; 69 patients who underwent open living donor hepatectomy during the same period were included as a comparison group. To overcome bias from the different distributions of covariables among the patients in the 2 study groups, a 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was performed. The mean follow-up periods were 92.9 and 92.7 months in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively. The mean postoperative hospital stay of the donors was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (8.1 days) than in the open group (10.6 days; P < 0.001). Overall, the surgical complications in the donors and overall survival rate of recipients did not differ between the groups. Our data suggest that the laparoscopic environment was not associated with long-term graft survival during pediatric LDLT. In addition, the laparoscopic approach for the donors did not adversely affect the corresponding recipient's outcome. Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy for living donors is a safe, feasible, and reproducible procedure for pediatric liver transplantation.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy for adult liver transplantation: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) was a controversial topic due to its unknown safety and feasibility.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing LDRH with open living donor right hepatectomy (ODRH), which were published between the date of database establishment and June 2020. Revman5.3 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included. For the donors, there was no significant difference in warm ischemic time, hospital stay, graft weight, hepatic arterial anomalies (HAA), hepatic vein anomalies (HVA), portal vein anomalies (PVA), biliary anomalies, bleeding, wound infection, severe complication rate and readmission rate. The estimated blood loss, incidence of complication, intra-abdominal fluid rate in the LDRH group were significantly lower than those in the ODRH group, while the operation time, time to remove liver in the LDRH group were significantly higher than those in the ODRH group. For the recipients, there was no significant difference in complication rate, bleeding, HAA, PVA, biliary anomalies, graft failure and mortality. The HVA rate in the LDRH group was significantly higher than that in the ODRH group.

CONCLUSION

LDRH is safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared with ODRH and it can reduce intraoperative bleeding and postoperative complication in donors, which requires further verification by more multi-center comparative studies with large sample and high quality.

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.

Pure Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy: A Multicenter Experience

According to recent international consensus conferences, pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH), particularly right and left hepatectomies, is not yet considered a standard practice because studies remain limited. Thus, we present the outcomes of more than 500 PLDH patients, mostly receiving a right hepatectomy. To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date on PLDH. Data from all living liver donors who underwent PLDH at 5 centers in Korea until June 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The outcomes of both donors and recipients were included. Pearson correlation analysis was used to explore the relationship between the duration of surgery and cumulative experience at each center, which reflects the learning curve. Overall, 545 PLDH cases were analyzed, including 481 right hepatectomies, 25 left hepatectomies, and 39 left lateral sectionectomies (LLS). The open conversion was necessary for 10 (1.8%) donors, and none of the donors died or experienced irreversible disability. Notably, there were 25 (4.6%) patients with major complications (higher than Clavien-Dindo grade 3). All centers except one showed a significant decrease in surgery duration as the number of cases accumulated. Regarding recipient outcomes, there were 110 cases (20.2%) of early major complications and 177 cases (32.5%) of late major complications. This study shows the early and late postoperative outcomes of 545 donors and corresponding recipients, including 481 right hepatectomies and 25 left hepatectomies, from 5 experienced centers. Although the results are comparable to those of previously reported open donor hepatectomy series, further studies are needed to consider PLDH a new standard practice.

Unification venoplasty of the outflow hepatic vein for laparoscopically harvested left liver grafts in pediatric living donor liver transplantation

Laparoscopically harvested left liver (LL) grafts have drawbacks with respect to the size and shape of graft hepatic vein orifices. We present two cases of pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using laparoscopically harvested LL grafts and describe refined surgical techniques for graft hepatic vein venoplasty. The first case was a boy aged 4 years and 5 months, with hepatoblastoma. The donor was his 35-year-old mother, and LL graft weighed 315 g. Two separate openings of the graft at the left hepatic vein (LHV) and middle hepatic vein (MHV) were unified through septotomy and septoplasty, and cryopreserved vein homograft patch was attached. Standard procedures of LDLT were performed. This patient recovered uneventfully and has been doing well for 4 years without tumor recurrence. The second case was a 6-year-old girl with ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency. The donor was her 35-year-old mother, and the LL graft weighed 310 g. Two separate openings of graft MHV, with segment III and segment II veins, were unified through septoplasty, and vein patch was attached. Standard procedures of LDLT were performed. This patient has been doing well for 4 years. In conclusion, separate graft hepatic vein openings are a drawback of laparoscopically harvested LL grafts, which thus require unification venoplasty of customized design individually tailored for LL graft and pediatric recipient.

Clinical application of accelerated rehabilitation surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal malignant tumors are the most common malignant tumors in elderly people in China, resulting in an increasing trend of morbidity and mortality. We conducted a non-randomized controlled trial to compare the effect of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) versus Routine care on clinical outcomes in elderly patients after colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

This is a single center, non-random, parallel-controlled clinical trial, 60 patients aged ≥65 years will be randomized for Case group ERAS and Control group (routine care).

RESULTS

This study will help to evaluate the clinical feasibility, safety and effectiveness of ERAS in elderly patients undergoing colorectal resection compared with routine care.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2000034984.

Graft outflow vein venoplasty for a laparoscopically harvested left lateral section graft in pediatric living donor liver transplantation

Laparoscopically harvested left lateral section (LLS) grafts have drawbacks regarding the size of the graft left hepatic vein (LHV) orifice although they have the merit of cosmetics concerning the donor’s wound. We present a case of pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using a laparoscopically harvested LLS graft and describe the refined surgical techniques for graft LHV venoplasty with a circumferential vein patch. The patient was a 46-month-old boy with marked growth retardation who was diagnosed with progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis type 2. The donor was his 25-year-old mother. The LLS graft weighed 285 g. A circumferential patch of external iliac vein homograft was attached to the graft LHV orifice after incisions were made at the medial wall of the LHV trunk and superficial LHV branch, which made the graft LHV orifice much larger. The recipient’s hepatic vein orifice was also enlarged by unifying the three hepatic vein orifices. Other surgical procedures followed the standard LDLT operation. This patient recovered uneventfully and has been doing well for 1 year. In conclusion, our incision-and-patch venoplasty to enlarge the graft outflow vein orifice was beneficial for reducing the risk of hepatic vein outflow obstruction in LDLT using a laparoscopically harvested LLS graft.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection: A South American Experience with 2887 Cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) have been increasingly performed in recent years. Most of the available evidence, however, comes from specialized centers in Asia, Europe and USA. Data from South America are limited and based on single-center experiences. To date, no multicenter studies evaluated the results of LLR in South America. The aim of this study was to evaluate the experience and results with LLR in South American centers.

METHODS

From February to November 2019, a survey about LLR was conducted in 61 hepatobiliary centers in South America, composed by 20 questions concerning demographic characteristics, surgical data, and perioperative results.

RESULTS

Fifty-one (83.6%) centers from seven different countries answered the survey. A total of 2887 LLR were performed, as follows: Argentina (928), Brazil (1326), Chile (322), Colombia (210), Paraguay (9), Peru (75), and Uruguay (8). The first program began in 1997; however, the majority (60.7%) started after 2010. The percentage of LLR over open resections was 28.4% (4.4-84%). Of the total, 76.5% were minor hepatectomies and 23.5% major, including 266 right hepatectomies and 343 left hepatectomies. The conversion rate was 9.7%, overall morbidity 13%, and mortality 0.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study assessing the dissemination and results of LLR in South America. It showed an increasing number of centers performing LLR with the promising perioperative results, aligned with other worldwide excellence centers.

Influence of Body Mass Index ≥30 on Pure Laparoscopic Donor Right Hepatectomy

Background

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) for donors with obesity has not been previously investigated. This study aimed to investigate the influence of donor obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) on and clinical outcomes after PLDRH.

Material/Methods

Records of all living donors who underwent PLDRH between November 2015 and May 2018 and open conventional donor right hepatectomy (CDRH) between January 2011 and October 2015 at Seoul National University Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. The donors were divided into 3 groups: PLDRH BMI ≥30, PLDRH BMI <30, and CDRH BMI ≥30.

Results

Donors in the PLDRH BMI ≥30 group (n=7) were compared with those in the PLDRH BMI <30 (n=65; control 1) and CDRH BMI ≥30 (n=8; control 2) groups. Graft weight was significantly heavier in PLDRH BMI ≥30 than in control 1 (P=0.012). The lowest hemoglobin (Hb) value was higher (P=0.014) and ΔHb% was lower (P=0.005) in PLDRH BMI ≥30 than in control 1. Similarly, the lowest Hb value was higher (P=0.021) and ΔHb% was lower (P<0.001) in PLDRH BMI ≥30 than in control 2. The peak alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (P=0.029) and ΔALT% were higher in PLDRH BMI ≥30 than in control 2. No significant differences in hospital stay and postoperative complications were found between PLDRH BMI ≥3 and control 1, as well as between PLDRH BMI ≥3 and control 2.

Conclusions

This study revealed that PLDRH is feasible in donors with obesity.

Learning Curve Under Proctorship of Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Left Lateral Sectionectomy for Pediatric Transplantation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the learning curve of an expert liver transplantation surgeon approaching fully laparoscopic living donor left lateral sectionectomy (L-LLS) under proctorship.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resections necessitate a long learning curve trough a stepwise fulfillment of difficulties. L-LLS requires expertise in both living donor liver transplantation and advanced laparoscopic liver surgery. There is currently no data about the learning curve of L-LLS.

METHODS

A total of 72 pure L-LLS were included in this study. A Broken line model was used to identify the periods of the learning curve. A CUSUM analysis of the operative time was performed to evaluate improvements of outcomes with time. To evaluate the relationship between operative time and progressive number of procedures, a linear regression model was applied. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was carried out to identify the cutoff for completion of the learning curve.

RESULTS

Operative time decreased with the progressive increase of procedures. Two cutoffs and 3 different periods were identified: cases 1 to 22, cases 23 to 55, and cases 56 to 72. A significant decrease in blood loss and operative time was noted. The CUSUM analysis showed an increase in operative time in the first period, a stable duration in the second period, and a decrease in the last. Blood loss was significantly associated with an increase in operative time (P = 0.003). According to the ROC curve, the learning curve was completed after 25 procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

L-LLS is a safe procedure that can be standardized and successfully taught to surgeons with large experience in donor hepatectomy through a proctored learning curve.

Laparoscopic left lateral section procurement in living liver donors: A single center propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic living donor liver procurement for transplantation has increased in popularity over the past decade. The purpose of this study was to compare the laparoscopic and open approaches in living donor left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) and to assess the safety and feasibility of this laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

A total of 103 living donor LLSs were performed at our center from May 2016 to December 2017. Of these, 35 were completely laparoscopic procedures, which represented the subject of this study. An additional 68 open living donor LLSs performed during the same period were studied as a comparison group. To overcome selection bias, LLS donors were balanced on a 1:1 ratio (laparoscopic [n = 35]: open [n = 35]) according to covariates with similar values. The PSM was based on the operation date, recipient age, diagnosis, recipient weight, and donor age.

RESULTS

There were significant differences between the laparoscopic and open LLS groups (P < 0.001) in terms of blood loss (96.8 ± 16.5 vs 155.8 ± 17.8 mL) as well as the duration of hospital stay (4 ± 0.4 vs 6.9 ± 0.5 days).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic LLS is a feasible and efficacious in the setting of a developed program with advanced laparoscopic expertise.

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.

Initial experience with purely laparoscopic living-donor right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

There may be concerns about purely laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) compared with open donor right hepatectomy, especially when performed by surgeons accustomed to open surgery. This study aimed to describe technical tips and pitfalls in PLDRH.

METHODS

Data from donors who underwent PLDRH at Seoul National University Hospital between December 2015 and July 2017 were analysed retrospectively. Endpoints analysed included intraoperative events and postoperative complications. All operations were performed by a single surgeon with considerable experience in open living donor hepatectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 26 donors underwent purely laparoscopic right hepatectomy in the study interval. No donor required transfusion during surgery, whereas two underwent reoperation. In two donors, the dissection plane at the right upper deep portion of the midplane was not correct. One donor experienced portal vein injury during caudate lobe transection, and one developed remnant left hepatic duct stenosis. One donor experienced remnant portal vein angulation owing to a different approach angle, and one experienced arterial damage associated with the use of a laparoscopic energy device. One donor had postoperative bleeding due to masking of potential bleeding foci owing to intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopy. Two donors experienced right liver surface damage caused by a xiphoid trocar.

CONCLUSION

Purely laparoscopic donor hepatectomy differs from open donor hepatectomy in terms of angle and caudal view. Therefore, surgeons experienced in open donor hepatectomy must gain adequate experience in laparoscopic liver surgery and make adjustments when performing PLDRH.

Pure laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy: Focus on 55 donors undergoing right hepatectomy

Although laparoscopic donor hepatectomy is increasingly common, few centers with substantial experience have reported the results of pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH). Here, we report the experiences of 60 consecutive liver donors undergoing pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH), with most undergoing right hepatectomy. None of the 60 donors who underwent PLDH had intraoperative complications and none required transfusions, reoperation, or conversion to open hepatectomy. Forty-five donors who underwent PLDRH between November 2015 and December 2016 were compared with 42 who underwent conventional donor right hepatectomy (CDRH) between May 2013 and February 2014. The total operation time was longer (330.7 vs 280.0 minutes; P < .001) and the percentage with multiple bile duct openings was higher (53.3% vs 26.2%; P = .010) in the PLDRH group. However, the length of postoperative hospital stay (8.4 vs 8.2 days; P = .495) and rate of complications (11.9% vs 8.9%; P = .733) and re-hospitalizations (4.8% vs 4.4%; P = 1.000) were similar in both groups. PLDH, including PLDRH, is feasible when performed by a highly experienced surgeon and transplant team. Further evaluation, including long-term results, may support these preliminary findings of comparative outcomes for donors undergoing PLDRH and CDRH.

Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Left Lateral Sectionectomy: Analysis of Surgical Outcomes and Costs by a Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

After comparing with open approach, left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) has become standard in terms of short-term outcomes without jeopardizing long-term survival when performed for malignancy. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term and economic outcomes of laparoscopic (L-LLS) and robotic (R-LLS) LLS.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent L-LLS or R-LLS from 1997 to 2014 were analyzed. Short-term and economic outcomes were compared between the two groups using a propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Ninety-six consecutive cases of LLS were performed using the laparoscopic (80 cases; 83 %) or robotic (16 cases; 17 %) approach. The two groups were similar for operative and surgical outcomes. Operation time was similar in the R-LLS compared to the L-LLS group (190 vs. 162 min; p = 0.10). Perioperative costs were higher (1457 € vs. 576 €; p < 0.0001) in the R-LLS group than in the L-LLS group; however, postoperative costs were similar between the two groups (4065 € in the R-LLS group vs. 5459 € in the L-LLS group; p = 0.30). Total costs were similar between the two groups (5522 € in the R-LLS group vs. 6035€ in the L-LLS group; p = 0.70). The PSM included 14 patients for each group. Surgical and economic outcomes remained similar after PSM, except for total operating time which was significantly longer in the R-LLS group than in the L-LLS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Even if feasible and safe, the robotic approach does not seem so far to offer additional benefit in terms of intra- and postoperative outcomes over the laparoscopic approach in patients requiring LLS. Total costs associated with the R-LLS group are not greater than that associated with the L-LLS group, which is the standard of care so far.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Liver Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal pathway developed to overcome the deleterious effect of perioperative stress after major surgery. In colorectal surgery, ERAS pathways reduced perioperative morbidity, hospital stay and costs. Similar concept should be applied for liver surgery. This study presents the specific ERAS Society recommendations for liver surgery based on the best available evidence and on expert consensus.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed on ERAS for liver surgery by searching EMBASE and Medline. Five independent reviewers selected relevant articles. Quality of randomized trials was assessed according to the Jadad score and CONSORT statement. The level of evidence for each item was determined using the GRADE system. The Delphi method was used to validate the final recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 157 full texts were screened. Thirty-seven articles were included in the systematic review, and 16 of the 23 standard ERAS items were studied specifically for liver surgery. Consensus was reached among experts after 3 rounds. Prophylactic nasogastric intubation and prophylactic abdominal drainage should be omitted. The use of postoperative oral laxatives and minimally invasive surgery results in a quicker bowel recovery and shorter hospital stay. Goal-directed fluid therapy with maintenance of a low intraoperative central venous pressure induces faster recovery. Early oral intake and mobilization are recommended. There is no evidence to prefer epidural to other types of analgesia.

CONCLUSIONS

The current ERAS recommendations were elaborated based on the best available evidence and endorsed by the Delphi method. Nevertheless, prospective studies need to confirm the clinical use of the suggested protocol.

Effectiveness and safety of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver neoplasms: A meta-analysis of retrospective studies

This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of RAH and LLR for liver neoplasms. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, Web of science, and China Biology Medicine disc up to July 2016 for studies that provided comparisons between the surgical outcomes of RAH and LLR for liver neoplasms. WMD, OR and 95% CI were calculated and data combined using the random-effect model. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. A total of 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis, in which 487 patients were in the RAH group and 902 patients were in the LLR group. The meta-analysis results indicated: compared to LLR, RAH was associated with more estimated blood loss, longer operative time, and longer time to first nutritional intake (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay, conversion rate during operation, R0 resection rate, complications and mortality (p > 0.05). Three studies reported the total cost, and the result showed a higher cost in the RAH group when compared with the LLR group (p < 0.05). This meta-analysis indicated that RAH and LLR display similar effectiveness and safety in hepatectomy. Considering the lack of high quality original studies, prospective clinical trials should be conducted to provide strong evidence for clinical guidelines formation, and the insurance coverage policies should be established to promote the application of robotic surgery in the future.

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.

Development Process and Technical Aspects of Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: Learning Curve Based on 15 Years of Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy continues to be a challenging operation associated with a steep learning curve. This study aimed to evaluate the learning process during 15 years of experience with laparoscopic hepatectomy and to identify approaches to standardization of this procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospectively collected data of 317 consecutive laparoscopic hepatectomies performed from January 2000 to December 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. The operative procedures were classified into 4 categories (minor hepatectomy, left lateral sectionectomy [LLS], left hepatectomy, and right hepatectomy), and indications were classified into 5 categories (benign-borderline tumor, living donor, metastatic liver tumor, biliary malignancy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).

RESULTS

During the first 10 years, the procedures were limited mainly to minor hepatectomy and LLS, and the indications were limited to benign-borderline tumor and living donor. Implementation of major hepatectomy rapidly increased the proportion of malignant tumors, especially hepatocellular carcinoma, starting from 2011. Conversion rates decreased with experience for LLS (13.3% vs 3.4%; p = 0.054) and left hepatectomy (50.0% vs 15.0%; p = 0.012), but not for right hepatectomy (41.4% vs 35.7%; p = 0.661).

CONCLUSIONS

Our 15-year experience clearly demonstrates the stepwise procedural evolution from LLS through left hepatectomy to right hepatectomy, as well as the trend in indications from benign-borderline tumor/living donor to malignant tumors. In contrast to LLS and left hepatectomy, a learning curve was not observed for right hepatectomy. The ongoing development process can contribute to faster standardization necessary for future advances in laparoscopic hepatectomy.