World Survey on Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy: A Global Snapshot of Current Practices in 2370 Cases

Trends of liver transplantation in Asia

Liver transplantation (LT) in Asia started comparatively early in 1964, just 1 year after Starzl's trail-blazing first attempt. Despite the quick start, LT was slow to develop in this region. Limited access to universal healthcare, lack of public understanding and support as well as the absence of strong legislation, on a backdrop of a wide range of diverse social, religious, economic and cultural background are all contributory factors. Through strong administrative efforts, the number of DDLTs in selected Asian countries has been slowly rising in recent years. However, Asians are generally still less likely to donate organs than Caucasians after death. The strong demand for LT with limited access to deceased organs has, therefore, led to constant need for innovation in LT this region, with the pioneering of various LDLT techniques and safe expansion of donor pool being driven primarily by Asian centers. Familiarity and the development of technical expertise in donor surgery have also resulted in Asian centers repeatedly pushing the boundaries on minimally invasive donor and recipient surgery. In this article, we focus on the past and present states of LT in Asia and explore the future trends of LT in this region.

Robotic and laparoscopic right lobe living donation compared to the open approach: A multicenter study on 1194 donor hepatectomies

Due to the success of minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive donor hepatectomies (MIDH) are increasingly performed worldwide. We conducted a retrospective, multicentre, propensity score-matched analysis on right lobe MIDH by comparing the robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches to assess the feasibility, safety, and early outcomes of MIDHs. From January 2016 until December 2020, 1194 donors underwent a right donor hepatectomy performed with a robotic (n = 92), laparoscopic (n = 306), and open approach (n = 796) at 6 high-volume centers. Donor and recipients were matched for different variables using propensity score matching (1:1:2). Donor outcomes were recorded, and postoperative pain was measured through a visual analog scale. Recipients' outcomes were also analyzed. Ninety-two donors undergoing robotic surgery were matched and compared to 92 and 184 donors undergoing laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. Conversions to open surgery occurred during 1 (1.1%) robotic and 2 (2.2%) laparoscopic procedures. Robotic procedures had a longer operative time (493 ± 96 min) compared to laparoscopic and open procedures (347 ± 120 and 358 ± 95 min; p < 0.001) but were associated with reduced donor blood losses ( p < 0.001). No differences were observed in overall and major complications (≥ IIIa). Robotic hepatectomy donors had significantly less pain compared to the 2 other groups ( p < 0.001). Fifty recipients of robotic-procured grafts were matched to 50 and 100 recipients of laparoscopic and open surgery procured grafts, respectively. No differences were observed in terms of postoperative complications, and recipients' survival was similar ( p =0.455). In very few high-volume centers, robotic right lobe procurement has shown to be a safe procedure. Despite an increased operative and the first warm ischemia times, this approach is associated with reduced intraoperative blood losses and pain compared to the laparoscopic and open approaches. Further data are needed to confirm it as a valuable option for the laparoscopic approach in MIDH.

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.

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

The value of minimally invasive approaches for living donor hepatectomy remains unclear. Our aim was to compare the donor outcomes after open versus laparoscopy-assisted versus pure laparoscopic versus robotic living donor hepatectomy (OLDH vs. LALDH vs. PLLDH vs. RLDH). A systematic literature review of the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement (up to December 8, 2021). Random-effects meta-analyses were performed separately for minor and major living donor hepatectomy. The risk of bias in nonrandomized studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A total of 31 studies were included. There was no difference in donor outcomes after OLDH versus LALDH for major hepatectomy. However, PLLDH was associated with decreased estimated blood loss, length of stay (LOS), and overall complications versus OLDH for minor and major hepatectomy, but also with increased operative time for major hepatectomy. PLLDH was associated with decreased LOS versus LALDH for major hepatectomy. RLDH was associated with decreased LOS but with increased operative time versus OLDH for major hepatectomy. The scarcity of studies comparing RLDH versus LALDH/PLLDH did not allow us to meta-analyze donor outcomes for that comparison. There seems to be a marginal benefit in estimated blood loss and/or LOS in favor of PLLDH and RLDH. The complexity of these procedures limits them to transplant centers with high volume and experience. Future studies should investigate self-reported donor experience and the associated economic costs of these approaches.

Pure Laparoscopic Donor Right Hepatectomy for Rare Non-Bifurcation Portal Vein Variation Donor and Reconstruction Technique

BACKGROUND

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) is a technical demanding procedure, and many centers have strict selection criteria especially an anatomical variation. Portal vein variation is considered as a contra-indication for this procedure in most centers. We presented a case of PLDRH in donor who had rare non-bifurcation portal vain variation. The donor was 45-year-old female. Pre-operative imaging showed a rare non-bifurcation portal vain variation. The procedure was following the routine step of laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy except the hilar dissection phase. All portal branches should not be dissected before division of bile duct to prevent vascular injury. Regarding bench surgery, all portal branches were reconstructed together. Finally, the explanted portal vein bifurcation was used to reconstruct all portal vein branches as a single orifice. The liver graft was successfully transplanted. The graft was well functioned, and all portal branches were patented.

CONCLUSION

This technique facilitated identification and safely divided all portal branches. PLDRH in donor with this rare portal vein variation can be performed safely by a highly experienced team and good reconstruction technique. Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) is a technical demanding procedure, and many centers have strict selection criteria especially an anatomical variation. Portal vein variation is considered as a contra-indication for this procedure in most centers. Lapisatepun and colleagues report PLDRH in rare non-bifurcation portal vein variation, and reconstruction technique was scanty reported.

Safely Implementing a Program of Pure Laparoscopic Donor Right Hepatectomy: The Experience From a Southeast Asian Center

Laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) is a technically challenging procedure. There is increasing evidence demonstrating the safety of LDRH in high-volume expert centers. We report our center's experience in implementing an LDRH program in a small- to medium-sized transplantation program.

Methods

Our center systematically introduced a laparoscopic hepatectomy program in 2006. We started with minor wedge resections followed by major hepatectomies with increasing complexities. In 2017, we performed our first laparoscopic living donor left lateral sectionectomy. Since 2018, we have performed 8 cases of right lobe living donor hepatectomy (laparoscopy-assisted: 4 and pure laparoscopic: 4).

Results

The median operative time was 418 (298-540) min, whereas the median blood loss was 300 (150-900) mL. Two patients (25%) had surgical drain placed intraoperatively. The median length of stay was 5 (3-8) d, and the median time to return to work was 55 (24-90) d. None of the donors sustained any long-term morbidity or mortality.

Conclusions

Small- to medium-sized transplant programs face unique challenges in adopting LDRH. Progressive introduction of complex laparoscopic surgery, a mature living donor liver transplantation program, appropriate patient selection, and the invitation of an expert to proctor the LDRH are necessary to ensure success.

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.

Extrahepatic approach for taping the common trunk of the middle and left hepatic veins or the left hepatic vein alone in laparoscopic hepatectomy (with videos)

BACKGROUND

Outflow control is difficult, and techniques required for effectively handling intraoperative hemorrhage during laparoscopic hepatectomy have not previously been adequately reported.

METHODS

Sixteen patients underwent surgery, of which 15 underwent laparoscopic left hepatectomy and one underwent laparoscopic partial hepatectomy of the caudate lobe. Encircling and taping of the common trunk of the middle (MHV) and left hepatic veins (LHV) was performed in 12 patients, and that of the LHV alone in four patients. Surgical techniques based on anatomical landmarks and histological findings are presented with videos. Histological confirmation of the anatomical landmarks for these procedures was performed in fresh cadavers to understand the anatomical structures and layers involved.

RESULTS

The median procedure duration was 15 (6-25) minutes. All procedures were performed safely with no major bleeding. Histological findings showed fibrous connective tissue between the tunica adventitia of the inferior vena cava (IVC) and the Laennec's capsule of the liver. The layer of dissection was along the tunica adventitia of the IVC.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical techniques for encircling and taping of the common trunk of the MHV and LHV and the LHV alone based on anatomical landmarks were feasible and could allow for efficient outflow control in laparoscopic hepatectomy.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of outcomes after open, mini-laparotomy, hybrid, totally laparoscopic, and robotic living donor right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes after living donor right hepatectomy via the following techniques: conventional open (Open), mini-laparotomy (Minilap), hybrid (Hybrid), totally laparoscopic (Lap), and robotic living donor right hepatectomy (Robotic).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched from inception to August 2021 for comparative studies of patients who underwent living donor right hepatectomy.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies comprising 2,261 patients were included. Operation time was longer in Lap versus Minilap and Open (mean difference 65.09 min, 95% confidence interval 3.40-126.78 and mean difference 34.81 minutes, 95% confidence interval 1.84-67.78), and in Robotic versus Hybrid, Lap, Minilap, and Open (mean difference 144.72 minutes, 95% confidence interval 89.84-199.59, mean difference 113.24 minutes, 95% confidence interval 53.28-173.20, mean difference 178.33 minutes, 95% confidence interval 105.58-251.08 and mean difference 148.05 minutes, 95% confidence interval 97.35-198.74, respectively). Minilap and Open were associated with higher blood loss compared to Lap (mean difference 258.67 mL, 95% confidence interval 107.00-410.33 and mean difference 314.11 mL, 95% confidence interval 143.84-484.37) and Robotic (mean difference 205.60 mL, 95% confidence interval 45.92-365.28 and mean difference 261.04 mL, 95% confidence interval 84.26-437.82). Open was associated with more overall complications compared to Minilap (odds ratio 2.60, 95% confidence interval 1.11-6.08). Recipient biliary complication rate was higher in Minilap and Open versus Hybrid (odds ratio 3.91, 95% confidence interval 1.13-13.55 and odds ratio 11.42, 95% confidence interval 2.27-57.49), and lower in Open versus Minilap (OR 0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.34).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive donor right hepatectomy via the various techniques is safe and feasible when performed in high-volume centers, with no major differences in donor complication rates and comparable recipient outcomes once surgeons have mounted the learning curve.

Extended criteria donors for Robotic Right Hepatectomy- A Propensity Score matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic right donor hepatectomy (RDH) has been reported from experienced centers with reduced morbidity when compared to open RDH. However, outcomes in donors with large grafts/ complex biliovascular anatomy are unknown.

METHODS

Out of 170 robotic RDH, 100 had one or more of the following: graft weight ≥ 800gms, type 2/3 portal vein, >1 bile duct or hepatic artery and inferior hepatic veins >5mm requiring reconstruction (extended criteria donors- ExRDH), while the remaining 70 had standard anatomy (SRDH). After propensity score matching, 66 ExRDH were compared with 66 SRDH. Additionally, all robotic RDH performed were analysed in 3 temporal phases (60, 60 and 50).

RESULTS

Peak AST and ALT were higher among donors and recipients in the ExRDH arm compared to SRDH. Other intraoperative parameters and post-operative complications were similar between the two groups. During the last phase, donors demonstrated reduction in duration of surgery, postoperative complications and hospital stay while recipients showed decreased blood loss and hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Robotic right hepatectomy performed in donors with extended criteria have similar perioperative outcomes as standard donors. However, a significant learning curve needs to be traversed. Further studies are required before safely recommending robotic RDH for all donors.

Robotic donor hepatectomy: Are we there yet?

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) the safety of the live donor (LD) is of paramount importance. Despite all efforts, the morbidity rates approach 25%-40% with conventional open donor hepatectomy (DH) operations. However, most of these complications are related to the operative wound and despite increased self- esteem and satisfaction in various quality of life analyses on LD, the most common grievance is that of the scar. Performing safe and precise DH through a conventional laparoscopic approach is a formidable task with a precipitous learning curve for the whole team. Due to the ramifications the donor operation carries for the donor, the recipient, the transplant team and for the LDLT program in general, the development and acceptance of minimally invasive DH (MIDH) has been slow. The robotic surgical system overcomes the reduced visualization, restricted range of motion and physiological tremor associated with laparoscopic surgery and allows for a comparatively easier transition from technical feasibility to reproducibility. However, many questions especially with regards to standardization of surgical technique, comparison of outcomes, understanding of the learning curve, etc. remain unanswered. The aim of this review is to provide insights into the evolution of MIDH and highlight the current status of robotic DH, appreciating the existing challenges and its future role.