Totally laparoscopic right-lobe hepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation: useful strategies to enhance safety

Mini-incision Right Hepatectomy for Living Donor Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

The application of a minimally invasive technique to graft procurement in living donor liver transplantation has minimized skin incisions and led to early recovery in donor hepatectomy while ensuring donor safety. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of mini-incision living donor right hepatectomy compared with conventional open surgery.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 448 consecutive living donors who underwent living donor right hepatectomy performed by a single surgeon between January 2015 and December 2019. According to the incision type, the donors were divided into 2 groups: a right subcostal mini-incision group (M group: n = 187) and a conventional J-shaped incision group (C group: n = 261). A propensity score matching analysis was conducted to overcome bias.

RESULTS

The estimated graft volume and measured graft weight were significantly lower in the M group ( P = 0.000). The total of 17 (3.8%) postoperative complications were identified. The readmission rate and overall postoperative complication rate of donors was not significantly different between the groups. The biliary complication rates in the recipients were 12.6% and 8.6% in the C group and M group, respectively ( P = 0.219). Hepatic artery thrombosis requiring revision developed in 2 patients (0.8%) in the C group and 7 patients (3.7%) in the M group ( P = 0.038). After propensity score matching, these complications were not significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-incision living donor right hepatectomy shows comparable biliary complications to open surgery and is considered a safe and feasible operative technique.

Robotic surgery and liver transplantation: A single-center experience of 501 robotic donor hepatectomies

BACKGROUND

Over the past two decades robotic surgery has been introduced to many areas including liver surgery. Laparoscopic liver surgery is an alternative minimally invasive approach. However, moving on to the complexity of living donor hepatectomies, the advantages of robotic versus laparoscopic approach have convinced us to establish the robotic platform as a standard for living donor hepatectomy.

METHODS

From November 2018 to January 2022, 501 fully robotic donor hepatectomies, including 177 left lateral donor lobes, 112 full left lobes and 212 full right lobes were performed. Grafts were donated to 296 adult recipients and 205 pediatric recipients. Donor age, sex, body weight, body mass index (BMI), graft weight, graft to body weight ratio (GBWR), operative time, blood loss, first warm ischemic time, pain score, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and hospital stay, and complications were retrospectively analyzed based on a prospectively kept database. Recipients were evaluated for graft and patient survival, age, sex, BMI, body weight, model of end-stage liver disease score, blood loss, transfusions, operative time, cold ischemic time, length of hospital stay and complications.

RESULTS

There was no donor mortality. Two cases needed to be converted to open surgery. The median blood loss was 60 mL (range 20-800), median donor operative time was 6.77 h (range 2.93-11.53), median length of hospital stay was 4 days (range 2-22). Complication rate in donors classified following Clavien-Dindo was 6.4% (n = 32) with one grade III complication. Three-year actual recipient overall survival was 91.4%; 87.5% for adult recipients and 97.1% for pediatric recipients. Three-year actual graft overall survival was 90.6%; 87.5% for adult recipients and 95.1% for pediatric recipients. In-hospital mortality was 6%, 9.1% (27/296) for adult recipients and 1.4% (3/205) for pediatric recipients. The recipients' morbidity was 19.8% (n = 99). Twenty-eight recipients (5.6%) had biliary and 22 (4.4%) vascular complications. Six (12.0%) recipients needed to be re-transplanted.

CONCLUSIONS

With growing experience it is nowadays possible to perform any donor hepatectomy by robotic approach regardless of anatomical variations and graft size. Donor morbidity and quality for life results are encouraging and should motivate other transplant centers with interest in minimally invasive donor surgery to adopt this robotic technique.

Hepatic and portal vein transection by vascular stapler in open living donor hepatectomy – A retrospective cohort study

Background

In an effort to increase donor safety in living donor liver transplantation, the utilization of vascular staplers for the division of the right portal and hepatic veins in patients undergoing right lobe liver donation for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was implemented. In here we report our experience with vascular staplers in patients undergoing LDLT and evaluate the subsequent feasibility and safety for donors.

Material and methods

17 cases of living donor liver transplant were retrospectively analyzed. The right portal vein was transected directly at the bifurcation of the main portal vein, the right hepatic vein was resected directly at the wall of the inferior vena cava using a vascular stapler device.

Results

We registered a complication rate of 41.2% (7 donors). According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, grade II and grade III complications were each observed in 5.9% and grade IIIb complications in 29.4%, whereas catastrophic bleeding, complications with residual disability or the necessity of re-laparatomy did not occur. Upon 6 weeks, all donors were able to return to their previous occupation in fully recovered condition.

Conclusions

The utilization of vascular staplers in donors during open LDLT presents an encouraging alternative to manual over-sewing of vascular stumps. Apart from its timesaving aspect, the technique reduces the potential risk of life-threatening clamp slippage with subsequent uncontrolled blood loss.

•

Portal or hepatic vein injuries are severe complications in liver transplant.

•

Vascular staplers were used in an effort to increase donor safety.

•

Hepatic or portal vein injuries or bleeding did not occur when using staplers.

•

Vascular staplers may be a safe alternative to manual vascular sewing.

•

Their use may be timesaving and reduce the risk of clamp slippage.

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

BACKGROUND

Having little evidence on the real extent of the minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH), a world survey was conducted aiming to picture the spread of MIDH and to identify geographical, institutional, and individual differences.

METHODS

A web-based survey was created with 5 sections (general, institutional, surgeon's experience, technical, and spread and dissemination), comprising up to a total of 47 questions. A thorough search was carried out to identify all possible centers and surgeons performing MIDH.

RESULTS

A global MIDH experience of 2370 cases was collected: 1587 right hepatectomies (RHs; 48.9% pure laparoscopic), 471 left lateral sectionectomies (LLS; 81.1% pure laparoscopic), and 366 left hepatectomies (LHs; 77.6% laparoscopic-assisted). LLS and adult MIDH conversion rates were 5.4% and 3.9%, respectively. Median blood loss was 250 mL (100-600), 100 mL (50-250), and 150 mL (50-500) for RH, LLS, and LH, respectively. Intra- and postoperative transfusion rates were 0.5%, 0%, and 0.3%; and 1.3%, 1.6%, and 0% for RH, LLS, and LH, respectively. Geographically, Asia accounts up to 1730 cases (73% of the global experience, 49.6% pure lap), of which 1374 cases are RH; Europe and Middle East-395 cases-stands out for its experience in left lateral sectionectomy: 289 cases (93% pure lap). Finally, America accounts for 245 cases, using a laparoscopic-assisted technique in 72.6% of the cases (178).

CONCLUSIONS

This world survey provides evidence and data on the global spread of MIDH and anticipates how in a near future a large-scale adoption of these techniques may be observed.

Pure laparoscopic versus open right donor hepatectomy including the middle hepatic vein: a comparison of outcomes and safety

Purpose

Analyses on pure laparoscopy in donor hepatectomies, including the middle hepatic vein (MHV), are still scarce. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of donor right hepatectomy, including the MHV, when performed laparoscopically with conventional open surgery.

Methods

Data from living donors who underwent donor right hepatectomy between January 2012 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The intraoperative and postoperative complication rates of the pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) with MHV inclusion (PLDRHM) group were compared with the conventional open donor right hepatectomy with MHV inclusion (CDRHM) group and the PLDRH without MHV inclusion [PLDRHM(–)] group.

Results

Compared to the CDRHM group, the PLDRHM group had a longer bench time (P < 0.001) and higher Δ%, calculated as [(preoperative value – postoperative value)/preoperative value] × 100, of AST (P < 0.001), ALT (P < 0.001), and total bilirubin (P = 0.023), but shorter hospital stay (P = 0.004) and a lower rate of complications (P = 0.005). Compared to the PLDRHM(–) group, the PLDRHM group had fewer male donors (P < 0.001) and a lower body mass index (P < 0.001), estimated total liver volume (P < 0.001), and real graft weight (P < 0.001). Results of laboratory changes, hospital stays, and complication rates were similar between the 2 groups.

Conclusion

PLDRH with the inclusion of the MHV in selected donors and recipients is feasible and safe when performed by surgeons experienced in laparoscopic surgery, with favorable complication rates compared to CDRHM and PLDRHM(–).

Laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy: Review of its current status

The laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy procedure has been developing rapidly. Although its use has increased worldwide, it is still only performed by experienced surgeons at a limited number of institutions. However, technical innovations have improved the feasibility of more widespread use of laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy. The advantages of laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy should not be overemphasized, and the fundamental principle of "living-donor safety first" cannot be neglected. This review aims to summarize the current status of laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy and to emphasize that, while this procedure may soon be used as a reliable, donor-friendly substitute for traditional open donor hepatectomy, its safety and efficacy require further substantiation first.

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.

Laparoscopic major liver resections: Current standards

Laparoscopic liver resection was slow to be adopted in the surgical arena at the beginning as there were major barriers including the fear of gas embolism, risk of excessive blood loss from the inability to control bleeding vessels effectively, suboptimal surgical instruments to perform major liver resection and the concerns about oncological safety of the procedure. However, it has come a long way since the early 1990s when the first successful laparoscopic liver resection was performed, spurring liver surgeons worldwide to start exploring the roles of laparoscopy in major liver resections. Till date, more than 9000 cases have been reported in the literature and the numbers continue to soar as the hepatobiliary surgical communities quickly learn and apply this technique in performing major liver resection. Large bodies of evidence are available in the literature showing that laparoscopic major liver resection can confer improved short-term outcomes in terms of lesser operative morbidities, lesser operative blood loss, lesser post-operative pain and faster recovery with shorter length of hospitalization. On the other hand, there is no compromise in the long-term and oncological outcomes in terms of comparable R₀ resection rate and survival rates of this approach. Many innovations in laparoscopic major hepatectomies for complex operations have also been reported. In this article, we highlight the journey of laparoscopic major hepatectomies, summarize the technical advancement and lessons learnt as well as review the current standards of outcomes for this procedure.

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy, systemic review

Liver transplantation is a life-saving therapy for patients with end-stage liver disease. Living donation is a critical source of organs throughout the world. Reducing donor morbidity and mortality is of utmost importance while maintaining access to liver transplantation for recipients. While laparoscopy was more rapidly utilized in donor nephrectomy, laparoscopy has been slower to develop for living donor hepatectomies due to the concerns about hemostasis, safety of the donor and quality of the graft. Pure minimal invasive approach has become a standard of care for left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) for pediatric recipients. In the past few years, a number of centers with significant laparoscopic and living donor experience have reported fully minimally invasive approach to hemi-hepatectomies. In this manuscript we discuss the experiences, lessons learned and path forward for laparoscopic and minimal invasive surgery(MIS) in donor hepatectomies (DH).

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.

Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: An International, Multi-Institutional Evaluation of Safety, Efficacy and Early Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Evaluating the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive (MIV) donor hepatectomy for adult live donor liver transplants in a large multi-institutional series from both Eastern and Western centers.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection has become standard practice for minor resections in selected patients in whom it provides reduced postoperative morbidity and faster rehabilitation. Laparoscopic approaches in living donor hepatectomy for transplantation, however, remain controversial because of safety concerns. Following the recommendation of the Jury of the Morioka consensus conference to address this, a retrospective study was designed to assess the early postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic donor hepatectomy. The collective experience of 10 mature transplant teams from Eastern and Western countries was reviewed.

METHODS

All centers provided data from prospectively maintained databases. Only left and right hepatectomies performed using a MIV technique were included in this study. Primary outcome was the occurrence of complications using the Clavien-Dindo graded classification and the Comprehensive Complication Index during the first 3 months. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for complications.

RESULTS

In all, 412 MIV donor hepatectomies were recorded including 164 left and 248 right hepatectomies. Surgical technique was either pure laparoscopy in 175 cases or hybrid approach in 237. Conversion into standard laparotomy was necessary in 17 donors (4.1%). None of the donors died. Also, 108 experienced 121 complications including 9.4% of severe (Clavien-Dindo 3-4) complications. Median Comprehensive Complication Index was 5.2.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows favorable early postoperative outcomes in more than 400 MIV donor hepatectomy from 10 experienced centers. These results are comparable to those of benchmarking series of open standard donor hepatectomy.

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Left Hepatectomy Including the Middle Hepatic Vein for Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) has become increasingly accepted in the era of minimally invasive surgeries. However, the outcomes of pure laparoscopic donor left hepatectomy (PLDLH) are relatively less known than for left lateral sectionectomy or right hepatectomy. This study aimed to report our experience with and the outcomes of PLDLH including the middle hepatic vein (MHV) and to compare these outcomes with conventional donor left hepatectomy (CDLH). The medical records of living liver donors between January 2010 and January 2018 at Seoul National University Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Donors who underwent left hepatectomy including the MHV were included. To minimize selection bias, donors who underwent CDLH after the initiation of the PLDH program were excluded. Finally, there were 18 donors who underwent CDLH and 8 who underwent PLDLH. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) warm ischemia time (11 [10-16] minutes versus 4 [2-7] minutes; P = 0.001) was longer in the PLDLH group than the CDLH group. The total operation time (333 [281-376] minutes versus 265 [255-308] minutes; P = 0.09) and time to remove the liver (245 [196-276] minutes versus 182 [172-205] minutes; P = 0.08) were also longer in PLDLH although not statistically significant. The length of postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the PLDLH group (7 [7-8] days versus 9 [8-10] days; P = 0.01). There were no postoperative complications in the PLDLH group. The rate of complications in recipients was similar in both groups. In conclusion, PLDLH including the MHV appears to be safe and feasible. Further analysis including longterm outcomes is needed.

Intraoperative Ultrasonography as a Guidance for Dividing Bile Duct During Laparoscopic Living Donor Hepatectomy

Background

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using intraoperative ultrasonography as a guidance in dividing bile duct during laparoscopic donor hepatectomy.

Material/Methods

Cases of living liver donors who underwent laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy from May 2013 to December 2017 were reviewed. Operative and postoperative data were compared between donors with intraoperative ultrasonography and donors with intraoperative cholangiography. For analyzing whether bile duct division was performed successfully, anatomical type and number of bile duct openings were reviewed. When the number of bile ducts were achieved as expected, it was considered “successful”.

Results

Intraoperative cholangiography was used in 67 donors (62.6%) while intraoperative ultrasonography was used in 36 donors (33.6%). Mean operation time was 405.0±76.2 minutes versus 275.1±37.5 minutes, P<0.001, respectively, and was longer in donors who had a cholangiography. There was no difference in the success rate of bile duct division between donors who had a cholangiography (92.5%) and donors who had an ultrasonography (88.9%, P=0.716). The mean hospital stay after operation was longer in donors who had a cholangiography (11.6±4.3 days versus 9.0±2.7 days, P<0.001). There was no difference in biliary complication rate between donors who had a cholangiography (11.9%) and donors who had an ultrasonography (8.3%, P=0.743).

Conclusions

Intraoperative ultrasonography can be used safely in dividing bile duct during laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy with similar outcomes to intraoperative cholangiography.

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy: perspectives in manipulating a flexible scope

BACKGROUND

Interest in pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) is increasing worldwide with the donor's cosmetic demands and improvements in surgical techniques. Efficient manipulation of flexible scope is mandatory for successful PLDH, especially in right hepatectomy which requires more mobilization. This study provides guidelines on how to manipulate optimally a flexible scope.

METHODS

Data from 158 donors who underwent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) between November 2015 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

None of the donors required transfusion, conversion to open hepatectomy, or experienced any irreversible disabilities or mortalities. Three types of laparoscopic view provided by the flexible scope, which are bird's eye view, low angle view, and lateral view, were applied to each step of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

PLDRH can be successfully performed with maximizing visibility given by the tips and pitfalls in manipulating the flexible scope.

Pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy of living donor is feasible and safe: a preliminary comparative study in China

BACKGROUND

The adoption of laparoscopic techniques for living donor major hepatectomy has been controversial issue. The aim of this study is to present the preliminary experience of laparoscopic right hepatectomy in China.

METHODS

All the donors receiving right hepatectomy for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) were divided into three groups: pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy (PLRH) group, hand-assisted right hepatectomy (HARH) group and open right hepatectomy (ORH) group. We compared the perioperative data and surgical outcomes of donors and recipients among three groups.

RESULTS

From November 2001 to May 2017, 295 donors have received right hepatectomy for LDLT in our center. Among them, 7 donors received PLRH, 26 donors received HARH and 262 donors received ORH. The operation time of PLRH group (509.3 ± 98.9 min) was longer than that of the HARH group (451.6 ± 89.7 min) and the ORH group (418.4 ± 81.1 min, p = 0.003). The blood loss was the least in the PLRH group (378.6 ± 177.1 mL), compared with that in the HARH group (617.3 ± 240.4 mL) and that in the ORH group (798.6 ± 483.7 mL, p = 0.0013). The postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the PLRH group (7, 7-10 days) than that in the HATH group (8.5, 7.5-12 days) and ORH group (11, 9-14 days; p = 0.001). Only one donor had pleural effusion (Grade I) and another one experienced pulmonary infection (Grade II). One recipient (14.3%) in the PLRH group occurred hepatic venous stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic approaches for right hepatectomy contribute to less blood loss, better cosmetic satisfaction, less severe complications, and faster rehabilitation. PLRH is a safe and feasible procedure, which must be performed in highly specialized centers with expertise of both LDLT and laparoscopic hepatectomy, and requires a hybrid-to-pure stepwise development.

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.

Pediatric Living Donor Liver Transplantation Using a Monosegment Procured by Pure 3D Laparoscopic Left Lateral Sectionectomy and In situ Reduction

BACKGROUND

Improvements in laparoscopic imaging systems and instruments have increased the performance of pure laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy. This operation is no longer limited to left lateral sectionectomy but is used for left hepatectomy and right hepatectomy.1-5 This report describes a donor who underwent pure laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy and in situ reduction using 3D laparoscopy and indocyanine green (ICG) near-infrared fluorescence cholangiography to obtain a monosegment.

METHODS

A 43-year-old woman offered to donate part of her liver to her daughter, who required a transplant for acute liver failure after a Kasai operation for biliary cirrhosis caused by biliary atresia. Donor height was 150.4 cm, body weight was 56.8 kg, and body mass index was 25.1 kg/m². Liver dynamic CT showed a left lateral liver volume of 223 cm³, and an estimated graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) of 4.4%. The entire procedure including in situ reduction was performed under 3D laparoscopic view. The optimal bile duct division point was determined by real time ICG fluorescence cholangiography.

RESULTS

The total operation time was 320 min, with no transfusion required and no intraoperative complications. Intraoperative real time ICG fluorescence cholangiography revealed the donor's bile duct anatomy and identified the optimal division point. The final graft weighed 167 g, 48 g being reduced in situ, with a GRWR of 3.3%. The donor was discharged on postoperative day 8 with no complications.

CONCLUSION

Pure 3D laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy and in situ reduction are feasible for obtaining a donor monosegment for pediatric living donor liver transplantation.

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.

Use of robotics in liver donor right hepatectomy

Liver transplantation is the best solution for end stage liver disease, and has been widely accepted and rapidly developed in the past decades. Along with the improved outcomes of liver transplantation, living-related donor transplantation has been conducted to overcome the shortage of the deceased donor. The most important aspects of the living-related liver transplantation are donor safety and fast recovery after graft procurement. Meanwhile, the rapid progress of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in general surgery has generated heated debate regarding the appropriateness of MIS in living-related donor graft hepatectomy. Technical innovations and instrument enhancements have been allowing recruitment of more potential candidates through smaller wounds and better surgical experience. Although MIS has been documented with safety and feasibility in complex liver surgery, the progress is slow in regard to the application of MIS in donor graft hepatectomy. Pioneer surgeons have devoted themselves to develop the pure MIS approach for the liver donor surgery, but the steep learning curve for pure MIS major hepatectomy remains a major barrier for wide adoption. The introduction of robotic system may lower the barrier for entry for practice into MIS donor hepatectomy.

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.

Initial Outcomes of Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy in an Experienced Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant Center

BACKGROUND

Only a limited number of centers have performed laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy to date. In particular, laparoscopic right hepatectomy is rarely performed because the procedure can only be performed by surgeons with significant experience in both laparoscopic liver surgery and liver transplantation with living donor liver grafts.

METHODS

Between November 2014 and February 2015, in a pure laparoscopic approach program for living right lobe donors at Asan Medical Center, 92 living donors underwent right hepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation. Among these, 3 pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomies were performed in 3 young female donors.

RESULTS

The intraoperative and postoperative courses for all 3 donors and recipients were uneventful without any complications. Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy has definite advantages over conventional open surgery, including decreased wound morbidity and faster recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the data of the present report, pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy in properly selected living donors (only 4% of potential donors in this cohort) appears to be a safe and feasible procedure in adult living donor liver transplantation.

The liver hanging maneuver in laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic surgery has gained the acceptance of the hepatobiliary surgical community and expert teams are now advocating major laparoscopic liver resections (LLRs). In this setting, the liver hanging maneuver (LHM) has been described in numerous series. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the effectiveness of the LHM in LLR.

METHODS

We performed an electronic literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases. The final search was carried out in December, 2015.

RESULTS

We found 11 articles describing a collective total of 104 surgical procedures that were eligible for this study. Laparoscopic LHM was used in LLR for both benign and malignant conditions, and also in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The LHM was used mainly in right hepatectomy and only two authors reproduced the original LHM. We investigated the intraoperative parameters, preservation of postoperative liver function, and oncological outcomes. The clear benefit of using the LHM in LLR is for better identification of the parenchymal transection plane with less blood loss. The other benefits of LHM could not be corroborated by solid data on its positive value.

CONCLUSIONS

In view of the data published in the literature, our findings are not strong enough to support the systematic use of LHM in LLR.

Laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy with venous outflow reconstruction using cadaveric common iliac artery allograft: Case report and literature review

RATIONALE

With the development of laparoscopic technique, the total laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy (LLDRH) procurement surgery has been successfully performed in many liver transplant centers all over the world, and the number of cases is continuing to increase. We report our case of laparoscopic right graft resection with venous outflow reconstruction using cadaveric common iliac artery allograft in our center and review literatures about total LLDRH surgery.

PATIENT CONCERNS AND DIAGNOSES

A 40-year-old male living donor for right hepatectomy was selected after pretransplant evaluation including laboratory tests, liver volume, anatomy of hepatic vein, artery, portal vein, and bile duct. Living donor liver transplantation surgery was approved by Sichuan Provincial Health Department and the ethics committee of the West China Hospital, Sichuan University.

INTERVENTIONS

Hepatic parenchyma transection was performed by ultrasonic scalpel and Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA). Right branch of portal vein, right hepatic artery, right hepatic duct, and right hepatic vein were meticulously dissected. The right hepatic duct was ligated and transected 2 mm far from the bifurcation of common hepatic duct, right hepatic artery, and portal vein were also ligated and transected, the right hepatic vein was transected by laparoscopic linear cutting stapler. The gap between short hepatic veins and right hepatic vein was bridged and reconstructed by cadaveric common iliac artery allograft.

OUTCOMES

The operation time was 480 minutes and warm ischemia time was 4 minutes. Blood loss was 300 mL without blood transfusion. The donor was discharged on postoperative day 7 uneventfully without complications. Literatures about laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy are compared and summarized in table.

LESSONS

The total laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy is technically feasible and safe in some transplant centers which should have rich open living donor liver transplantation experience and skilled laparoscopic techniques. Venous outflow tract reconstruction is necessary if orifice diameter of short hepatic vein is greater than 0.5 cm on the graft cutting surface.

The First Case of Total Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hemihepatectomy in Mainland China and Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Total laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy (LDRH) has been successfully performed in several transplant centers. Here we report the first LDRH performed in mainland China and review current literature, focusing on perioperative donor evaluation and surgical procedure to secure donor safety.

METHODS

A 47-year-old man volunteered for living donation to his wife who suffered from sclerosing cholangitis-related liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Donor height is 165 cm and weight is 65 kg, whereas the body mass index is 23.9. The CT volume evaluation showed that the graft-to-body weight ratio was 1.42%, and the remnant liver volume was 36.3% for right graft without middle hepatic vein (MHV). The anatomy of hepatic vein, artery, portal vein, and bile duct was normal. Preoperative liver function tests were normal.

RESULTS

Intraoperative biopsy result showed minimal steatosis. A transection was performed along the right side of the MHV. Two branches of MHV (V5 and V8) were <5 mm in diameter, and there was no need for reconstruction in the back table. Hilar dissection was meticulously performed. Right portal vein, hepatic artery, and bile duct were transected above the bifurcation. The right hepatic vein was transected by a laparoscopic linear stapler. The real graft volume was 660 mL, with a revised graft-to-body weight ratio of 1.14%. Warm ischemia time was about 4 minutes. The donor's postoperative course was uneventful.

CONCLUSIONS

Total LDRH has been proven to be technically feasible in selected adult donors. Following increased experience, it might be a safe and minimally invasive option for adult donors.

Robotic liver donor right hepatectomy: A pure, minimally invasive approach

Right hepatectomy for a living liver donor via a pure minimally invasive approach is a challenging procedure and only a few cases have been reported. Between May 2013 and August 2015, 13 patients underwent robotic living donor right hepatectomy in our institute, and 54 patients received open surgery. In this series, no conversion was conducted for robotic donor right hepatectomy. The 2 groups shared similar blood loss (169 versus 146 mL), complication rates (7.7% versus 9.3%), and recovery of donor liver function (peak alanine aminotransferase, 269 versus 252 IU/mL). The robotic group needed longer operation time (596 versus 383 minutes) but less postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (0.58 versus 0.84 ng/kg) and a shorter period before returning to work/school (52.9 versus 100.0 days) and sex (100.0 versus 156.0 days). For recipient outcomes regarding the donor procedure, the robotic group shared similar experiences in early allograft dysfunction, complications, and 1-year recipient liver function with the open group. With respect to documented benefits of minimally invasive left-sided liver donor procedure, the development of right donor hepatectomy is slow. In conclusion, with substantial improvements in patient recovery after the minimally invasive approach, the robotic platform would be a big step toward completing pure minimally invasive liver donor surgery. Liver Transplantation 22 1509-1518 2016 AASLD.

The learning curves in living donor hemiliver graft procurement using small upper midline incision

The learning curve for performing living donor hemiliver procurement (LDHP) via small upper midline incision (UMI) has not been determined. Living donors (n=101) who underwent LDHP via UMI were included to investigate the learning curve using cumulative sum analysis. The cumulative sum analysis showed that nine cases for right lobe (case #23) and 19 cases for left lobe (case #32 in the whole series) are needed for stable and acceptable surgical outcomes in LDHP via UMI. The established phase (n=69, since case #33) had a significantly shorter operative time, a smaller incision size, and less blood loss than the previous learning phase (n=32, serial case number up to the last 19th left lobe case). Multivariate analysis showed that the learning phase, high body mass index ≥25 kg/m² , and left lobe graft procurement are the factors associated with surgical events including operative blood loss ≥400 mL, operative time ≥300 minutes, or surgical complications ≥Clavien-Dindo grade II. There is an obvious learning curve in performing LDHP via UMI, and 32 cases including both 19 cases for left lobe and nine cases for right lobe are needed for having stable and acceptable surgical outcomes.

Biliary complications following living donor hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become increasingly common in an effort to increase organ availability for the treatment of end-stage liver disease. Donor safety is a primary concern in LDLT. The majority of complications experienced by living donors are infectious or biliary in nature. The purpose of this paper was to review the existing literature on biliary complications in living donors.

METHODS

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English between 2006-present, focused on adult-to-adult LDLT, and were available via PubMed/MEDLINE.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies reporting outcomes from 12,653 donors (right lobe: 8231, left lobe: 4422) were included. Of 33 studies, 12 reported outcomes from right lobe donors, 1 from left lobe donors, 14 compared left and right, and 6 focused specifically on biliary complications. A total of 830 biliary complications (6.6%) were reported, with 75 donors requiring re-operation for biliary complications and 1 donor death attributed to biliary complications.

CONCLUSION

Although bile leaks and strictures are still relatively common following living donor hepatectomy, the majority of complications are minor and resolve with conservative measures. Approximately 6% of living donors will experience a biliary complication and, of these 6%, approximately 9% (total of 0.6% of donors) will require operative management of the biliary complication.

Comprehensive guide to laparoscope-assisted graft harvesting in live donors for living-donor liver transplantation: perspective of laparoscopic vision

Background

A living donor (LD) for liver transplantation (LT) is the best target for minimally invasive surgery. Laparoscope-assisted surgery (LAS) for LDs has gradually evolved. A donor safety rate of 100% should be guaranteed.

Methods

We began performing LAS for LDs in June 2012. The aim of this report is to describe the surgical procedures of LAS in detail, discuss various tips and pitfalls, and address the potential for a smooth transition to more advanced LAS.

Results

Preoperative planning based on three-dimensional image analysis is a powerful tool for successful surgery. The combination of liver retraction/countertraction and the pressure produced by pneumoperitoneum widens the dissectible/cuttable layer, increasing the safety of LAS. A flexible laparoscope provides excellent magnified vision in both the horizontal view along the inferior vena cava, under adequate liver retraction, and in the lateral view, to harvest left-sided grafts in critical procedures. Intentional omission of painful incisions is beneficial for LDs. Hepatectomy using a smaller midline incision is safe if a hanging maneuver is used. Safe transition from LAS to a hybrid technique involving a combination of pure laparoscopic surgery and subsequent open surgery seems possible.

Conclusion

LDLT surgeons have a very broad intellectual and technical frontier.

Liver mobilization and liver hanging for totally laparoscopic right hepatectomy: an easy way to do it

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to describe a technical modification that facilitates right liver mobilization in laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH).

METHODS

In the supine position, an inflatable device is placed under the patient's right chest. For right hemiliver mobilization, the table is placed in 30° anti-Trendelenburg and full-left tilt. Balloon inflation offers an additional 30° left inclination that places the patient in an almost left lateral position. Foot and lateral supports are placed to prevent patient slippage during changes in the patient positioning.

RESULTS

From December 2013 to October 2015, this technique has been used in 10 consecutive LRH. The indications for these procedures were as follows: four donor hepatectomies for living donor liver transplant, three hepatocellular carcinomas and one peripheral cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhotic patients, one hepatocellular carcinoma in a non-cirrhotic patient, and one case of colorectal cancer metastases. In this period, it has also been used to facilitate mobilization and resection in the posterior segments of the liver in seven patients. In every case, right hemiliver mobilization was easily performed in a maximum time of 15 min and placement of a tape or plastic tube for liver hanging was prepared. We have not observed any complication directly attributable to the technique herein described (i.e. right brachialgia; arms, back or left flank pain) in the early or late postoperative follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The additional left inclination obtained with the inflation of a balloon under the right chest facilitates right hemiliver mobilization. Its use may help in the performance and adoption of LRH.

Living donor liver transplantation in Europe

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) sparked significant interest in Europe when the first reports of its success from USA and Asia were made public. Many transplant programs initiated LDLT and some of them especially in Germany and Belgium became a point of reference for many patients and important contributors to the advancement of the field. After the initial enthusiasm, most of the European programs stopped performing LDLT and today the overall European activity is concentrated in a few centers and the number of living donor liver transplants is only a single digit fraction of the overall number of liver transplants performed. In this paper we analyse the present European activities and highlight the European contribution to the advancement of the field of LDLT.