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

Effect of donor warm ischemia time during graft extraction in right lobe robotic donor hepatectomy on recipient outcomes-A propensity score matched analysis

One of the concerns specific to minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH) is the prolonged time required for graft extraction after completion of the donor hepatectomy (donor warm ischemia time [DWIT]). There has never been an objective evaluation of minimally invasive donor hepatectomy-DWIT on allograft function in living donor liver transplantation. We evaluated the effect of DWIT following robotic donor hepatectomy (RDH) on recipient outcomes and compared them with a matched cohort of open donor hepatectomy (ODH). Demographic, perioperative, and recipient's postoperative outcome data for all right lobe (RL)-RDH performed between September 2019 and July 2023 were analyzed and compared with a propensity score matched cohort (1:1) of RL-ODH from the same time period. Of a total of 103 RL-RDH and 446 RL-ODH, unmatched and propensity score matched analysis (1:1) revealed a significantly longer DWIT in the RDH group as compared to the ODH group (9.33 ± 3.95 vs 2.87 ± 2.13, P < .0001). This did not translate into any difference in the rates of early allograft dysfunction (EAD), biliary complications, major morbidity, or overall 1-and 3-month survival. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis threshold for DWIT-early allograft dysfunction was 9 minutes (area under receiver operating characteristic: 0.67, sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 53.8%). We show that prolonged DWIT within an acceptable range in RDH does not have deleterious effects on short-term recipient outcomes. Further long-term studies are required to confirm our findings, especially with regard to nonanastomotic biliary complications.

Donor body mass index over 30 is no barrier for pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy

Backgrounds/Aims

Challenges arise when translating pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) results from Asian to Western donors, due to differences in body mass index (BMI). This study compares the outcomes of PLDRH and conventional open donor right hepatectomy (CDRH) in donors with BMI over 30.

Methods

Medical records of live liver donors (BMI > 30) undergoing right hepatectomy (2010-2021) were compared: 25 PLDRH cases vs. 19 CDRH cases. Donor and recipient demographics, operative details, and outcomes were analyzed.

Results

PLDRH and CDRH had similar donor and recipient characteristics. PLDRH had longer liver removal and warm ischemic times, but a shorter post-liver removal duration than CDRH. Donor complication rates were comparable, with the highest complication being grade IIIa in PLDRH, necessitating needle aspiration for biloma on postoperative day 11. Fortunately, this donor fully recovered without additional treatment. No complications exceeding Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa occurred in either group. Recipient outcomes between the groups were similar.

Conclusions

This study supports PLDRH as a viable option for donors with BMI over 30, challenging the notion that high BMI should deter considering PLDRH. The findings provide valuable insights into the safety and feasibility of PLDRH, encouraging further exploration of this technique in diverse donor populations.

Criteria for selecting living liver donors to optimize recipient outcomes in pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although the adoption of pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy has expanded driven by considerations of donor cosmesis and function, the criteria for selecting candidates for pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) continue to be debated. This study aimed to delineate the distinctive characteristics of donors and recipients who underwent conventional open-donor right hepatectomy (CDRH) during the era of PLDRH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively collected single-centre database encompassing all right hepatectomies at Seoul National University Hospital from April 2016 to December 2021, a period during which there were no absolute contraindications for PLDRH.

RESULTS

During the exclusive PLDRH period, there were still 63 cases of CDRH alongside 362 cases of PLDRH. The CDRH donors were older, had a lower estimated remnant liver volume, and a higher incidence of expected multiple openings in the portal vein and bile duct based on preoperative imaging compared with PLDRH donors. In the subgroup analysis, including only donors meeting two or more criteria (age ≥40 years, estimated remnant liver volume ≥35%, or multiple anticipated vessel openings), recipients in the PLDRH group exhibited significantly more early major complications ( P =0.029) compared with those in the CDRH group.

CONCLUSION

As PLDRH gains traction in practice, it is essential to acknowledge that specific donor conditions, such as advanced age, limited remnant liver volume, and anticipation of multiple portal or bile duct openings, may merit contemplating CDRH as a means of optimizing recipient outcomes.

Indications and results of right-lobe living donor liver transplantation

The shortage of deceased liver donor organs over the years has always posed the need to expand the donor pool. A viable alternative to deceased donors is that of the living donor. Indeed, the living donor in liver transplantation, initially in pediatric transplantation, but for several years now also in adult transplantation, is a more than viable alternative to deceased liver donation. In fact, right liver lobe donation has proven to be a surgical procedure with low impact on the donor's life in terms of morbidity and mortality, with excellent results in recipients of such organs. In recent years, an increasing number of studies have been published that show excellent results in right-lobe living donor liver transplantation, encouraging this practice not only in countries that have historically had a shortage of deceased donor organs, such as Asian countries, but making it a practice of increasing use in Western countries as well. In addition, thanks to improvements in surgical technique and the experience of high-volume centers, this surgery has also begun to be performed using minimally invasive surgical techniques, allowing us to envision ever better outcomes for both donor and recipient in the coming years.

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.

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

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.

Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy: Experience of 556 cases at Seoul National University Hospital

Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) has become a routine procedure at Seoul National University Hospital, and the pure laparoscopic method is now being applied to liver recipients as well. This study aimed to review the procedure and outcomes of PLDH to identify any areas that required improvement. Data from 556 donors who underwent PLDH between November 2015 and December 2021 and their recipients were retrospectively reviewed. Among these, 541 patients underwent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH). The mean hospital stay of the donor was 7.2 days, and the rate of grade I, II, IIIa, and IIIb complications was 2.2%, 2.7%, 1.3%, and 0.9%, respectively, without any irreversible disabilities or mortalities. The most common early and late major complications in the recipient were intraabdominal bleeding (n = 47, 8.5%) and biliary problems (n = 198, 35.6%), respectively. Analysis of the PLDRH procedure showed that operative time, liver removal time, warm ischemic time, Δhemoglobin%, Δtotal bilirubin%, and postoperative hospital stay decreased significantly as the number of cases accumulated. In conclusion, the operative outcomes of PLDRH improved as the number of cases increased. However, continuous caution is needed because major complications still occur in donors and recipients even after hundreds of cases.

Selective hanging maneuver and rubber band retraction technique for pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) is an increasingly performed procedure despite its technical difficulties. This study introduced a selective liver parenchymal hanging maneuver and rubber band retraction technique for PLDH.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed perioperative data from 58 patients who underwent donor right hepatectomy (including right extended) between March 2009 and February 2021. Eighteen patients underwent open donor right hepatectomy (ODRH) and 38 patients underwent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH).

RESULTS

All PLDRH donors underwent the procedure without the need for open conversion. The median PLDRH operative time was 396.84 ± 72.459 min, the median PLDRH intraoperative bleeding amount was 496.05 ± 272.591 ml, and the warm ischemic time was 8.77 ± 3.062 min. Compared to ODRH, laparoscopic surgery showed further advantages in terms of postoperative hospital stay (10.94 ± 4.036 days vs. 8.03 ± 2.646 days, respectively, P = 0.01) and estimated blood loss (676.67 ± 321.046 ml vs. 496.05 ± 272.591 ml, respectively, P = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

The selective liver parenchymal hanging maneuver and rubber band retraction technique is a simple and effective pure laparoscopic procedure for donor hepatectomy. Our results demonstrate the safety and feasibility of this technique.

Donor Safety and Risk Factors of Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Korean Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify safety and risk factors of living donor after pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy in a Korean multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy is not yet a standardized surgical procedure due to lack of data.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 543 patients undergoing PLRDH between 2010 and 2018 in 5 Korean transplantation centers. Complication rates were assessed and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors of open conversion, overall complications, major complications, and biliary complications.

RESULTS

Regarding open conversion, the incidence was 1.7% and the risk factor was body mass index >30 kg/m 2 [ P =0.001, odds ratio (OR)=22.72, 95% CI=3.56-146.39]. Rates of overall, major (Clavien-Dindo classification III-IV), and biliary complications were 9.2%, 4.4%, and 3.5%, respectively. For overall complications, risk factors were graft weight >700 g ( P =0.007, OR=2.66, 95% CI=1.31-5.41), estimated blood loss ( P <0.001, OR=4.84, 95% CI=2.50-9.38), and operation time >400 minutes ( P =0.01, OR=2.46, 95% CI=1.25-4.88). For major complications, risk factors were graft weight >700 g ( P =0.002, OR=4.01, 95% CI=1.67-9.62) and operation time >400 minutes ( P =0.003, OR=3.84, 95% CI=1.60-9.21). For biliary complications, risk factors were graft weight >700 g ( P =0.01, OR=4.34, 95% CI=1.40-13.45) and operation time >400 minutes ( P =0.01, OR=4.16, 95% CI=1.34-12.88).

CONCLUSION

Careful donor selection for PLRDH considering body mass index, graft weight, estimated blood loss, and operation time combined with skilled procedure can improve donor safety.

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy in patients over 50 years old: Why age should not be a barrier

INTRODUCTION

Given the global aging population, the average age of liver donors is increasing. This study aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes of grafts from pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) in liver donors aged > 50 years.

METHODS

The medical records of liver donors were retrospectively reviewed. The donors underwent conventional donor right hepatectomy (CDRH) from January 2011 to May 2019 or PLDRH from March 2016 to May 2019. We divided the donors into three groups: PLDRH donors aged ≥50 (n = 26; Group 1) and aged < 50 (n = 257; Group 2), and CDRH donors aged ≥50 years (n = 66; Group 3).

RESULTS

Operation time (p < .01) and hospital stay (p < .01) were significantly lower in Group 1 than in Group 3. Other postoperative outcomes of donors including graft anatomical variation, graft weight, graft-to-recipient weight ratio, and hepatic steatosis were similar among the three groups. Although no postoperative complications occurred in Groups 1 and 3, they were detected in 17 cases (6.6%) in Group 2. No postoperative complications were detected among the recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

PLDRH was feasible and safe in donors aged over 50 years, with outcomes similar to those for donors aged <50 years. PLDRH should not be avoided solely based on the donor's age ≥50 years.

Comparison of pure laparoscopic donor right posterior sectionectomy versus right hemihepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation

The right posterior section (RPS) graft for living donor liver transplantation is an alternative graft in a live liver donor with insufficient remnant left lobe volume and portal vein anomaly. Although there have been some reports regarding pure laparoscopic donor right posterior sectionectomy (PLDRPS), no study has compared PLDRPS versus pure laparoscopic donor right hemihepatectomy (PLDRH). The aim of our study was to compare the surgical outcomes of PLDRPS versus PLDRH at centers achieving a complete transition from open to laparoscopic approach in liver donor surgery. From March 2019 to March 2022, a total of 351 living donor liver transplantations, including 16 and 335 donors who underwent PLDRPS and PLDRH, respectively, were included in the study. In the donor cohort, there were no significant differences in major complication (≥grade III) rate and comprehensive complication index between the PLDRPS versus PLDRH group (6.3% vs. 4.8%; p = 0.556 and 2.7 ± 8.6 vs.1.7 ± 6.4; p = 0.553). In the recipient cohort, there was a significant difference in major complication (≥grade III) rate (62.5% vs. 35.2%; p = 0.034) but no significant difference in comprehensive complication index (18.3 ± 14.9 vs. 15.2 ± 24.9; p = 0.623) between the PLDRPS and PLDRH groups. PLDRPS in live liver donors with portal vein anomaly and insufficient left lobe was technically feasible and safe with experienced surgeons. The PLDRPS group might be comparable with the PLDRH group based on the surgical outcomes of donors and recipients. However, in terms of recipient outcomes, more careful selection of donors of the RPS graft and further research in a large number of cases are necessary to evaluate the usefulness of PLDRPS.

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.

Risk-Adjusted Assessment of the Learning Curve for Pure Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Recipients

BACKGROUND

Studies on pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) have been reported. However, only few studies have reported on the learning curve of PLDH. In this report, we aimed to determine the learning curve of PLDH in adult patients using cumulative sum (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted CUSUM (RA-CUSUM) analyses.

METHODS

The data of donors who underwent PLDH at a single center between December 2012 and May 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The learning curve was evaluated using the CUSUM and RA-CUSUM methods based on surgery duration.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were finally included in the present study. The mean operation time was 393.6 ± 80.3 min. PLDH was converted to laparotomy in three cases (6.3%). According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, nine cases (18.8%) had higher-than-grade III postoperative complications and the most frequent complications were biliary complications. The CUSUM graph shows two peaks, at the 13th and 27th case. The multivariate analysis revealed that a body mass index ≥ 23 kg/m2 and intraoperative cholangiography were the only factors that were independently associated with longer operation time. Based on these results, an RA-CUSUM analysis was performed to assess the learning curve, which showed a decrease in the learning curve after 33 to 34 PLDH procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

A learning curve effect was demonstrated in this study after 33 to 34 PLDH procedures. There are relatively many biliary complications, and it is necessary to further examine the method of bile duct transection.

Risk Factors Associated With Surgical Morbidities of Laparoscopic Living Liver Donors

OBJECTIVE

This study analyzed the incidence and risk factors for surgical morbidities of laparoscopic living donors.

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic living donor programs have been established safely in leading centers, donor morbidities have not been discussed sufficiently.

METHODS

Laparoscopic living donors operated on from May 2013 to June 2022 were reviewed. Donor complications were reviewed, and factors related to bile leakage and biliary stricture were analyzed using the multivariable logistic regression method.

RESULTS

A total of 636 donors underwent laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy. The open conversion rate was 1.6%, and the 30-day complication rate was 16.8% (n=107). Grade IIIa and IIIb complications occurred in 4.4% (n=28) and 1.9% (n=12) of patients, respectively. The most common complication was bleeding (n=38, 6.0%). Fourteen donors (2.2%) required reoperation. Portal vein stricture, bile leakage, and biliary stricture occurred in 0.6% (n=4), 3.3% (n=21), and 1.6% (n=10) of cases, respectively. The readmission rate and reoperation rate were 5.2% (n=33) and 2.2% (n=14), respectively. Risk factors related to bile leakage were 2 hepatic arteries in the liver graft (OR=13.836, CI=4.092-46.789, P <0.001), division-free margin<5 mm from the main duct (OR=2.624, CI=1.030-6.686, P =0.043), and estimated blood loss during operation (OR=1.002, CI=1.001-1.003, P =0.008), while the Pringle maneuver (OR=0.300, CI=0.110-0.817, P =0.018) was protective against leakage. Regarding biliary stricture, bile leakage was the only significant factor (OR=11.902, CI=2.773-51.083, P =0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic living donor surgery showed excellent safety for the majority of donors, and critical complications were resolved with proper management. To minimize bile leakage, cautious surgical manipulation is needed for donors with complex hilar anatomy.

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.

Anesthesia Management in Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy: The First Report from Turkey

BACKGROUND

We aimed to report a single-center experience in laparoscopic donor left-side and right-side hepatectomy cases regarding preoperative evaluation, perioperative and anesthetic management protocols, and postoperative follow-up.

METHODS

Laparoscopic donor left-side and right-side hepatectomy cases were included in the study because of their excessive transection area and bleeding potential. Medical records of living donors were reviewed in terms of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), presence of consanguinity with the recipient, perioperative and early postoperative biochemical parameters, hemodynamic changes during surgery, duration of surgery, the ratio of liver volume to total liver volume, perioperative complications, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Eighty-one laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy procedures were performed in our unit between 2018 and 2022. Six laparoscopic donor right-side cases and two left-side cases were retrospectively reviewed. Donors' mean age and BMI were 29.6 ± 8.6 years and 23.1 ± 4.3, respectively. The average weights of the right and left lobe liver grafts were 727 g and 279 g, respectively, constituting 65.8% and 22.7% of the total liver volume, respectively. The mean operation time was 593 ± 94 minutes, and the mean volume of blood loss was 437 ± 294 mL. A major complication, namely portal vein stenosis, developed in 1 donor (1/8), and portal vein patency was achieved postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesia management and teamwork between surgeons and anesthesiologists are the most important building blocks for donor safety, which is of the utmost priority. Effective communication and cooperation in the operating room may prevent potential donor complications and improve postoperative recovery time.

A novel approach of intraoperative cholangiography in laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy in living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Accurate division of bile duct during laparoscopic donor hepatectomy in living donor liver transplantation is essential. We here present a novel approach to achieve cholangiography via the bile duct stump of segment IV (B4 stump) during laparoscopic donor hepatectomy in adult-to-pediatric living donor liver transplantation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Donors who underwent laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) from January 2022 to April 2022 in our liver transplant center were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 32 donors were eventually enrolled into this study. Cholangiography via the B4 stump was performed in 11 donors (B4 group) while indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence guiding was performed in 21 donors (ICG group). Perioperative data were collected and compared between groups.

RESULTS

Cholangiography by catheterizing the B4 stump was successfully performed in all 11 donors in the B4 group. The mean time of this procedure was 12.82 ± 9.11 min. Compared to the ICG group, it was more likely to acquire single bile duct orifice on graft in the B4 group (B4: 10/11, 90.91% vs ICG: 9/21, 42.86%) and it was significantly different (p = 0.030). The donors' complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV) were not significantly different. There was one donor developed intraperitoneal effusion in B4 group, while two donors (one bile leakage and one biliary stricture) developed biliary tract related complications in the ICG group. A Roux-en-Y was performed to solve the biliary stricture in the ICG group. The recipients' outcomes were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Cholangiography via the B4 stump catheterization is feasible and safe in identifying the bifurcation of bile duct during LLLS.

Early experiences with developing techniques for pure laparoscopic explant hepatectomy in living donor liver transplantation

In recent years, laparoscopic techniques for liver resection or living donor hepatectomy have become common surgical methods. However, reports on laparoscopic surgeries for recipients are lacking. Our center has launched the minimally invasive living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) program in March 2020, which is led by two surgeons who are experienced in laparoscopic surgeries. Recently, we reported our first successful pure laparoscopic recipient explant hepatectomy and the first laparoscopic explant hepatectomy and robotic-assisted graft implantation. In this article, we introduce a series of minimally invasive surgical cases that were conducted by a single experienced surgeon to share our early experiences leading to our recent successes. We included 10 cases performed from June 2020 to May 2021 in our initial attempt at laparoscopic explant hepatectomy, graft implantation using midline incision, and robotic-assisted graft implantation surgery. The first four cases required open conversion during the liver mobilization process because of bleeding. The next two cases required open conversion to facilitate portal vein and hepatic artery division. We successfully performed pure laparoscopic explant hepatectomy in the last four cases. For the last case, we attempted to perform graft implantation using a robotic system, but bleeding required open conversion. All patients recovered without any significant acute postoperative problems and were discharged within 2 weeks. All 10 patients were followed up at outpatient clinics, and only one of the 10 patients had a late complication of LDLT. This study has shown that the minimally invasive approach in LDLT may be conducted safely without significant complications if it is performed by highly experienced surgeons working in high-volume centers.

Pure laparoscopic vs open right hepatectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Since minimally invasive surgery has been incorporated in overall surgery, pure laparoscopic technology is involved in most hepatectomies, including right hepatectomy, in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its feasibility and safety in right hepatectomy are still controversial owing to the limited literature. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy (PLRH) with those of open right hepatectomy (ORH) in patients with HCC.

METHODS

The prospectively collected medical records of 327 patients with HCC who underwent right hepatectomy between January 2010 and April 2020 at Seoul National University Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching between the PLRH and ORH groups. The primary end point was short-term outcomes, including hospital stay, blood loss, and morbidity; the secondary end point was long-term outcomes, including overall and recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients were included in each group. Patients who underwent PLRH had a shorter postoperative hospital stay than those who underwent ORH (12.2 vs 8.9 days; P < .001). The requirement for blood transfusion was significantly lower in the PLRH group than in the ORH group (10.2% vs 2.0%; P = .010). The operative time (P = .479) and proportion of major complications (P = .487) were comparable between the groups. There were no significant differences in overall survival (P = .524) and the recurrence-free survival rate (P = .576) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative outcomes, including oncological outcomes, were comparable between PLRH and ORH, showing that PLRH can be a safe and feasible option to replace ORH in patients with HCC.

Anatomical classification and clinical outcomes of biliary strictures in living donor liver transplantation using right liver grafts

This study aimed to classify the anatomical types of biliary strictures, including intrahepatic biliary stricture (IHBS), after living donor liver transplantations (LDLTs) using right liver grafts and evaluate their prognosis. Among 692 adult patients who underwent right liver LDLT, 198 recipients with biliary strictures (28.6%) were retrospectively reviewed. Based on data obtained during the first cholangiography, the patients' biliary strictures were classified into the following three types according to the levels and number of branches involved: Types 1 (anastomosis), 2 (second-order branch [a, one; b, two or more; c, extended to the third-order branch]), and 3 (whole graft [a, multifocal strictures; b, diffuse necrosis]). IHBS was defined as a nonanastomotic stricture. Among the 198 recipients with biliary strictures, the IHBS incidence rates were 38.4% ( n = 76). The most common type of IHBS was 2c ( n = 43, 56.6%), whereas Type 3 ( n = 10, 13.2%) was uncommon. The intervention frequency per year significantly differed among the types (Type 1, 2.3; Type 2a, 2.3; Type 2b, 2.8; Type 2c, 4.3; and Type 3, 7.2; p  < 0.001). The intervention-free period for more than 1 year, which was as follows, also differed among the types: Type 1, 84.4%; Type 2a, 87.5%; Type 2b, 86.7%; Type 2c, 72.1%; and Type 3, 50.0% ( p = 0.048). The graft survival rates of Type 3 (80.0%) were significantly lower than those of the other types ( p = 0.001). IHBSs are relatively common in right liver LDLTs. Although Type 3 IHBSs are rare, they require more intensive care and are associated with poorer graft survival rates than anastomosis strictures and Type 2 IHBS.

Comparison of surgical outcomes and learning curve for robotic versus laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Both laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy (LLDRH) and robotic living donor right hemihepatectomy (RLDRH) have been developed for minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH), although comparative analysis between the two surgical modalities is lacking. This study aims to compare surgical outcomes of LLDRH and RLDRH at a single institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From March 2016 to March 2022, 171 patients who underwent MILH of right liver were enrolled and divided into RLDRH and LLDRH. Two surgeons with experience in both techniques performed all procedures. Clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes of donor and recipient, and donor anatomic variations were compared between both groups, and learning curves were estimated. Subgroup analysis was also performed, including only donors recruited after 2019, when LLDRH was initiated at our institution.

RESULTS

RLDRH and LLDRH were performed for 102 and 69 patients, respectively. Operative time was significantly longer for RLDRH than LLDRH (464 vs. 407 min, P < 0.001), although estimated blood loss was lower in RLDRH (104 vs. 238 mL, P = 0.002). Incidence of major complications was similar in both groups. After 2019, significantly more RLDRH vs. LLDRH patients had variation in the hepatic artery (14.3% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.020) and portal vein (16.1% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.027). Learning curve for RLDRH was stabilized after approximately the 16th case, whereas that of LLDRH stabilized immediately.

CONCLUSION

RLDRH resulted in less intraoperative bleeding and comparable postoperative outcomes than LLDRH. Moreover, since 2019, RLDRH has been employed more frequently for donors with hilar structure anatomic variations. Based on our single-center experience, we propose that standardized procedures for RLDRH might help set up pure minimally invasive procedures for donor hepatectomy and facilitate safe implementation of laparoscopic approaches.

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.

OPEN TO ROBOTIC RIGHT DONOR HEPATECTOMY: A TECTONIC SHIFT IN SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Robotic right live donor hepatectomy(r-LDRH) has been reported with reduced morbidity compared to open donor right hepatectomy(o-LDRH) in few recent series. Nevertheless, its routine use is debated. We present a large series comparing pure r-LDRH with o-LDRH. Consecutive r-LDRH performed from June 2018 to June 2020 (n = 102) were compared with consecutive donors undergoing o-LDRH (n = 152) from February 2016 to February 2018, a period when r-LDRH was not available at this centre. Propensity score matched (PSM) analysis of 89 case-control pairs was additionally performed. Primary endpoints were length of high dependency unit (HDU) & hospital stay and Clavien-Dindo graded complications among donors. Although r-LDRH took longer to perform (540 versus 462 mins, P<0.001), the post-operative peak transaminases levels(P<0.001), the length of HDU (3 versus 4 days, P<0.001) and hospital stay (8 versus 9 days, P<0.001) were lower in in donors undergoing r-LDRH. Clavien-Dindo graded complications were similar (16.67% in r-LDRH and 13.16% in o-LDRH). The rates of early allograft dysfunction (1.6% versus 3.3%), bile leak (14.7% versus 10.7%), and 1-year mortality (13.7% versus 11.8%) were comparable between r-LDRH and o-LDRH recipients. PSM analysis yielded similar results between the groups. These data support the safety and feasibility of r-LDRH in select donors. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Complete transition from open surgery to laparoscopy: 8-year experience with more than 500 laparoscopic living donor hepatectomies

This study was designed to review laparoscopic living donor liver transplantations (LDLTs) at a single center that achieved complete transition from open surgery to laparoscopy. LDLTs performed from January 2013 to July 2021 were reviewed. Comparisons between open and laparoscopic surgeries were performed according to periods divided into initial, transition, and complete transition periods. A total of 775 LDLTs, 506 laparoscopic and 269 open cases, were performed. Complete transition was achieved in 2020. Bile duct variations were significantly abundant in the open group both in the initial period (30.2% vs. 8.1%; p < 0.001) and transition period (48.1% vs. 24.3%; p < 0.001). Portal vein variation was more abundant in the open group only in the initial period (13.0% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.03). Although the donor reoperation rate (0.0% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.02) and Grade III or higher complication rate (5.6% vs. 13.5%; p = 0.03) were significantly higher in the laparoscopy group in the initial period, there were no differences during the transition period as well as in overall cases. Median number of opioids required by the donor (three times [interquartile range, IQR, 1-6] vs. 1 time [IQR, 0-3]; p < 0.001) was lower, and the median hospital stay (10 days [IQR, 8-12] vs. 8 days [IQR, 7-9]; p < 0.001) was shorter in the laparoscopy group. Overall recipient bile leakage rate (23.8% vs. 12.8%; p < 0.001) and overall Grade III or higher complication rate (44.6% vs. 37.2%; p = 0.009) were significantly lower in the laparoscopy group. Complete transition to laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy was possible after accumulating a significant amount of experience. Because donor morbidity can be higher in the initial period, donor selection for favorable anatomy is required for both the donor and recipient.

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.

Liver transplantation in China: Achievements over the past 30 years and prospects for the future

Over the last three decades, liver transplantation (LT) in China has made breakthroughs from scratch. Now, new techniques are being continuously incorporated. However, LT in China differs from that in other countries due to cultural differences and the disease burden. The advances made in and the current issues with LT in China need to be summarized. Living donor LT (LDLT) has developed dramatically in China over the last 30 years, with the goal of increasing transplant opportunities and dealing with the shortage of donors. Western candidate selection criteria clearly are not appropriate for Chinese patients. Thus, the current authors reviewed the literature, and this review has focused on the topics of technological advancements in LDLT and Chinese candidate selection. The Milan criteria in wide use emphasize tumor morphology rather than pathology or biomarkers. α-fetoprotein (AFP) and pathology were incorporated as predictors for the first time in the Hangzhou criteria. Moreover, Xu et al. divided the Hangzhou criteria into type A (tumor size ≤ 8 cm or tumor size > 8 cm but AFP ≤ 100 ng/mL) and type B (tumor size > 8 cm but AFP between 100 and 400 ng/mL), with type B serving as a relative contraindication in the event of a liver donor shortage. In addition, surgeons in Chengdu and Shanghai have the ability to perform a laparoscopic hepatectomy for right and left lobe donors, respectively. China has established a complete LT system, including recipient criteria suitable for Chinese people, a fair donor allocation center, a transplant quality monitoring platform, and mature deceased donor or living donor LT techniques.

Perioperative management of living donor liver transplantation: Part 2 - Donors

Living donor liver transplantation was first developed to mitigate the limited access to deceased donor organs in Asia in the 1990s. This alternative liver transplantation method has become a widely practiced and established transplantation option for adult patients suffering with end-stage liver disease, and it has successfully helped address the shortage of deceased donors. The Society for the Advancement of Transplant Anesthesia and the Korean Society of Transplantation Anesthesiologists jointly reviewed published studies on the perioperative management of adult live liver donors undergoing donor hemi-hepatectomy. The goal of the review is to offer transplant anesthesiologists and critical care physicians a comprehensive overview of the perioperative management of adult live donors. We featured the current status, donor selection process, outcomes and complications, surgical procedure, anesthetic management, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols, avoidance of blood transfusion, and considerations for emergency donation. Recent surgical advances, including laparoscopic donor hemi-hepatectomy and robotic laparoscopic donor surgery, are also addressed.

Pure laparoscopic versus open donor hepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation - A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) for adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of donor outcomes following PLDH for adult LDLT.

Materials and Methods

Systematic review in line with the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology guidelines.

Results

Eight studies were included in the systematic review and six in the meta-analysis. A total of 575 donors underwent PLDH for adult LDLT. The mean donor age was 32.8 years with a BMI of 23.4 kg/m² and graft weight of 675 g. The mean operative time was 353 min and the conversion rate was 2.8% (n = 16). Overall morbidity was 10.8% with 1.6% major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 3b), zero mortality and 9.0 days length of stay (LOS). The meta-analysis demonstrated that the operative time was significantly shorter for the open donor hepatectomy group (mean difference 29.15 min; P = 0.006) and the LOS was shorter for the PLDH group (mean difference -0.73 days; P = 0.02), with a trend towards lesser estimated blood loss in PLDH group. However, no difference between the two groups was noted in terms of overall morbidity or major complications.

Conclusions

Perioperative outcomes of PLDH are similar to the standard open approach in highly specialised centers with trend towards lesser blood loss and overall shorter hospital stay. Careful donor selection and standardisation of the technique are imperative for the successful implementation and adoption of the procedure worldwide.

Pure laparoscopic living donor liver transplantation: Dreams come true

Minimally invasive approaches are increasingly being applied in surgeries and have recently been used in living donor hepatectomy. We have developed a safe and reproducible method for minimally invasive living donor liver transplantation, which consists of pure laparoscopic explant hepatectomy and pure laparoscopic implantation of the graft, which was inserted through a suprapubic incision. Pure laparoscopic explant hepatectomy without liver fragmentation was performed in a 60-year-old man with alcoholic liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. The explanted liver was retrieved through a suprapubic incision. A modified right liver graft, procured from his 24-year-old son using the pure laparoscopic method, was inserted through a suprapubic incision, and implantation was performed intracorporeally throughout the procedure. The time required to remove the liver was 369 min, and the total operative time was 960 min. No complications occurred during or after the surgery. The patient recovered well, and his hospital stay was of 11 days. Pure laparoscopic living donor liver transplantation from explant hepatectomy to implantation was performed successfully. It is a feasible procedure when performed by a highly experienced surgeon and transplantation team. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm its safety and feasibility.

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(–).

Robotic donor hepatectomy: A major breakthrough in living donor liver transplantation

Living donation in many countries is the main resource of organs. Healthy, volunteering individuals deserve the highest safety standards possible in addition to the least invasive technique to procure the organs. Since the introduction of living donor liver transplantation, many efforts have been made to minimize the surgical trauma inherent to living donor surgery. The journey started with a large Mercedes incision and evolved to reverse L-shaped and small upper midline incisions before the introduction of minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques originated. The technical difficulties of the laparoscopic approach due to suboptimal instrumentation, challenging ergonomics, and the long learning curve limited the application of the fully laparoscopic approach to a few centers. The recent introduction of the robotic platform with its superb optical system and advanced instruments allows for the first time, a genuine emulation of open donor surgery in a closed abdomen, thus allowing all liver donors to benefit from minimally invasive surgery (better cosmesis, less pain and morbidity, and better quality of life) without compromising donor safety. This attribute in combination with the ubiquitous presence of the robot in major transplant centers may well lead to the desired endpoint of this technology, namely, the widespread dissemination of minimally invasive donor surgery.

Pure Laparoscopic vs. Open Right Hepatectomy in Living Liver Donors: Bench-Surgery Time

Background: Recently, there have been several reports on pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH), but the effect of pure laparoscopy on bench surgery has not been evaluated. This study aimed to compare bench-surgery time between PLDRH and conventional donor right hepatectomy (CDRH).

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 758 live liver donors between January 2012 and December 2019. We divided the patients into two groups: between January 2012 and September 2015, when we exclusively performed CDRH, and between March 2016 and December 2019, when PLDRH was standardized. We excluded all other types of graft donor hepatectomy, laparoscopic assisted donor hepatectomy, and cases with no recorded data.

Results: In total, 267 donors were included in the PLDRH group and were compared with 247 donors in the CDRH group. Similar proportions of graft vascular variations were observed between the two groups. The mean bench-surgery time was longer in the PLDRH group than in the CDRH group (49.3 ± 19.9 vs. 39.5 ± 17.5 min; P < 0.001).

Conclusion: The bench-surgery time was longer in the PLDRH group than the CDRH group, regardless of whether the vascular network was reconstructed. Expertise in bench-surgery as well as donor surgery and recipient surgery is mandatory for PLDRH to be safe and feasible.

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Approach for Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Pure laparoscopic liver donor right hepatectomy (LLDRH) remains challenging, and its value is still unclear compared with open liver donor right hepatectomy (OLDRH). Objective: To provide comprehensive evidence about the safety and efficacy of LLDRH. Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched from the date of inception to July 2021. A fixed-effects or random-effects model was used to analyze the pooled data by using Review Manager Version 5.3. Results: A total of 1940 patients from 6 studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis. For perioperative outcomes of donors, LLDRH had a longer operative time than OLDRH (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 29.75 [4.23-55.26] minutes, P = .02), but it had lower overall morbidity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67 [0.45-0.99], P = .04), fewer pulmonary complications (OR = 0.47 [0.29-0.76], P = .002), and shorter hospital stays (WMD = -1, P < .001) than OLDRH. However, major complications, biliary complications, portal vein problems, and intra-abdominal bleeding were comparable between the 2 groups. With regard to the postoperative data of recipients, the risks of biliary problems, hepatic artery problems, portal vein problems, hepatic vein problems, and postoperative liver failure were similar between the 2 groups. Conclusions: LLDRH for living donors is safe and effective, and it offers superior perioperative outcomes to OLDRH.

Pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy (with video)

Only a few centers in the world perform pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. In this procedure, right lobe donation is mostly preferred in view of the higher graft volume usually needed for the recipient. In the area, laparoscopic surgery has had a minor development given the greater technical difficulty and risks for both donor and preservation of the graft. Nevertheless, last 3 years, the advances in major laparoscopic liver surgery suggest that pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy could be a feasible and safe procedure in appropriately selected donors, and mostly, when is performed by surgeons with significant experience in both laparoscopic liver surgery and liver transplantation with living donor liver grafts. This video shows the surgical technique of a pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy in a 30-year-old female volunteered for living donation to her brother.

Purely laparoscopic explant hepatectomy and hybrid laparoscopic/robotic graft implantation in living donor liver transplantation

This report describes a purely laparoscopic/robotic technique for successful living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Purely laparoscopic explant hepatectomy followed by purely laparoscopic and robotic graft implantation can be performed in LDLT.

Extreme living donation: A single center simultaneous and sequential living liver-kidney donor experience with long-term outcomes under literature review

OBJECTIVES

Living liver and kidney donor surgeries are major surgical procedures applied to healthy people with mortality and morbidity risks not providing any direct therapeutic advantage to the donor. In this study, we aimed to share our simultaneous and sequential living liver-kidney donor experience under literature review in this worldwide rare practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between January 2007 and February 2018, a total of 1109 living donor nephrectomies and 867 living liver donor hepatectomies were performed with no mortality to living-related donors. Eight donors who were simultaneous or sequential living liver-kidney donors in this time period were retrospectively reviewed and presented with their minimum 2- year follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 8 donors, 3 of them were simultaneous and 5 of them were sequential liver-kidney donation. All of them were close relatives. Mean age was 39 (26-61) years and mean BMI was 25.7 (17.7-40). In 3 donors, right lobe, in 4 donors, left lateral sector, and in 1 donor, left lobe hepatectomy were performed. Median hospital stay was 9 (7-13) days. Two donors experienced early and late postoperative complications (Grade 3b and Grade 1). No mortality and no other long-term complication occurred.

CONCLUSION

Expansion of the donor pool by utilizing grafts from living donors is a globally-accepted proposition since it provides safety and successful outcomes. Simultaneous or sequential liver and kidney donation from the same donor seems to be a reasonable option for combined liver-kidney transplant recipients in special circumstances with acceptable outcomes.

A Novel Technique for Bile Duct Division During Laparoscopic Living Donor Hepatectomy to Overcome Biliary Complications in Liver Transplantation Recipients: "Cut and Clip" Rather Than "Clip and Cut"

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to analyze the clinical impact of a new bile duct division technique during laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy.

METHODS

Laparoscopic donor right hepatectomies performed by a single surgeon between December 2016 and August 2019 were included. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography of the donors was reconstructed, and the length of the common channel of the dividing intrahepatic duct was measured. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the bile duct division techniques of "clip and cut" versus "cut and clip." Outcome of bile duct division was categorized based on the graft and bile duct type and number of bile duct openings.

RESULTS

A total of 147 transplantations were included. Outcomes in the "cut and clip" group were better than those in the "clip and cut" group with regard to obtaining an adequate division point (94.2% versus 78.8%; P = 0.019). The "cut and clip" showed superior biliary stricture-free survival than the "clip and cut" group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.456; confidence interval [CI], 0.217-0.957; P = 0.038) whereas recipients with hepaticojejunostomy (HR, 3.358; CI, 1.090-10.350; P = 0.035) and bile duct type other than type I (HR, 2.214; CI, 1.143-4.289; P = 0.018) showed increased risk for biliary stricture-free survival. Better outcome in terms of obtaining a single opening was also obtained in the "cut and clip" group (68.2% versus 84.6%; P = 0.040), and this difference was significant especially with a common channel shorter than 10 mm (45.5% versus 81.2%; P = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

The "cut and clip" technique showed superior outcomes to the "clip and cut" technique in terms of fewer bile duct openings and biliary stricture-free survival of the recipients.

Influence of Large Grafts Weighing ≥ 1000 g on Outcome of Pure Laparoscopic Donor Right Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Depending on a transplant center's level of experience, utilization of pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) may be limited due to graft size or anatomical variations. Here, we aimed to evaluate the influence of large hepatic grafts (≥ 1000 g) when performing PLDRH in both donors and recipients of such grafts.

METHODS

Medical records of living donors who underwent either PLDRH from November 2015 to August 2019 or open conventional donor right hepatectomy (CDRH) from January 2010 to August 2019 and those of the graft recipients were retrospectively reviewed. Donors were separated into three groups: PLDRH graft ≥ 1000 g (n = 10; study group), PLDRH graft < 1000 g (n = 280; control-I group), and CDRH graft ≥ 1000 g (n = 24; control-II group).

RESULTS

Total operative duration (P = 0.017) and warm ischemia time (P < 0.001) were significantly longer in the study than in the control-I and control-II groups, respectively. ΔAlanine aminotransferase% was significantly lower in the study than in the control-I group (P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in minor complication incidence between the study and control-I (P = 0.068) and control-II (P = 0.618) donors. There were no major complications in the study and control-II donors, whereas six control-I donors (2.1%) experienced a major complication (P = 1.000). Length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the study than in the control-II group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in early and late major complication incidence for recipients between the study and control-I and control-II groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PLDRH for grafts weighing ≥ 1000 g appears to be safe and feasible when performed by experienced surgeons in a well-equipped center.

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.

Timing for Introduction of Total Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy; Initial Experience Based on the Data of Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the timing of safe introduction of total laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (TLDRH) based on outcomes of laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH).

METHODS

The data of 1013 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection from 2003 to 2017 were reviewed; the cumulative sum method was used to evaluate the learning curve of LMH. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to the timing of introduction of TLDRH (since 2010) and learning curve of LMH. Surgical outcomes of LMH and TLDRH were evaluated.

RESULTS

Cumulative sum analysis demonstrated a learning curve of approximately 73 cases of LMH. In phase I (before the introduction of TLDRH, 2003-2009), 38 cases of LMH were performed. Phase II (after the introduction of TLDRH until learning curve of LMH, 2010-2014), 35 and 15 cases of LMH and TLDRH were performed, respectively. Phase III (after learning curve of LMH until 2017, 2014-2017), 59 and 20 cases of LMH and TLDRH were performed, respectively. In cases of LMH, there was significant improvement in the operation time 398.9 ± 140.9 versus 403.7 ± 165.2 versus 265.5 ± 91.7; P < 0.001), estimated blood loss (1122.9 ± 1460.2 versus 1209.3 ± 1409.1 versus 359.8 ± 268.8; P < 0.001), and open conversion rate (26.3% versus 22.9% versus 13.6%; P = 0.026) between phases I versus II versus III. In cases of TLDRH, the operation time (567.8 ± 117.9 versus 344.2 ± 71.8; P < 0.001), estimated blood loss (800.7 ± 514.8 versus 439.4 ± 347.0; P = 0.004), and hospital stay (12.5 ± 4.36 versus 9.15 ± 4.84; P = 0.025) significantly improved in phase III.

CONCLUSIONS

Overcoming the learning curve of LMH before starting TLDRH is advisable to ensure donor's surgical outcomes.

Safety of laparoscopic hepatectomy in patients with severe comorbidities - A propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is nowadays considered as the standard of care for various liver malignancies. However, studies focusing on perioperative outcome after LH in patients with severe comorbidities are still sparse.

METHODS

247 patients, who underwent LH between January 2016 and March 2020 at European surgical center Aachen Maastricht (ESCAM) were retrospectively analyzed regarding surgical outcome. All patients were categorized according to the ASA guidelines and a propensity score matched (PSM) analysis was performed to compare patients with severe comorbidities with patients with minor or no comorbidities.

RESULTS

After PSM, no statistically significant differences regarding clinical characteristics were observed. We performed major resections in 26.4% of h-ASA (ASA > 2) patients and 19.4% of l-ASA (ASA≤2) patients, respectively (P = .322). Overall morbidity (Clavien-Dindo≥1) was observed more frequently in the h-ASA group (h-ASA: 25.0% vs. l-ASA: 8.3%; P = .007) while analysis of major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo≥3b) showed a non-significant tendency for more complications in h-ASA patients (h-ASA: 8.3% vs. l-ASA: 1.4%; P = .053). A subgroup analysis identified major resection (HR = 5.05; P = .006) as an independent risk factor for the occurrence of any postoperative complication and chronic kidney disease (HR = 22.59; P = .030) and liver fibrosis (HR = 30.16; P = .031) as risk factors for the occurrence of major complications in h-ASA patients.

CONCLUSION

LH in patients with severe systemic comorbidities shows a strong tendency towards an increased rate of major complications. Careful patient selection with respect to the planned extent of resection and the presence of chronic kidney disease and liver fibrosis should be performed to improve perioperative results.

Shorter operation time and improved surgical outcomes in laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy compared with open donor right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy is a complex procedure, and the safety and feasibility of this operation remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and learning curve of this operation performed by a single surgeon.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the initial 100 donors who underwent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy or open donor right hepatectomy by a single surgeon from December 2012 to May 2019. Endpoints analyzed included intraoperative results, postoperative complications, and learning curve, which was evaluated using the cumulative sum method based on the operation time. We divided the pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy group into initial and recent groups based on the time point of overcoming the learning curve.

RESULTS

The operative time was significantly shorter in the recent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy group (n = 57; 181.0 ± 35.7 min) than in the open donor right hepatectomy (n = 50; 203.0 ± 37.3 min) and initial pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (n = 43; 282.2 ± 59.2 min) groups (P < .001). Moreover, the length of hospital stay in the recent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy group was significantly reduced compared to that in the open donor right hepatectomy group (7.7 ± 1.2 vs 5.8 ± 1.4; P < .001). The complication rate was reduced from 10% in the open donor right hepatectomy group and 8% in the initial pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy group to 2% in the recent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy group.

CONCLUSION

As technology advances, the surgical outcomes of pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy are comparable and the operation time of pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy is superior to those of open donor hepatectomy.

Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy Regarding the Anatomical Variation of the Portal Vein: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

This study is designed to analyze the feasibility of laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy in living donors with portal vein variation. Living donor liver transplantation cases using a right liver graft during the period of January 2014 to September 2019 were included. Computed tomographic angiographies of the donor were 3-dimensionally reconstructed, and the anatomical variation of the portal vein was classified. To reduce selection bias, a 1:1 ratio propensity score-matched analysis between the laparoscopy group and the open group was performed. Surgical and recovery-related outcomes as well as portal vein complication-free survival, graft survival, and overall survival rates were analyzed. After matching, 171 cases in each group from 444 original cases were compared. The laparoscopy group had a shorter operation time (P < 0.001), a smaller number of additional opioids required by the donor (P < 0.001), and a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001). There were no differences in the portal vein complication-free survival (P = 0.16), graft survival (P = 0.26), or overall survival rates (P = 0.53). Although portal vein complication-free survival was inferior in portal veins other than type I (P = 0.01), the laparoscopy group showed similar portal vein complication-free survival regardless of the anatomical variation of portal vein (P = 0.35 in type I and P = 0.30 in other types). Laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy can be performed as safely as open surgery regardless of the anatomical variation of the portal vein.