Self-assessment of postoperative scars in living liver donors

Minimizing Incision in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Initial Experience and Comparative Analysis of Upper Midline Incision in 115 Recipients

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) needs "Mercedes Benz" or "J-shaped" incision, causing short and long-term complications. An upper midline incision (UMI) is less invasive alternative but technically challenging. Reporting UMI for recipients in LDLT vs. conventional J-shaped incision. Retrospective analysis, July 2021 to December 2022. Peri-operative details and post-transplant outcomes of 115 consecutive adult LDLT recipients transplanted with UMI compared with 140 recipients with J-shaped incision. Cohorts had similar preoperative and intraoperative variables. The UMI group had significant shorter time to ambulation (3 ± 1.6 vs. 3.6 ± 1.3 days, p = 0.001), ICU stay (3.8 ± 1.3 vs. 4.4 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.001), but a similar hospital stay (15.6±7.6 vs. 16.1±10.9 days, p = 0.677), lower incidence of pleural effusion (11.3% vs. 27.1% p = 0.002), and post-operative ileus (1.7% vs. 9.3% p = 0.011). The rates of graft dysfunction (4.3% vs. 8.5% p = 0.412), biliary complications (6.1% vs. 12.1% p = 0.099), 90-day mortality (7.8% vs. 12.1% p = 0.598) were similar. UMI-LDLT afforded benefits such as reduced pleuropulmonary complications, better early post-operative recovery and reduction in scar-related complaints in the medium-term. This is a safe, non-inferior and reproducible technique for LDLT.

Intrapericardial liver herniation after coronary artery bypass grafting: a case report of minimally invasive repair with 20-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Transdiaphragmatic intrapericardial herniation (DIPH) of intra-abdominal organs is a rare but potentially life-threatening phenomenon often requiring urgent repair. There are currently no guidelines on the preferred repair technique in this situation.

METHODS

Retrospective case report with long-term follow-up. We describe a case in which the left liver herniated into the pericardium after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using the right gastroepiploic artery (RGEA).

RESULTS

Urgent laparoscopic reduction of the liver herniation and repair of the large diaphragmatic defect was performed using an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) mesh in a 50 year old male patient. Hemodynamic instability normalized after the hernia reduction. The postoperative course was uneventful. CT-scan evaluation after 9 and 20 years of follow-up showed perfect integrity of the mesh.

CONCLUSION

A laparoscopic approach for DIPH is feasible in emergency situations provided sufficient hemodynamic stability of the patient. On-lay ePTFE mesh repair is a valid option for such repairs. We illustrate the long-term durability and safety of ePTFE for DIPH repair in what seems to be by far the longest documented follow-up after laparoscopic ePTFE mesh repair for DIPH.

A hybrid procedure of living donor liver transplantation for a pediatric patient with citrin deficiency

BACKGROUND

The application of laparoscopic procedures in the liver surgery has been growing. We herein present the first case of a pediatric patient who underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using a hybrid procedure with hand-assisted laparoscopic mobilization of the liver, subsequent explantation of the diseased liver, and implantation of the graft under direct vision.

METHODS

A 12-year-old girl with citrin deficiency was scheduled for LDLT with a left lobe graft. After making an 8-cm upper midline incision, a 5-mm trocar was placed at the umbilicus and the right upper abdomen. Mobilization of the right liver lobe was performed using a hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) procedure. After the extension of the midline incision, short hepatic vein dissection, encircling the right hepatic vein and hepatic hilum dissection was performed. Explantation of the liver and subsequent implantation of the liver graft were conducted under direct vision.

RESULTS

Since the operation, her normal activities of daily life have been maintained with a normal liver function. Subsequently, her secondary sexual characteristics have recovered without any wound-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

A hybrid LDLT procedure was feasible for a pediatric patient. This procedure's benefits are considered meaningful for pediatric patients as it does not disrupt the rectus muscles or nerves and achieves cosmesis.

A comparison of postoperative pain between transumbilical and suprapubic incision in laparoscopic liver resection

BACKGROUND

In laparoscopic liver resection, few reports have investigated the influence of type of incision on postoperative pain in laparoscopic liver resection. We therefore conducted the present study to clarify the difference in postoperative pain between two types of incision.

METHODS

Nineteen patients who underwent laparoscopic lateral sectionectomy were enrolled. In 11 patients with a transumbilical incision and eight with a suprapubic incision, the operation duration, blood loss, length of incision, duration of intravenous fentanyl infusion immediately after surgery and rescue dosage, and period of regular oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were evaluated.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the two groups in patients' background characteristics, operation time, or amount of blood loss. The length of suprapubic incision was significantly longer than the umbilical incision. Concerning the postoperative pain management, the duration of intravenous fentanyl administration was 1 day (1-2 days) for umbilical incisions and 1.5 days (1-2 days) for suprapubic incisions, showing no significant difference. Regarding the rescue dosage of fentanyl, the results were comparable between the groups. Regarding the postoperative duration of regular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration, there was also no significant difference between the groups (transumbilical: 14 [5-35] days vs suprapubic: 8 [7-32]).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative pain is comparable between umbilical and suprapubic incision in patients who underwent laparoscopic left lateral segmentectomy. In terms of postoperative pain, either a transumbilical incision or a suprapubic incision can be selected for specimen extraction.

Postoperative incision scars and cosmetic satisfaction of living liver donors

Cosmetic appearance is a major concern for living donors. However, little is known about the impact of a surgical scar on body image changes in living liver donors. The aim of this study was to identify potential factors that cause displeasing upper midline incision scar, and to evaluate the overall satisfaction regarding body image and scarring after living donor hepatectomy.Donors who underwent right lobe hepatectomy were recruited. Exclusion criteria included reoperation, refusal to participate, and lost follow-up. All donors were invited to complete the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the body image questionnaire. According to the VSS results of upper midline incision scar, donors were divided into 2 groups: good scarring group (VSS ≤4) and bad scarring group (VSS >4). we compared the clinical outcomes, including the demographics, preoperation, intraoperation, and postoperation variables. The study also analyzed the results of the body image questionnaire.The proportion of male donors was 48.9%. The bad scarring group consisted of 63% of the donors. On multivariate analysis, being a male donor was found to be an independent predictor of a cosmetically displeasing upper midline incision scar with statistical significance. The results of body image questionnaires, there were significant differences in cosmetic score and confidence score among the 2 groups.The upper midline incision and male donors have higher rates of scarring in comparison with the transverse incision and female donors. Donors who reported having a higher satisfaction with their scar appearance usually had more self-confidence. However, the body image won't be affected. Medical staff should encourage donors to take active participation in wound care and continuously observe the impact of surgical scars on psychological changes in living liver donors.

Impact of Abdominal Incision Type on Postoperative Pain and Quality of Life Following Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this prospective study was to analyze the impact of abdominal incision type on postoperative pain and quality of life (QOL) in hepatectomy.

METHODS

In patients undergoing hepatectomy by open, hybrid, or pure laparoscopic approaches, we classified abdominal incisions as: pure laparoscopic (LAP), midline (MID), J-shaped (J), and J-shaped incision plus thoracotomy (TRC). Postoperative pain was measured on postoperative day (POD) 3, 7, 30, and 90 using a visual analog scale (VAS). QOL was evaluated using the short-form-36 questionnaire preoperatively and on POD 30 and 90.

RESULTS

We categorized 165 patients into LAP (n = 9, 5%), MID (n = 21, 13%), J (n = 95, 58%), and TRC (n = 40, 24%) groups. Median VAS scores on PODs 3/7/30/90 were: LAP, 27.5/7.5/10/10; MID, 30/10/15/5; J, 50/27.5/20/10, and TRC, 50/30/30/19. The J and TRC groups had significantly higher VAS scores vs. MID on PODs 3 and 7; the LAP and MID groups did not differ significantly. No significant positive correlations were observed between incision length and postoperative VAS, when we stratified patients into two groups according to the presence or absence of a transverse incision. Physical QOL summary scores did not return to preoperative levels even on POD 90, in patients with an additional transverse incision. Mental QOL summary scores worsened with postoperative complications rather than with abdominal incision type.

CONCLUSIONS

Transverse incisions, rather than incision length, led to worse midline incision pain and poorer QOL recovery post-hepatectomy. A hybrid approach may be a considerable option when pure laparoscopic hepatectomy is technically difficult.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (registration number: UMIN000017467; http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm ).

Prevalence and Predictors of Patient-Reported Long-term Mental and Physical Health After Donation in the Adult-to-Adult Living-Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Prospective and longitudinal studies have examined liver donors' medical outcomes beyond the first 1 to 2 years postdonation. There is no analogous longitudinal evidence on long-term psychosocial outcomes, including patient-reported clinically significant mental health problems and perceptions of physical well-being. We examined prevalence, descriptive characteristics, and predictors of diagnosable mental health conditions and self-reported physical health problems, including fatigue and pain, in the long-term years after liver donation.

METHODS

Donors from 9 centers who initially completed telephone interviews at 3 to 10 years postdonation (mean, 5.8 years; SD, 1.9) were reinterviewed annually for 2 years using validated measures. Outcomes were examined descriptively. Repeated-measures regression analyses evaluated potential predictors and correlates of outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 517 donors initially interviewed (66% of those eligible), 424 (82%) were reassessed at least once. Prevalence rates of major depression and clinically significant pain were similar to general population norms; average fatigue levels were better than norms. All prevalence rates showed little temporal change. Anxiety and alcohol use disorder rates exceeded normative rates at 1 or more assessments. Longer postdonation hospitalization, female sex, higher body mass index, concerns about donation-related health effects, and burdensome donation-related financial costs were associated with increased risk for most outcomes (P's < 0.05). Men were at higher risk for alcohol use disorder (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Anxiety and alcohol use disorders were more common than would be expected; they may warrant increased research attention and clinical surveillance. Surveillance for long-term problems in the areas assessed may be optimized by targeting donors at higher risk based on identified predictors and correlates.

Long-Term Medical and Psychosocial Outcomes in Living Liver Donors

Due to the enduring organ shortage, living donor liver transplantation has been a valuable treatment strategy for advanced liver disease patients for over 20 years. A variety of reviews have summarized the extensive data now available on medical and psychosocial risks to living donors in the aftermath of donation. However, evidence on donor medical and psychosocial outcomes beyond the first year postdonation has not been synthesized in any previous review. The evidence base on such "long-term" outcomes has been growing in recent years. A review of this evidence would therefore be timely and could serve as an important resource to assist transplant centers in their efforts to fully educate prospective donors and gain informed consent, as well as develop appropriate postdonation clinical care and surveillance plans. We reviewed recent literature on long-term donor outcomes, considering (a) medical outcomes, including mortality risk, rates of complications, abnormalities detected in laboratory testing, and the progress of liver regeneration; and (b) donor-reported psychosocial outcomes reflecting physical, emotional, and interpersonal/socioeconomic well-being, as well as overall health-related quality of life. We summarize limitations and gaps in available evidence, and we provide recommendations for future research and clinical care activities focused on long-term outcomes in liver donors.

Donor Safety in Adult-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Single-Center Experience of 356 Cases

Background

As an important means to tackle the worldwide shortage of liver grafts, adult-adult living donor liver transplantation (A-ALDLT) is the most massive operation a healthy person could undergo, so donor safety is of prime importance. However, most previous research focused on recipients, while complications in donors have not been fully described or investigated.

Material/Methods

To investigate donor safety in terms of postoperative complications, the clinical data of 356 A-ALDLT donors in our center from January 2002 to September 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. These patients were divided into a pre-2008 group (before January 2008) and a post-2008 group (after January 2008). Donor safety was evaluated with regard to the type, frequency, and severity of postoperative complications.

Results

There were no donor deaths in our center during this period. The overall complication rate was 23.0% (82/356). The proportion of Clavien I, II, III, and IV complications was 51.2% (42/82), 25.6% (21/82), 22.0% (18/82), and 1.2% (1/82), respectively. In all the donors, the incidence of Clavien I, II, III, and IV complications was 11.8% (42/356), 5.9% (21/356), 5.1% (18/356), and 0.3% (1/356), respectively. The overall complication rate in the post-2008 group was significantly lower than that in the pre-2008 group (18.1% (41/227) vs. 32.6% (42/129), P<0.01). Biliary complications were the most common, with an incidence of 8.4% (30/356).

Conclusions

The risk to A-ALDLT donors is controllable and acceptable with improvement in preoperative assessment and liver surgery.

Hybrid procedure in living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

We have previously reported a hybrid procedure that uses a combination of laparoscopic mobilization of the liver and subsequent hepatectomy under direct vision in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We present the details of this hybrid procedure and the outcomes of the procedure.

METHODS

Between January 1997 and August 2014, 204 LDLTs were performed at Nagasaki University Hospital. Among them, 67 recent donors underwent hybrid donor hepatectomy. Forty-one donors underwent left hemihepatectomy, 25 underwent right hemihepatectomy, and 1 underwent posterior sectionectomy. First, an 8-cm subxiphoid midline incision was made; laparoscopic mobilization of the liver was then achieved with a hand-assist through the midline incision under the pneumoperitoneum. Thereafter, the incision was extended up to 12 cm for the right lobe and posterior sector graft and 10 cm left lobe graft procurement. Under direct vision, parenchymal transection was performed by means of the liver-hanging maneuver. The hybrid procedure for LDLT recipients was indicated only for selected cases with atrophic liver cirrhosis without a history of upper abdominal surgery, significant retroperitoneal collateral vessels, or hypertrophic change of the liver (n = 29). For total hepatectomy and splenectomy, the midline incision was sufficiently extended.

RESULTS

All of the hybrid donor hepatectomies were completed without an extra subcostal incision. No significant differences were observed in the blood loss or length of the operation compared with conventional open procedures. All of the donors have returned to their preoperative activity level, with fewer wound-related complaints compared with those treated with the use of the conventional open procedure. In recipients treated with the hybrid procedure, no clinically relevant drawbacks were observed compared with the recipients treated with a regular Mercedes-Benz-type incision.

CONCLUSIONS

Our hybrid procedure was safely conducted with the same quality as the conventional open procedure in both LDLT donors and recipients.

Body image in transplant recipients and living organ donors

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to describe the current evidence regarding the prevalence and significance of concerns about body image in transplant recipients and organ donors.

RECENT FINDINGS

Body image and organ integration concerns have been reported as main themes in the psychological adaptation to transplantation. Their prevalence, severity, description and impact vary wildly. There is a lack of validated instruments to measure body image or organ integration in transplant patients. For organ recipients, satisfaction with body image depends on the organ, genre, pretransplant medical illness, time since transplantation and post-transplant medication regimen. Complete or partial denial of the graft is frequently reported. For organ donors, body image is influenced by the type of surgical incision. There is little evidence that body image or organ integration impact medical or psychological outcomes after transplantation or organ donation.

SUMMARY

Body image is becoming a significant component of measuring the quality of life in transplant patients. Body image may become a factor in decisions about if and when to pursue transplant for nonlife-threatening conditions (e.g. face transplantation), about the type of incision or about the immunosuppressant regimen. For mental health professionals, understanding the complexities of body image and organ integration will help enhance the assistance provided before and after transplant or donation.

Laparoscopy-assisted hepatectomy versus conventional (open) hepatectomy for living donors: when you know better, you do better

The conventional incision for donor hepatectomy is a right subcostal incision with a midline extension. With increased experience in both donor hepatectomy and laparoscopy, the conventional incision can be shortened to a significant extent. Laparoscopic mobilization of the liver coupled with a hand port allows the insertion of one hand inside the abdomen for control; this makes small-incision donor hepatectomy a technically feasible alternative. We compared 26 right lobe donor hepatectomies performed with a laparoscopy-assisted technique (the laparoscopy-assisted donor hepatectomy group) to 24 donor hepatectomies performed with the conventional open technique (the conventional donor hepatectomy group). The donors in both groups and their recipients were followed for 6 months. Pain, discomfort related to the scar [including abdominal wall sensorineural deficits (numbness and differences in tactile and temperature sensations) and tightness around the scar], and donor quality of life (assessed with the International Quality of Life Assessment Short Form 8 scoring system) were compared between the 2 groups. In conclusion, laparoscopy-assisted surgery can be a technically feasible alternative in experienced hands, and as with other minimally invasive surgeries, it has advantages such as significantly less pain, reduced incision-related complications, and better donor quality of life during the early postoperative period without compromising donor safety.