Comparison of pure laparoscopic and open living donor right hepatectomy after a learning curve

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.

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

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

Preventing Small-for-size Syndrome in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) is a well-recognized complication following liver transplantation (LT), with up to 20% developing this following living donor LT (LDLT). Preventing SFSS involves consideration of factors before the surgical procedure, including donor and recipient selection, and factors during the surgical procedure, including adequate outflow reconstruction, graft portal inflow modulation, and management of portosystemic shunts. International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplant Society of India Consensus Conference was convened in January 2023 to develop recommendations for the prediction and management of SFSS in LDLT. The format of the conference was based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. International experts in this field were allocated to 4 working groups (diagnosis, prevention, anesthesia, and critical care considerations, and management of established SFSS). The working groups prepared evidence-based recommendations to answer-specific questions considering the currently available literature. The working group members, independent panel, and conference attendees served as jury to edit and confirm the final recommendations presented at the end of the conference by each working group separately. This report presents the final statements and evidence-based recommendations provided by working group 2 that can be implemented to prevent SFSS in LDLT patients.

Swine Partial Liver Transplantation Model for Practicing Living Donor Liver Transplantation Based on a New Liver Segmentation Method

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is one of the most technically demanding and complicated procedures. However, unlike deceased donor liver transplantation, there is no suitable animal model for practicing LDLT. Herein, we propose a new liver segmentation method and a feasible pig LDLT model for practicing for LDLT in humans.

METHODS

Four Landrace pigs weighing 25, 25, 27, and 28 kg were used as donors and recipients to establish a partial liver transplantation model. Partial liver transplantation was performed using a right liver and a left liver, respectively, based on a new segmentation system compatible with that of humans.

RESULTS

We established a new segmentation system for porcine liver transplantation and a partial liver transplantation model. For right liver transplantation, 91 and 142 min were required to operate on the donor and recipient, respectively; for left liver transplantation, 57 and 104 min were required to operate on the donor and recipient, respectively. All pigs that underwent partial liver transplantation remained alive until the operation was completed.

CONCLUSIONS

It is expected that this new pig model based on the new segmentation system will be suitable as an educational tool for LDLT training and will replace the existing animal models for partial liver transplantation.

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.

Minimally Invasive Donors Right Hepatectomy versus Open Donors Right Hepatectomy: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

How to obtain a donor liver remains an open issue, especially in the choice of minimally invasive donors right hepatectomy versus open donors right hepatectomy (MIDRH versus ODRH). We conducted a meta-analysis to clarify this question.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 24 retrospective studies were identified. For MIDRH vs. ODRH, the operative time was longer in the MIDRH group (mean difference [MD] = 30.77 min; p = 0.006). MIDRH resulted in significantly less intraoperative blood loss (MD = -57.86 mL; p < 0.00001), shorter length of stay (MD = -1.22 days; p < 0.00001), lower pulmonary (OR = 0.55; p = 0.002) and wound complications (OR = 0.45; p = 0.0007), lower overall complications (OR = 0.79; p = 0.02), and less self-infused morphine consumption (MD = -0.06 days; 95% CI, -1.16 to -0.05; p = 0.03). In the subgroup analysis, similar results were observed in pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) and the propensity score matching group. In addition, there were no significant differences in post-operation liver injury, bile duct complications, Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 III, readmission, reoperation, and postoperative transfusion between the MIDRH and ODRH groups.

DISCUSSION

We concluded that MIDRH is a safe and feasible alternative to ODRH for living donators, especially in the PLDRH group.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Achievement of textbook outcomes and comparisons with benchmark values after laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) is considered a standard approach for patients. Textbook outcomes (TOs) with benchmark values have been developed to help centers assess their outcomes of LLLS. The aim of our study was to identify factors associated with achieving TOs after LLLS. This is a retrospective cohort study including 195 patients undergoing LLLS between January 2004 and December 2018. Our outcomes were compared to benchmark values and graded as similar, better, or worse. A TO was achieved in 106 patients (54.4%). The main determinant for achieving a TO was prolonged hospital stay. Year of surgery [P = 0.002; odds ratio (OR) 3.913, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.666-9.188], American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (P = 0.015; OR 0.104, 95% CI 0.017-0.650), body mass index (BMI) score (P = 0.075; OR 1.135, 95% CI 0.988-1.304), inflow clamping > 40 min (P = 0.037; OR 0.090, 95% CI 0.009-0.867) and operation time (P = 0.002; OR 0.991, 95% CI 0.985-0.997) were the factors associated with achieving a TO. Our outcomes were similar to the benchmark values for all criteria, except for the transfusion rate (our study vs benchmark values; 6.2% vs 3.8%), which was worse in our patients. We achieved better outcomes with a lower conversion rate (4.6% vs 7.2%), fewer patients requiring massive transfusion (4.1% vs 8.3%), lower rate of prolonged inflow clamping (3.9% vs 6.3%), lower overall complication rate (11.9% vs 19.8%), lower reoperation rate (0% vs 3.4%), and fewer patients with a positive margin (1.5% vs 10.8%). Year of surgery, ASA score, inflow clamping > 40 min and operation time were independently associated with failure to achieve a TO. TOs are useful tools to measure the surgical outcomes and compare surgical performance with benchmark values. TOs also offer a new method to retrospectively compare outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open 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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Pure Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy: Right Posterior Section Graft

BACKGROUND

The use of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is widespread owing to its several advantages, especially smaller incision (Kaneko et al., Ann Gastroenterol Surg 1:33-43, 1; Ciria et al., Surg Endosc 34:349-360, 2). However, both posterior sectionectomy and donor hepatectomy are extremely difficult procedures to perform in LLR (Hasegawa et al., Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2:376-382, 3; Soubrane and Kwon, J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 24:E1-E5, 4; Takahara et al., Transplantation 101:1628-1636, 5; Lee et al., Clin Transplant 33:e13683, 6; Hong et al., Surg Endosc 33:3741-3748, 7; Rhu et al., J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 27:16-25, 8). Moreover, the right posterior section graft procurement is also difficult even in open laparotomy procedure (Sugawara et al., Transplantation 73:111-114, 9; Hwang et al., Liver Transpl 10:1150-1155, 10; Hori, Kirino, and Uemoto, Hepatol Res 45:1076-1082, 11; Kusakabe et al., Liver Transpl 26:299-303, 12). The pure laparoscopic donor posterior sectionectomy has not been reported yet. Therefore, we aimed to introduce a novel procedure through a video clip.

METHODS

The donor was placed in the semi-left lateral decubitus position with the reverse Trendelenburg position using a bean bag device. The right liver was mobilized, and the right hepatic vein was exposed. To adopt the liver hanging maneuver, a tape was inserted between the middle and right hepatic veins along the inferior vena cava. The posterior Glissonean pedicle was encircled and controlled, and the liver parenchyma was completely transected using the liver hanging maneuver. The vessels to the posterior section were respectively isolated. The posterior branches of the hepatic duct, hepatic artery, and portal vein were cut. The right hepatic vein was divided, and the graft liver was retrieved via a suprapubic incision. This study was approved by institutional ethics board (No. MH2019-119), and informed consent was taken from the patient.

RESULTS

The overall surgical time was 503 min, and the blood loss was 400 mL. No complications were observed, and the donor was discharged from the hospital on postoperative day 11.

CONCLUSION

This is the first report of pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy of the posterior section graft. This procedure is more difficult than other laparoscopic donor hepatectomies because it involves parenchymal transection in the right intersectional plane and dissection of the posterior branches of hilar vessels.

The impact of mini-invasive right hepatectomy in the setting of living donation: a meta-analysis

Adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation (A2ALDLT) represents a challenging procedure, mainly when the right hepatic lobe is donated. Therefore, especially in Western countries, the medical community still considers it a “risky procedure”. The present meta-analysis investigated the postoperative results reported in donors undergoing right hepatectomy for A2ALDLT through a minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) vs. open liver resection (OLR) approach, with the intent to clarify the hypothesis that the MILR approach should minimize the risks for the donor. A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE electronic databases. The primary outcome investigated was the complication rate after transplant. Fifteen studies were included (n = 2094; MILR = 553 vs. OLR = 1541). The MILR group only merged the statistical relevance in terms of advantage in terms of a lower number of complications (OR = 0.771, 95% CI 0.578–1.028; P value = 0.077). Investigating the complications ≥ IIIa according to the Dindo-Clavien classification, the estimated blood loss, and the length of hospital stay, no statistical difference was reported between the two groups. MILR represents a novel and promising approach for improving the results in A2ALDLT. However, no benefits have been reported regarding blood loss, length of stay, and postoperative complications. More extensive experiences are needed to re-evaluate the impact of MILR in right lobe live donation.

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.

Laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy: Review of its current status

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Laparoscopic major liver resections: Current standards

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

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy, systemic review

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