Bilateral proficiency over time leads to reduced donor morbidity in living donor hepatectomy

Improving Safety in Living Liver Donation: Lessons From Intraoperative Adverse Events in 438 Donors Undergoing a Left Liver Resection

Background

Donor safety is paramount in living organ donation. Left liver resections are considered safer than right lobe hepatectomies. However, unexpected intraoperative adverse events (iAEs), defined as any deviation from the ideal intraoperative course, can also occur during left liver resections and may be life threatening or lead to postoperative complication or permanent harm to the donor and recipient.

Methods

Records of 438 liver living donors (LDs) who underwent 393 left lateral sectionectomies (LLSs) and 45 left hepatectomies (LHs) between July 1993 and December 2018 in a pediatric living-donor liver transplantation center were reviewed for the appearance of iAEs that could have influenced the donor morbidity and mortality and that could have contributed to the improvement of the LD surgical protocol.

Results

Clinical characteristics of LLS and LH groups were comparable. Nine iAEs were identified, an incidence of 2%, all of them occurring in the LLS group. Seven of them were related to a surgical maneuver (5 associated with vascular management and 2 with the biliary tree approach). One iAE was associated with an incomplete donor workup and the last with drug administration. Each iAE resulted in subsequent changes in the surgical protocol. Donor outcome was at risk by 5 iAEs classed as type a, recipient outcome by 2 iAEs (type b) and both by 2 iAEs (type c). Postoperative complications occurred in 87 LDs (19.9%), with no differences between the LLS and LH groups (P = 0.227). No Clavien-Dindo class IVa or b complications or donor mortality (Clavien-Dindo class V) were observed.

Conclusions

iAEs debriefings induced changes in our LD protocol and may have contributed to reduced morbidity and zero mortality. iAEs analysis can be used as a quality and safety improvement tool in the context of LD procedures, which may include right liver donation, laparoscopic, and robotic living liver graft procurement.

Technical challenges in LDLT - Overcoming small for size syndrome and venous outflow reconstruction

Living Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT) emerged as an alternative treatment option for patients with end-stage liver disease waiting for an organ from a deceased donor. In addition to allowing for a faster access to transplantation, LDLT provides improved recipient outcomes when compared to deceased donor LT. However, it represents a more complex and demanding procedure for the transplant surgeon. In addition to a comprehensive preoperative donor assessment and stringent technical considerations during the donor hepatectomy to ensure upmost donor safety, the recipient procedure also comes with intrinsic challenges during LDLT. A proper approach during both procedures will result in favorable donor and recipient's outcomes. Hence, it is critical for the transplant surgeon to know how to overcome such technical challenges and avoid deleterious complications. One of the most feared complications following LDLT is small-for-size syndrome (SFSS). Although, surgical advances and deeper understanding of the pathophysiology behind SFSS has allowed for a safer implementation of LDLT, there is currently no consensus on the best strategy to prevent or manage this complication. Therefore, we aim to review current practices in technically challenging situations during LDLT, with a particular focus on management of small grafts and venous outflow reconstructions, as they possess one of the biggest technical challenges faced during LDLT.

Donor Morbidity Is Equivalent Between Right and Left Hepatectomy for Living Liver Donation: A Meta-Analysis

Maximizing liver graft volume benefits the living donor liver recipient. Whether maximizing graft volume negatively impacts living donor recovery and outcomes remains controversial. Patient randomization between right and left hepatectomy has not been possible due to anatomic constraints; however, a number of published, nonrandomized observational studies summarize donor outcomes between 2 anatomic living donor hepatectomies. This meta-analysis compares donor-specific outcomes after right versus left living donor hepatectomy. Systematic searches were performed via PubMed, Cochrane, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar databases to identify relevant studies between January 2005 and November 2019. The primary outcomes compared overall morbidity and incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo >III) between right and left hepatectomy in donors after liver donation. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to derive summary risk estimates of outcomes. A total of 33 studies (3 prospective and 30 retrospective cohort) were used to identify 7649 pooled patients (5993 right hepatectomy and 1027 left hepatectomy). Proportion of donors who developed postoperative complications did not significantly differ after right hepatectomy (0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.40) and left hepatectomy (0.23; 95% CI, 0.17-0.29; P = 0.19). The overall risk ratio (RR) did not differ between right and left hepatectomy (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.83-1.63; P = 0.36). The relative risk for a donor to develop severe complications showed no differences by hepatectomy side (Incidence rate ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.67-1.40; P = 0.86). There is no evidence that the overall morbidity differs between right and left lobe donors. Publication bias reflects institutional and surgeon variation. A prospective, standardized, multi-institutional study would help quantify the burden of donor complications after liver donation.