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

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.

Insights from Seoul National University Hospital's experience: a systematic review of pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy progression

Following its initial execution in November 2015, pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) has gained acceptance as a conventional practice at Seoul National University Hospital (SNUH). It is noteworthy that a significant proportion of cases entail full right hepatectomies, which are acknowledged to be technically demanding. As expertise and knowledge have been accrued, the pure laparoscopic technique has been extended to encompass liver recipients as a viable option in SNUH. The aim of this review is to present the developmental progression of PLDH, with a focus on pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH), at SNUH. This includes the standardization process, which can be achieved by sharing the hospital's accumulated experience and previous reports. Various types of graft, including full right, left, left lateral section, and monosegment, were procured by pure laparoscopic technique. The criteria for selection were expanded to include donors with variations in the anatomy of the portal vein and bile duct. Additionally, the procedure of PLDRH was determined to be safe and viable for donors with high body mass index and larger graft weight. In conclusion, this review demonstrates the alterations implemented throughout our evolution from restricted to inclusive criteria for donor selection, leading to a complete shift from open surgery to pure laparoscopic procedures in donor hepatectomy and eventually pure laparoscopic living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in recipient.

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.

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.

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(–).