Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy: a review of current status

Application of the IDEAL framework in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery: a review of the literature

PURPOSE

To evaluate every stage of surgical innovation and generate high-quality research evidence, the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) framework was developed. This study aimed to explore the application of the IDEAL framework in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery and identify factors limiting its dissemination.

METHODS

We conducted a citation search of 8 core IDEAL framework articles in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from 2009 to 2022. Two independent reviewers screened and selected articles related to hepatopancreatobiliary surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 1621 articles were identified through citation search. Following screening, 132 articles were finally retained, including 75 original studies (57%) and 57 secondary studies (43%). Of the original studies, only 10 articles (13%) accurately applied the IDEAL framework in methodology, distributed as follows: 1 in pre-IDEAL stage (0), 2 in Idea stage (1), 7 in Development stage (2a), 1 in Exploration stage (2b), and no articles in Assessment and Long-term study stages (3, 4). In the secondary studies, 36 articles (63%) mentioned and discussed the IDEAL framework, and all supported its application.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of the IDEAL framework in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery is increasingly widespread, as evidenced by its substantial citation in numerous articles. However, the utilization of the IDEAL framework remains predominantly confined to the early stages of innovation in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery, coupled with instances of misapplication stemming from insufficient comprehension of the framework. Further efforts are necessary to extend the impact of the IDEAL framework and provide surgeons with comprehensive guidance for its judicious implementation.

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.

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.

Laparoscopic-assisted liver transplantation: A realistic perspective

Laparoscopic approach was rarely described in recipients for liver transplantation (LT). We report the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic-assisted LT (LA-LT) in patients with unresectable liver metastases of neuroendocrine tumors. Total hepatectomy was performed laparoscopically with graft implantation through an upper midline incision. Liver grafts were retrieved from deceased donors. From July 2019 to July 2021, six patients (4 women, 2 men) underwent LA-LT. Median age and BMI were 46 (29-54) and 24 (19-35) kg/m² , respectively. Implanted grafts were reduced (n = 3), full (n = 2), and a right split liver (n = 1). Median surgical time was 405 min (390-450) and median blood loss was 425 ml (250-600). Median cold and warm ischemia times were 438 min (360-575) and 35 min (30-40), respectively. Median anhepatic phase was 51 min (40-67) and midline incision was 14 cm (13-20) long. On postoperative day 5, median prothrombin index and serum bilirubin levels were 95% (70-117) and 11 (10-37) μmol/L, respectively. No Clavien-Dindo > III complications were encountered. Median hospital stay was 12 days (10-14). After a median follow-up of 8 (8-32) months, all patients were alive without tumor recurrence or adverse event. This preliminary series suggests that in selected patients, LA-LT is a safe and effective option.

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.

Laparoscopic donor and recipient hepatectomy followed by robot-assisted liver graft implantation in living donor liver transplantation

Minimally invasive surgery has been introduced for liver transplantations. Although laparoscopic or robot-assisted living donor hepatectomy is being used, minimally invasive surgery is rarely performed in recipients during liver transplantation. A 63-year-old patient (body mass index: 21.9 kg/m² ) with primary biliary cirrhosis underwent total laparoscopic explant hepatectomy, followed by robot-assisted liver engraftment using advanced technological innovations. The total operation time for the recipient was 12 h 20 min, including laparoscopic explant hepatectomy (140 min) and robot-assisted engraftment (220 min). Achieving hepatic and portal vein anastomoses consumed 35 and 28 min, respectively. The hepatic artery anastomosis and bile duct reconstruction took 83 and 66 min, respectively. The estimated blood loss was 3600 ml. The warm and cold ischemic times were 87 and 220 min, respectively. The patient received 10 units each of red blood cells and fresh frozen plasma during the surgery and recovered from early allograft dysfunction after liver transplantation. This case study suggests that laparoscopic explant hepatectomy followed by robot-assisted engraftment is feasible in selected recipients only. We obtained informed consent for this innovative procedure from the patient and from her living donor.

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.

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.

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.

A comparative study of postoperative outcomes between minimally invasive living donor hepatectomy and open living donor hepatectomy: The Korean organ transplantation registry

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive living donor hepatectomy in comparison with the open procedure, using Korean Organ Transplantation Registry data.

METHODS

We reviewed the prospectively collected data of all 1,694 living liver donors (1,071 men, 623 women) who underwent donor hepatectomy between April 2014 and December 2017. The donors were grouped on the basis of procedure type to the minimally invasive procedure group (n = 304) or to the open procedure group (n = 1,390) and analyzed the relationships between clinical data and complications.

RESULTS

No donors died after the procedure. The overall complication rates after operation in the minimally invasive procedure group and the open procedure group were 6.2% and 3.5%, respectively. Biliary complications were the most frequent events in both groups (minimally invasive procedure group, 2.4%; open procedure group, 1.6%). The majority of complications occurred within 7 days after surgery in both groups. The duration of hospitalization was shorter in the minimally invasive procedure group than in the open procedure group (9.04 ± 3.78 days versus 10.29 ± 4.01 days; P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Based on its similar outcomes in our study, minimally invasive donor hepatectomy cannot be an alternative option compared with the open procedure method. To overcome this, we need to ensure better surgical safety, such as lower complication rate and shorter duration of hospitalization.

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Pure Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy in Pediatric Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy for transplantation has been well established over the past decade. This study aimed to assess its safety and feasibility in pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) by comparing the surgical and long-term survival outcomes on both the donor and recipient sides between open and laparoscopic groups. The medical records of 100 patients (≤17 years old) who underwent ABO-compatible LDLT using a left lateral liver graft between May 2008 and June 2016 were analyzed. A total of 31 donors who underwent pure laparoscopic hepatectomy and their corresponding recipients were included in the study; 69 patients who underwent open living donor hepatectomy during the same period were included as a comparison group. To overcome bias from the different distributions of covariables among the patients in the 2 study groups, a 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was performed. The mean follow-up periods were 92.9 and 92.7 months in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively. The mean postoperative hospital stay of the donors was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (8.1 days) than in the open group (10.6 days; P < 0.001). Overall, the surgical complications in the donors and overall survival rate of recipients did not differ between the groups. Our data suggest that the laparoscopic environment was not associated with long-term graft survival during pediatric LDLT. In addition, the laparoscopic approach for the donors did not adversely affect the corresponding recipient's outcome. Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy for living donors is a safe, feasible, and reproducible procedure for pediatric liver transplantation.

Expert Consensus Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy for Living Donor Liver Transplantation From Innovation to Implementation: A Joint Initiative From the International Laparoscopic Liver Society (ILLS) and the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (A-PHPBA)

OBJECTIVE

The Expert Consensus Guidelines initiative on MIDH for LDLT was organized with the goal of safe implementation and development of these complex techniques with donor safety as the main priority.

BACKGROUND

Following the development of minimally invasive liver surgery, techniques of MIDH were developed with the aim of reducing the short- and long-term consequences of the procedure on liver donors. These techniques, although increasingly performed, lack clinical guidelines.

METHODS

A group of 12 international MIDH experts, 1 research coordinator, and 8 junior faculty was assembled. Comprehensive literature search was made and studies classified using the SIGN method. Based on literature review and experts opinions, tentative recommendations were made by experts subgroups and submitted to the whole experts group using on-line Delphi Rounds with the goal of obtaining >90% Consensus. Pre-conference meeting formulated final recommendations that were presented during the plenary conference held in Seoul on September 7, 2019 in front of a Validation Committee composed of LDLT experts not practicing MIDH and an international audience.

RESULTS

Eighteen Clinical Questions were addressed resulting in 44 recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a 90% consensus among experts and were afterward endorsed by the validation committee.

CONCLUSIONS

The Expert Consensus on MIDH has produced a set of clinical guidelines based on available evidence and clinical expertise. These guidelines are presented for a safe implementation and development of MIDH in LDLT Centers with the goal of optimizing donor safety, donor care, and recipient outcomes.

Left Hepatic Vein Preferential Approach Based on Anatomy Is Safe and Feasible for Laparoscopic Living Donor Left Lateral Sectionectomy

We assess the safety and feasibility of the left hepatic vein preferential approach (LHVPA) based on left hepatic vein (LHV) anatomy for living donor laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS). Data from 50 donors who underwent LLLS in Huashan Hospital from October 2016 to November 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. On the basis of the classification of the LHV anatomy, the vein was defined as the direct import type, upper branch type, or indirect import type. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare the outcomes between the LHVPA and non-LHVPA groups. All 50 patients underwent pure LLLS. The mean operative duration was 157.5 ± 29.7 minutes. The intraoperative blood loss was 160.4 ± 97.5 mL. No complications more severe than grade 3 occurred. LHVPA was applied in 13 patients, whereas non-LHVPA was applied in 10 patients with the direct import type and upper branch type anatomy. The operative duration was shorter in the LHVPA group than the non-LHVPA group (142.7 ± 22.0 versus 173.0 ± 22.8 minutes; P = 0.01). Intraoperative blood loss was reduced in the LHVPA group compared with the non-LHVPA group (116.2 ± 45.6 versus 170.0 ± 63.3 mL; P = 0.02). The length of the LHV reserved extrahepatically in the LHVPA group was longer than in the non-LHVPA group (4.3 ± 0.2 versus 3.3 ± 0.3 mm; P = 0.01). Fewer reconstructions of the LHV in the direct import type anatomy were required for the LHVPA group than for the non-LHVPA group (0/8 versus 4/6). LHVPA based on the LHV anatomy is recommended in LLLS because it can further increase the safety and the efficiency of surgery for suitable donors.

Comparison of liver regeneration in laparoscopic versus open right hemihepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation

Backgrounds/Aims

This study aims to compare differences between laparoscopic donor right hemihepatectomy (LDRH) and open donor right hemihepatectomy (ODRH) in the quality of the operation, postoperative complications, and liver regeneration measured via volumetry.

Methods

This study included 119 patients who underwent living donor right hemihepatectomy at Samsung Medical Center from January 2016 to December 2017. We compared several aspects of LDRH and ODRH and analyzed the results using the independent t-test, chi-square test and Fisher's exact test.

Results

Among 119 enrolled patients, 66 patients (55.5%) underwent open surgery, and 53 patients (44.5%) underwent laparoscopic surgery. The mean operation time was significantly shorter for ODRH (290.57±54.04 minutes) than LDRH (312.28±53.5 minutes) (p=0.031). Estimated blood loss was significantly less in LDRH (258.49±119.99 ml) than ODRH (326.52±157.68 ml) (p=0.011). The remnant liver recovered to 83.35±10.71% of the preoperative estimate whole liver volume (pre-EWLV) in the ODRH group and 84.04±8.98% of the pre-EWLV in the LDRH group (p=0.707). The percentage of increased estimated liver volume to postoperative estimate remnant liver volume (post-ERLV) was 137.62±40.34% in the ODRH group and 130.56±36.78% in the LDRH group, and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p=0.326). An analysis of postoperative complications showed no significant differences.

Conclusions

LDRH is safe, and there is no significant difference in hepatic regeneration compared with ODRH. Therefore, LDRH can be applied for living donation of liver.

Comprehensive and innovative techniques for laparoscopic choledocholithotomy: A surgical guide to successfully accomplish this advanced manipulation

Surgeries for benign diseases of the extrahepatic bile duct (EHBD) are classified as lithotomy (i.e., choledocholithotomy) or diversion (i.e., choledochojejunostomy). Because of technical challenges, laparoscopic approaches for these surgeries have not gained worldwide popularity. The right upper quadrant of the abdomen is advantageous for laparoscopic procedures, and laparoscopic choledochojejunostomy is safe and feasible. Herein, we summarize tips and pitfalls in the actual procedures of choledocholithotomy. Laparoscopic choledocholithotomy with primary closure of the transductal incision and transcystic C-tube drainage has excellent clinical outcomes; however, emergent biliary drainage without endoscopic sphincterotomy and preoperative removal of anesthetic risk factors are required. Elastic suture should never be ligated directly on the cystic duct. Interrupted suture placement is the first choice for hemostasis near the EHBD. To prevent progressive laceration of the EHBD, full-layer interrupted sutures are placed at the upper and lower edges of the transductal incision. Cholangioscopy has only two-way operation; using dedicated forceps to atraumatically grasp the cholangioscope is important for smart maneuvering. The duration of intraoperative stone clearance accounts for most of the operative time. Moreover, dedicated forceps are an important instrument for atraumatic grasping of the cholangioscope. Damage to the cholangioscope requires expensive repair. Laparoscopic approach for choledocholithotomy involves technical difficulties. I hope this document with the visual explanation and literature review will be informative for skillful surgeons.

Pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy of living donor is feasible and safe: a preliminary comparative study in China

BACKGROUND

The adoption of laparoscopic techniques for living donor major hepatectomy has been controversial issue. The aim of this study is to present the preliminary experience of laparoscopic right hepatectomy in China.

METHODS

All the donors receiving right hepatectomy for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) were divided into three groups: pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy (PLRH) group, hand-assisted right hepatectomy (HARH) group and open right hepatectomy (ORH) group. We compared the perioperative data and surgical outcomes of donors and recipients among three groups.

RESULTS

From November 2001 to May 2017, 295 donors have received right hepatectomy for LDLT in our center. Among them, 7 donors received PLRH, 26 donors received HARH and 262 donors received ORH. The operation time of PLRH group (509.3 ± 98.9 min) was longer than that of the HARH group (451.6 ± 89.7 min) and the ORH group (418.4 ± 81.1 min, p = 0.003). The blood loss was the least in the PLRH group (378.6 ± 177.1 mL), compared with that in the HARH group (617.3 ± 240.4 mL) and that in the ORH group (798.6 ± 483.7 mL, p = 0.0013). The postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the PLRH group (7, 7-10 days) than that in the HATH group (8.5, 7.5-12 days) and ORH group (11, 9-14 days; p = 0.001). Only one donor had pleural effusion (Grade I) and another one experienced pulmonary infection (Grade II). One recipient (14.3%) in the PLRH group occurred hepatic venous stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic approaches for right hepatectomy contribute to less blood loss, better cosmetic satisfaction, less severe complications, and faster rehabilitation. PLRH is a safe and feasible procedure, which must be performed in highly specialized centers with expertise of both LDLT and laparoscopic hepatectomy, and requires a hybrid-to-pure stepwise development.

Laparoscopic left lateral section procurement in living liver donors: A single center propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic living donor liver procurement for transplantation has increased in popularity over the past decade. The purpose of this study was to compare the laparoscopic and open approaches in living donor left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) and to assess the safety and feasibility of this laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

A total of 103 living donor LLSs were performed at our center from May 2016 to December 2017. Of these, 35 were completely laparoscopic procedures, which represented the subject of this study. An additional 68 open living donor LLSs performed during the same period were studied as a comparison group. To overcome selection bias, LLS donors were balanced on a 1:1 ratio (laparoscopic [n = 35]: open [n = 35]) according to covariates with similar values. The PSM was based on the operation date, recipient age, diagnosis, recipient weight, and donor age.

RESULTS

There were significant differences between the laparoscopic and open LLS groups (P < 0.001) in terms of blood loss (96.8 ± 16.5 vs 155.8 ± 17.8 mL) as well as the duration of hospital stay (4 ± 0.4 vs 6.9 ± 0.5 days).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic LLS is a feasible and efficacious in the setting of a developed program with advanced laparoscopic expertise.

Laparoscopic liver resection: a review of current indications and surgical techniques

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been the most impressive development in the field of liver surgery in recent two decades. Technical innovations and experience accumulation have made LLR a safe and effective procedure with faster postoperative recovery. Despite the fast spreading of the procedure, details regarding the indications, oncological outcomes and technical essentials were still disputable. To address these issues, two international consensus conferences were hold to update the knowledge in this field. The statements of the both conferences were not conclusive and more high-quality researches are required. In this article, we reviewed the development and the current state of LLR. Indications, outcomes, surgical techniques and devices used in LLR were also discussed.

Glissonian approach combined with major hepatic vein first for laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy remains challenging because of the complex interior structures of the liver. Our novel strategy includes the Glissonian approach and the major hepatic vein first, which serves to define the external and internal landmarks for laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy.

METHODS

Eleven cases underwent laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy, including three right hepatectomies, three left hepatectomies, three right posterior hepatectomies, and two mesohepatectomies. The Glissonian approach was used to transect the hepatic pedicles as external demarcation. The major hepatic vein near the hepatic portal was exposed and served as the internal landmark for parenchymal transection. The liver parenchyma below and above the major hepatic vein was transected along the major hepatic vein. Fifty-nine subjects were used to compare the distance between the major hepatic vein and secondary Glisson pedicles among different liver diseases.

RESULTS

The average operative time was 327 min with an estimated blood loss of 554.55 mL. Only two patients received three units of packed red blood cells. The others recovered normally and were discharged on postoperative day 7. The distance between right posterior Glissonian pedicle and right hepatic vein was shorter in the patients with cirrhosis than that without cirrhosis, and this distance was even shorter in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

CONCLUSION

The Glissonian approach with the major hepatic vein first is easy and feasible for laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy, especially in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis.

Laparoscopic donor hepatectomy

Laparoscopic liver resection has been applied to treat most indications for liver resection during the past two decades. According to the literature, patient numbers have increased exponentially as a result, and surgical difficulty has increased as well. In expert centers, laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy and major liver resection more than 3 segments have become the acceptable treatment. Moreover, with surgical innovations and accumulated experience, living donor liver transplantation has become an established treatment choice for patients on the transplant waiting list. It is even considered an inevitable choice in regions with limited access to organs from deceased donors. However, significant morbidity and rare but catastrophic mortality are associated with donor hepatectomy and remain major concerns. Therefore, to decrease the incidence of complications, a minimally invasive approach in donor hepatectomy was adopted in the early 2000s. Initially, a minimally invasive approach was used for left lateral sectionectomy for pediatric liver transplant, then for laparoscopy-assisted hemihepatectomy and pure laparoscopic/robotic right donor hepatectomy, and more recently, for adult living donor liver transplantation. The extent of procedure complexity and potential complications depends on the approach and the size of the graft to be harvested. Early results from expert teams have seemed promising in terms of shortened donor recovery and improved perioperative outcomes. However, the combination of these two highly sophisticated surgical procedures raise more concerns about donor safety, especially with regard to unexpected events during the operation. A high level of evidence is very difficult to achieve in this highly specialized surgical practice with limited penetration. Therefore, an international registry has been suggested to determine the risks and benefits before the use of laparoscopic right donor hepatectomy spreads.

Highlights of the Third Expert Forum of Asia-Pacific Laparoscopic Hepatectomy; Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgeons of Asia (ELSA) Visionary Summit 2017

The application of laparoscopy for liver surgery is rapidly increasing and the past few years have demonstrated a shift in paradigm with a trend towards more extended and complex resections. The development of instruments and technical refinements with the effective use of magnified caudal laparoscopic views have contributed to the ability to overcome the limitation of laparoscopic liver resection. The Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgeons of Asia (ELSA) Visionary Summit 2017 and the 3^rd Expert Forum of Asia-Pacific Laparoscopic Hepatectomy organized hepatobiliary pancreatic sessions in order to exchange surgical tips and tricks and discuss the current status and future perspectives of laparoscopic hepatectomy. This report summarizes the oral presentations given at the 3^rd Expert Forum of Asia-Pacific Laparoscopic Hepatectomy.

Use of robotics in liver donor right hepatectomy

Liver transplantation is the best solution for end stage liver disease, and has been widely accepted and rapidly developed in the past decades. Along with the improved outcomes of liver transplantation, living-related donor transplantation has been conducted to overcome the shortage of the deceased donor. The most important aspects of the living-related liver transplantation are donor safety and fast recovery after graft procurement. Meanwhile, the rapid progress of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in general surgery has generated heated debate regarding the appropriateness of MIS in living-related donor graft hepatectomy. Technical innovations and instrument enhancements have been allowing recruitment of more potential candidates through smaller wounds and better surgical experience. Although MIS has been documented with safety and feasibility in complex liver surgery, the progress is slow in regard to the application of MIS in donor graft hepatectomy. Pioneer surgeons have devoted themselves to develop the pure MIS approach for the liver donor surgery, but the steep learning curve for pure MIS major hepatectomy remains a major barrier for wide adoption. The introduction of robotic system may lower the barrier for entry for practice into MIS donor hepatectomy.

Initial Outcomes of Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy in an Experienced Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant Center

BACKGROUND

Only a limited number of centers have performed laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy to date. In particular, laparoscopic right hepatectomy is rarely performed because the procedure can only be performed by surgeons with significant experience in both laparoscopic liver surgery and liver transplantation with living donor liver grafts.

METHODS

Between November 2014 and February 2015, in a pure laparoscopic approach program for living right lobe donors at Asan Medical Center, 92 living donors underwent right hepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation. Among these, 3 pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomies were performed in 3 young female donors.

RESULTS

The intraoperative and postoperative courses for all 3 donors and recipients were uneventful without any complications. Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy has definite advantages over conventional open surgery, including decreased wound morbidity and faster recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the data of the present report, pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy in properly selected living donors (only 4% of potential donors in this cohort) appears to be a safe and feasible procedure in adult living donor liver transplantation.

Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in High-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score Patients

The large volume of adult living donor liver transplantations (ALDLTs) at our center affords a unique opportunity to examine the impact of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) among high-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease MELD score patients. From February 1998 to March 2010, 1958 cirrhotic recipients were analyzed to study the relationship between MELD scores and ALDLT outcomes. A total of 327 high-MELD score recipients were categorized into ACLF and non-ACLF groups, and their outcomes were compared. The 5-year graft and patient survival in the high-MELD group were 75.2% and 76.4%, respectively, which were significantly worse than the low and intermediate MELD groups. The presence of ACLF associated with higher MELD scores appeared to be the dominant factor responsible for the inferior results of patients with MELD score of 30-34 points. The 5-year graft survivals in the ACLF group was 70.5% and in the non-ACLF group it was 81.0% (p = 0.035). Therefore, ALDLT should be performed as soon as possible in high-MELD score patients prior to ACLF development. Moreover, ACLF patients should be separately categorized when analyzing the outcomes of ALDLT. ALDLT for ACLF patients should not be discouraged because favorable outcomes can be expected through timely ALDLT and comprehensive management.

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe our experience with pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) and to compare its outcomes with those of open right hepatectomy (ORH) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with liver cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection has been reported as a safe and effective approach for the management of liver cancer; however, its outcomes have not been evaluated in a large cohort of HCC patients with liver cirrhosis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 152 patients who underwent pure LRH (n = 37) or ORH (n = 115) between June 2008 and July 2015 at the Asan Medical Center in Seoul, Korea. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching between the LRH and ORH groups. Subsequently, 33 patients were included in each group.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the LRH and ORH groups regarding the rate of complications (P = 0.053). However, the mean comprehensive complication index, which accounts for the severity of complications, was significantly lower in the LRH group (0.63 vs 4.42; P = 0.025). There were no significant differences between the LRH and ORH groups regarding 2-year disease-free survival rate or 2-year overall survival rate (P = 0.645 and P = 0.090, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Even in patients with cirrhosis, pure LRH is not less safe than the traditional open approach. The oncological outcomes of HCC were also comparable between the two groups. In selected patients, pure LRH for HCC appears to represent a viable alternative to ORH.

Different techniques for harvesting grafts for living donor liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on minimally vs conventional invasive techniques for harvesting grafts for living donor liver transplantation.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched comprehensively for studies comparing MILDH with conventional living donor hepatectomy (CLDH). Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes (operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative liver function, length of hospital stay, analgesia use, complications, and survival rate) were analyzed in donors and recipients. Articles were included if they: (1) compared the outcomes of MILDH and CLDH; and (2) reported at least some of the above outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 937 articles identified, 13, containing 1592 patients, met our inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. For donors, operative time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 20.68, 95%CI: -6.25-47.60, P = 0.13] and blood loss (WMD = -32.61, 95%CI: -80.44-5.21, P = 0.18) were comparable in the two groups. In contrast, analgesia use (WMD = -7.79, 95%CI: -14.06-1.87, P = 0.01), postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.44-0.89, P = 0.009], and length of hospital stay (WMD): -1.25, 95%CI: -2.35-0.14, P = 0.03) significantly favored MILDH. No differences were observed in recipient outcomes, including postoperative complications (OR = 0.93, 95%CI: 0.66-1.31, P = 0.68) and survival rate (HR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.27-3.47, P = 0.95). Funnel plot and statistical methods showed a low probability of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

MILDH is safe, effective, and feasible for living donor liver resection with fewer donor postoperative complications, reduced length of hospital stay and analgesia requirement than CLDH.

Laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy with venous outflow reconstruction using cadaveric common iliac artery allograft: Case report and literature review

RATIONALE

With the development of laparoscopic technique, the total laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy (LLDRH) procurement surgery has been successfully performed in many liver transplant centers all over the world, and the number of cases is continuing to increase. We report our case of laparoscopic right graft resection with venous outflow reconstruction using cadaveric common iliac artery allograft in our center and review literatures about total LLDRH surgery.

PATIENT CONCERNS AND DIAGNOSES

A 40-year-old male living donor for right hepatectomy was selected after pretransplant evaluation including laboratory tests, liver volume, anatomy of hepatic vein, artery, portal vein, and bile duct. Living donor liver transplantation surgery was approved by Sichuan Provincial Health Department and the ethics committee of the West China Hospital, Sichuan University.

INTERVENTIONS

Hepatic parenchyma transection was performed by ultrasonic scalpel and Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA). Right branch of portal vein, right hepatic artery, right hepatic duct, and right hepatic vein were meticulously dissected. The right hepatic duct was ligated and transected 2 mm far from the bifurcation of common hepatic duct, right hepatic artery, and portal vein were also ligated and transected, the right hepatic vein was transected by laparoscopic linear cutting stapler. The gap between short hepatic veins and right hepatic vein was bridged and reconstructed by cadaveric common iliac artery allograft.

OUTCOMES

The operation time was 480 minutes and warm ischemia time was 4 minutes. Blood loss was 300 mL without blood transfusion. The donor was discharged on postoperative day 7 uneventfully without complications. Literatures about laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy are compared and summarized in table.

LESSONS

The total laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy is technically feasible and safe in some transplant centers which should have rich open living donor liver transplantation experience and skilled laparoscopic techniques. Venous outflow tract reconstruction is necessary if orifice diameter of short hepatic vein is greater than 0.5 cm on the graft cutting surface.

Protocol for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Is it rocket science?

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) does not require advanced techniques, and its performance has therefore rapidly spread worldwide. However, the rate of biliary injuries has not decreased. The concept of the critical view of safety (CVS) was first documented two decades ago. Unexpected injuries are principally due to misidentification of human factors. The surgeon’s assumption is a major cause of misidentification, and a high level of experience alone is not sufficient for successful LC. We herein describe tips and pitfalls of LC in detail and discuss various technical considerations. Finally, based on a review of important papers and our own experience, we summarize the following mandatory protocol for safe LC: (1) consideration that a high level of experience alone is not enough; (2) recognition of the plateau involving the common hepatic duct and hepatic hilum; (3) blunt dissection until CVS exposure; (4) Calot’s triangle clearance in the overhead view; (5) Calot’s triangle clearance in the view from underneath; (6) dissection of the posterior right side of Calot’s triangle; (7) removal of the gallbladder body; and (8) positive CVS exposure. We believe that adherence to this protocol will ensure successful and beneficial LC worldwide, even in patients with inflammatory changes and rare anatomies.

Robotic liver donor right hepatectomy: A pure, minimally invasive approach

Right hepatectomy for a living liver donor via a pure minimally invasive approach is a challenging procedure and only a few cases have been reported. Between May 2013 and August 2015, 13 patients underwent robotic living donor right hepatectomy in our institute, and 54 patients received open surgery. In this series, no conversion was conducted for robotic donor right hepatectomy. The 2 groups shared similar blood loss (169 versus 146 mL), complication rates (7.7% versus 9.3%), and recovery of donor liver function (peak alanine aminotransferase, 269 versus 252 IU/mL). The robotic group needed longer operation time (596 versus 383 minutes) but less postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (0.58 versus 0.84 ng/kg) and a shorter period before returning to work/school (52.9 versus 100.0 days) and sex (100.0 versus 156.0 days). For recipient outcomes regarding the donor procedure, the robotic group shared similar experiences in early allograft dysfunction, complications, and 1-year recipient liver function with the open group. With respect to documented benefits of minimally invasive left-sided liver donor procedure, the development of right donor hepatectomy is slow. In conclusion, with substantial improvements in patient recovery after the minimally invasive approach, the robotic platform would be a big step toward completing pure minimally invasive liver donor surgery. Liver Transplantation 22 1509-1518 2016 AASLD.

Comprehensive guide to laparoscope-assisted graft harvesting in live donors for living-donor liver transplantation: perspective of laparoscopic vision

Background

A living donor (LD) for liver transplantation (LT) is the best target for minimally invasive surgery. Laparoscope-assisted surgery (LAS) for LDs has gradually evolved. A donor safety rate of 100% should be guaranteed.

Methods

We began performing LAS for LDs in June 2012. The aim of this report is to describe the surgical procedures of LAS in detail, discuss various tips and pitfalls, and address the potential for a smooth transition to more advanced LAS.

Results

Preoperative planning based on three-dimensional image analysis is a powerful tool for successful surgery. The combination of liver retraction/countertraction and the pressure produced by pneumoperitoneum widens the dissectible/cuttable layer, increasing the safety of LAS. A flexible laparoscope provides excellent magnified vision in both the horizontal view along the inferior vena cava, under adequate liver retraction, and in the lateral view, to harvest left-sided grafts in critical procedures. Intentional omission of painful incisions is beneficial for LDs. Hepatectomy using a smaller midline incision is safe if a hanging maneuver is used. Safe transition from LAS to a hybrid technique involving a combination of pure laparoscopic surgery and subsequent open surgery seems possible.

Conclusion

LDLT surgeons have a very broad intellectual and technical frontier.

Pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy for giant hemangioma using anterior approach

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy remains a challenging procedure [1, 2]. In the case of giant tumors in the right liver, conventional approach (complete mobilization of the right liver before parenchymal transection) could be dangerous during mobilization because of large volume and weight [3, 4]. We present the case of a pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy for a giant hemangioma using an anterior approach.

METHODS

We achieved the informed consent with this patient and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Asan Medical Center. Giant hemangioma (13 × 11 × 14 cm) was located in right liver. After glissonean approach [5], Pringle maneuver was performed during the hepatic parenchymal transection. For the transection, the Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator was used. Small hepatic vein branches along the middle hepatic vein and small glissonean pedicles were sealed and divided with a THUNDERBEATTM (Olympus), which is the device with integration of both bipolar and ultrasonic energies delivered simultaneously. iDriveTM Ultra Powered Stapling device (Medtronic) was used for division of right glissonean pedicle and large hepatic veins. Hemangioma was removed through the lower abdominal transverse incision using the endo-bag. This technique has the advantage of avoiding excessive bleeding caused by avulsion of the hepatic vein and caval branches, iatrogenic tumor rupture [3].

RESULTS

By means of the anterior approach, pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy was performed successfully without intraoperative complications and transfusions. The operation time was 202 min, and the estimated blood loss was less than 150 ml. On postoperative day 3, computed tomographic scan showed no pathological findings. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 5 without complications. Laparoscopic approach has good results because of the view with magnification enabling meticulous hemostasis and the small wounds that give patients less pain [6, 7].

CONCLUSIONS

The authors recommend that the laparoscopic anterior approach is safe and feasible for right hepatectomy, even for giant tumors.