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

Pure laparoscopic versus open left lateral hepatectomy in pediatric living donor liver transplantation: a review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the safety and feasibility of pure laparoscopic left lateral hepatectomy in comparison with open approach for pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

A systemic literature survey was performed by searching the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for articles that compared pure laparoscopic left lateral living donor hepatectomy (LLDH) and open left lateral living donor hepatectomy (OLDH) by November 2021. Meta-analysis was performed to assess donors' and recipients' perioperative outcomes using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of five studies involving 432 patients were included in the analysis. The results demonstrated that LLDH group had significantly less blood loss (WMD = -99.28 ml, 95%CI -152.68 to -45.88, p = 0.0003) and shorter length of hospital stay (WMD = -2.71d, 95%CI -3.78 to -1.64, p < 0.00001) compared with OLDH group. A reduced donor overall postoperative complication rate was observed in the LLDH group (OR = 0.29, 95%CI 0.13-0.64, p = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis, donor bile leakage, wound infection and pulmonary complications were similar between two groups (bile leakage: OR = 1.31, 95%CI 0.43-4.02, p = 0.63; wound infection: OR = 0.38, 95%CI 0.10-1.41, p = 0.15; pulmonary complications: OR = 0.24, 95%CI 0.04-1.41, p = 0.11). For recipients, there were no significant difference in perioperative outcomes between the LLDH and OLDH group, including mortality, overall complications, hepatic artery thrombosis, portal vein and biliary complications.

CONCLUSION

LLDH is a safe and effective alternative to OLDH for pediatric LDLT, reducing invasiveness and benefiting postoperative recovery. Future large-scale multi-center studies are expected to confirm the advantages of LLDH in pediatric LDLT.

Anatomical Variations of Left Hepatic Vein and Outflow Reconstruction Techniques in Paediatric Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Anatomical variations of left hepatic vein (LHV) are observed in nearly a third of left lateral segment (LLS) donors in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). There is paucity of studies and no structured algorithm for customised outflow reconstruction in LLS grafts with variant anatomy. Analysis of a prospectively collected database of 296 LLS paediatric LDLT was done to identify different venous drainage patterns of segments 2 (V2) and 3 (V3). LHV anatomy was classified into three types: type 1(n=270, 91.2%): V2 and V3 joined to form a common trunk which drains into middle hepatic vein (MHV)/inferior vena cava (IVC), subtype 1a length of trunk ≥ 9mm and subtype 1b length of trunk < 9mm; type 2(n=6, 2%): V2 and V3 drain independently into IVC; type 3(n=20, 6.8%): V2 and V3 drain into IVC and MHV respectively. Analysis of post-operative outcomes between LLS grafts with single and reconstructed multiple outflows showed no difference in the occurrence of hepatic vein thrombosis/stenosis, major morbidity (p 0.91) and 5 year survival (log rank p 0.562). This classification is a simple yet effective tool for pre-operative donor assessment and we propose a schema for customised reconstruction of LLS grafts, with excellent and consistently reproducible outcomes.

Comparison of Two Donor Liver Procurement Methods for Treatment of Pediatric Acute Liver Failure

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the difference and efficacy of two donor liver procurement methods for treatment of pediatric acute liver failure (PALF) by living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

A total of 17 patients (12 men, 5 women) with PALF who underwent LDLT in our hospital between October 2016 and October 2020, and prognostic efficacy of donors and recipients using two donor liver procurement methods were analyzed.

RESULTS

The donors and recipients were both divided into laparoscopic (7 cases) and open (10 cases) donor liver procurement groups. In the recipients, two deaths occurred in the laparoscopic group and one in the open group, and there were three postoperative complications in the laparoscopic group and six in the open group. The cumulative 1-year and 3-year survival rates in the laparoscopic group and the open group were 80.0% and 85.7% separately. There was no difference in the postoperative survival and complications rates between the two groups. In the donors, the operation time, postoperative hospital stay, and blood loss of the laparoscopic group was significantly reduced compared with the open group (P ≤ 0.01). No death or serious complication occurred in either donor group.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic donor liver procurement is worth recommending than open donor liver procurement for treatment of PALF combined with LDLT in qualified transplant centers.