Single-port laparoscopy-assisted donor right hepatectomy in living donor liver transplantation: sensible approach or unnecessary hindrance?

Long-term medical and quality of life outcomes among voluntary liver donors

BACKGROUND

Long-term medical and quality of life (QOL) outcomes in voluntary liver donors remain under investigated. The objective of the current study was to report long-term medical outcomes and re-evaluate QOL in living liver donors.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of donors who underwent donor hepatectomy between 2012 and 2018. We investigated long-term outcomes in 7 domains. These include medical problems, surgical procedures, work-related issues, pregnancy outcomes, psychiatric interventions, willingness to donate again, and long-term mortality. QOL was evaluated using short-form 36.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 61.4 months (53.3-83.7). Among 698 donors, 80 (11.5%) experienced medical problems, 4 (0.6%) had work-related issues, and 20 (2.9%) needed psychiatric assistance. Surgery was performed in 49 donors (7%), and females were more likely to have undergone incisional hernia repair (5.8% vs 1.9%, P = .006). There were 79 postdonation pregnancies including 41 normal vaginal deliveries (51.9%), 35 cesarean sections (44.3%), and 3 miscarriages (3.8%). Willingness to donate again was reported by 658 donors (94.3%). Donors whose recipients were alive were more likely to donate again (95.5% vs 90.5%, P = .01). There were 3 deaths (0.4%) in the long-term. The mean physical composite score at initial and follow-up evaluation was 86.7 ± 13.9 and 76.5 ± 20.9 (P = .001), and the mean mental composite score at initial and follow-up evaluation was 92.1 ± 13.5 and 80.7 ± 16 (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

The overall long-term outlook in living liver donors is promising. QOL parameters might deteriorate over time and frequent re-evaluation might be considered.

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.

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.

Pure Laparoscopic Donor Left Hepatectomy Reduces Postoperative Analgesic Use and Pain Scale

BACKGROUND

Many recent reports have described the efficacy and safety of pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH). Here we investigated the extent to which this technique could reduce patients' experienced pain.

METHODS

Among donor left hepatectomy procedures performed between July 2011 and November 2022, we retrospectively analyzed 20 open donor hepatectomy (ODH), 20 laparoscopy-assisted donor hepatectomy (LADH), and 5 PLDH cases. We compared these 3 procedures regarding the total amount of postoperative analgesic use (narcotics and non-narcotics) and the first date when the donor was completely pain-free, as evaluated by the patients using a pain scale.

RESULTS

Total postoperative fentanyl use did not significantly differ among the 3 procedures: median (range), ODH, 0.5 mg (0-2 mg); LADH 1.2 mg (0-7 mg); PLDH, 0.5 mg (0-3.5; P = .172). The percentage of patients who completely discontinued analgesics on postoperative day (POD) 5 was significantly higher for PLDH (80%) than for ODH (35%) or LADH (20%) (P = .041). The day when 50% of donors were completely pain-free on a pain scale was POD9 for ODH, POD11 for LADH, and POD5 for PLDH, significantly shorter in the PLDH group (P = .004).

CONCLUSION

At our institution, we found that PLDH was a useful technique for postoperative pain management compared with PDH and LADH. Our results suggest that PLDH effectively reduces the duration of postoperative analgesia use. Further studies are warranted as the number of PLDH cases gradually increases.

Minimally invasive surgery and liver transplantation: is it a safe, feasible, and effective approach?

The minimally invasive approach (MIS) is undoubtedly one of the most important breakthroughs in surgery in recent decades. Consequently, MIS has been increasingly in the field of liver transplantation (LT). The objective of the present review was to determine the current status of MIS with respect to liver transplantation (LT) and what would be the indications for an MIS in this context today. The literature was searched for publications reporting the MIS in LT. Only those articles that described the results according to whether the MIS had been performed to treat transplant complications (urgent or late), another pathology not related to the LT, or to perform the liver explantation and graft implantation were included. From 2000 to 2022, 33 studies and 261 patients were included. Most frequent indications were incisional hernias secondary to LT followed by the treatment of other pathologies not related with the LT and treatment of LT complications. Only a 12% were urgent interventions. Few studies describe conversions with an average rate of 2.5%. Morbidity do not differ significantly from open surgery. No case of mortality or graft loss was described. Purely laparoscopic liver explants in 9 patients with 2 conversions and 3 cases of graft implantation with a higher warm ischemia in the MIS implants grafts were described. The limitations of MIS in LT are relative and probably depend more on training, experience, and skills of the surgeons. This approach could be safety and feasibility to solved complications or in other individualized indications in LT patients. The initial experiences in liver explant and graft implantation need further investigations.

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.

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.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open living donor hepatectomy: A meta-analysis

Laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (LDH), accepted as a minimally invasive approach, has become increasingly popular for living donor liver transplant. However, the outcomes of LDH remain to be fully clarified when compared with open living donor hepatectomy. Thus, our meta-analysis was designed to assess the efficacy of laparoscopic in comparison with conventional open donor hepatectomy.The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase electronic databases were searched to identify the articles concerning the comparison of the efficacy of laparoscopic versus open surgery in treatment of living donor liver transplantation updated to March, 2020. The main search terms and medical Subject Heading terms were: "living donor," "liver donor," "minimally invasive," "laparoscopic surgery," and "open surgery." After rigorous evaluation on quality, the data was extracted from eligible publications. The outcomes of interest included intraoperative and postoperative results.The inclusion criteria were met by a total of 20 studies. In all, 2001 subjects involving 633 patients who received laparoscopic surgery and 1368 patients who received open surgery were included. According to the pooled result of surgery duration, the laparoscopic surgery was associated with shorter duration of hospital stay (MD = -1.07, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.29; P = .007), less blood loss (MD = -57.57, 95% CI -65.07 to -50.07; P < .00001), and less postoperative complications (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.85; P = .003). And the open donor hepatectomy achieved a trend of shorter operation time (MD = 30.31, 95% CI 13.93-46.69; P = .0003) than laparoscopic group. Similar results were found in terms of ALT (P = .52) as well as the AST (P = .47) peak level between the 2 groups.LDH showed the better perioperative outcomes as compared with open donor hepatectomy. The findings revealed that LDH may be a feasible and safe procedure for the living donor liver transplantation.

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.

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.

Pure Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy: A Multicenter Experience

According to recent international consensus conferences, pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH), particularly right and left hepatectomies, is not yet considered a standard practice because studies remain limited. Thus, we present the outcomes of more than 500 PLDH patients, mostly receiving a right hepatectomy. To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date on PLDH. Data from all living liver donors who underwent PLDH at 5 centers in Korea until June 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The outcomes of both donors and recipients were included. Pearson correlation analysis was used to explore the relationship between the duration of surgery and cumulative experience at each center, which reflects the learning curve. Overall, 545 PLDH cases were analyzed, including 481 right hepatectomies, 25 left hepatectomies, and 39 left lateral sectionectomies (LLS). The open conversion was necessary for 10 (1.8%) donors, and none of the donors died or experienced irreversible disability. Notably, there were 25 (4.6%) patients with major complications (higher than Clavien-Dindo grade 3). All centers except one showed a significant decrease in surgery duration as the number of cases accumulated. Regarding recipient outcomes, there were 110 cases (20.2%) of early major complications and 177 cases (32.5%) of late major complications. This study shows the early and late postoperative outcomes of 545 donors and corresponding recipients, including 481 right hepatectomies and 25 left hepatectomies, from 5 experienced centers. Although the results are comparable to those of previously reported open donor hepatectomy series, further studies are needed to consider PLDH a new standard practice.

Changes in the quality of life of living liver donors: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Comprehending the physical, psychological, social benefits, and harm associated with liver donation is critical in promoting practices to maintain donors' long-term health. However, changes in quality of life among living liver donors pre- and post-donation have not been established.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies examined the quality of life changes among living liver donors pre- and post-donation.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, CINHAL with full text, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses were mainly searched for full-text articles from inception till December 2018 to identify studies assessing the quality of life of living liver donors. The methodological quality of the included studies was examined. The quality of life post-donation at five assessment points, ≤1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and ≥ 24 months were compared with the pre-donation, respectively.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2215 records, and a total of 15 articles (13 studies) with 715 donors were included in this meta-analysis. Physical functioning scores at ≤1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and ≥24 months post-donation were significantly lower than pre-donation [overall standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.67, 95% CI: -0.86, -0.49; p ≤]. Significantly higher level of pain was found at 3-month post-donation (SMD, -1.05; 95% CI: -1.26, -0.85; p < 0.00001). Also, a significantly higher level of anxiety was found at 3-month post-donation (SMD, -0.29; 95%CI: -0.51, -0.07; p = 0.01), but there were no significant changes in general psychological state and depression. A significant reduction in donors' social quality of life (SMD, -2.61; 95%CI: -4.75, 0.48; p = 0.02) was found at ≤1-month post-donation, and recovery to pre-donation levels occurred at 3 months post-donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Living liver donation was associated with a decline in physical functioning, which was sustained for longer than 2 years post-donation. Impaired social and psychological quality of life affected donors for 1-3 months after their donation. The quality of life of living liver donors has become a pressing issue requiring more attention from doctors and nurses within the transplant team. However, multicenter, prospective, and longitudinal studies are needed to confirm the long-term safety of living liver donors.

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

Background

Laparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.

Methods

An expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.

Results

In general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.

Conclusions

Considering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

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.

Laparoscopy-assisted versus open and pure laparoscopic approach for liver resection and living donor hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted (hybrid) liver surgery is considered a minimally invasive technique, however there are doubts regarding loss of the benefits of laparoscopy due to the use of an auxiliary incision. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative results of hybrid vs. open and hybrid vs. pure laparoscopic approach to liver resection for focal lesions and living donation.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library Central and LILACS databases. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

21 studies were included. Hybrid vs. open: operative time was lower in open group (mean difference [MD] = 34 min; 95%CI: 22-47; P < 0.001; N = 669). Hybrid technique was associated with a reduction in operative blood loss [MD = -43 ml; 95%CI: -74-(-13); P = 0.005, N = 1738]; shorter hospital stay [MD = -1.9 days; 95%CI: -3.2-(-0.5); P = 0.008; N = 833] and lower morbidity [risk difference (RD) = -0.05; 95%CI: -0.10-(-0.01); P = 0.010; N = 1359]. Hybrid vs. pure laparoscopic: There was no difference regarding blood loss, transfusion rate, hospital stay and morbimortality.

DISCUSSION

Hybrid technique had perioperative outcomes that were more in keeping with pure laparoscopic outcomes than open surgery. Hybrid liver surgery should be considered a minimally invasive approach.

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy, are we ready for prime time?

Minimally invasive surgery potentially reduces operative morbidities. However, pure laparoscopic approaches to donor hepatectomy have been limited by technical complexity and concerns over donor safety. Reduced-wound donor hepatectomy, either in the form of a laparoscopic-assisted technique or by utilizing a mini-laparotomy wound, i.e., hybrid approach, has been developed to bridge the transition to pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, offering some advantages of minimally invasive surgery. To date, pure laparoscopic donor left lateral sectionectomy has been validated for its safety and advantages and has become the standard in experienced centres. Pure laparoscopic approaches to major left and right liver donation have been reported for their technical feasibility in expert hands. Robotic-assisted donor hepatectomy also appears to be a valuable alternative to pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, providing additional ergonomic advantages to the surgeon. Existing reports derive from centres with tremendous experience in both laparoscopic hepatectomy and donor hepatectomy. The complexity of these procedures means an arduous transition from technical feasibility to reproducibility. Donor safety is paramount in living donor liver transplantation. Careful donor selection and adopting standardized techniques allow experienced transplant surgeons to safely accumulate experience and acquire proficiency. An international prospective registry will advance the understanding for the role and safety of pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy.

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.

Are Hybrid Liver Resections Truly Minimally Invasive? A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hybrid liver resection is considered a modality of minimally invasive surgery; however, there are doubts regarding loss of benefits of laparoscopy due to the use of an auxiliary incision. We compared perioperative results of patients undergoing hybrid × open and hybrid × pure laparoscopic resections.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing liver resection between June 2008 and January 2016 were studied. Study groups were compared after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Six hundred forty-four resections were included in the comparative analysis: 470 open, 120 pure laparoscopic, and 54 hybrids. After PSM, 54 patients were included in each group. Hybrid × open: hybrid technique had shorter operative time (319.5 ± 108.6 × 376.2 ± 155.8 minutes, P = .033), shorter hospital stay (6.0 ± 2.7 × 8.1 ± 5.6 days, P = .001), and lower morbidity (18.5% × 40.7%, P = .003). Hybrid × pure laparoscopic: hybrid group had lower conversion rate (0% × 13%, P = .013). There was no difference regarding estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, hospital stay, complications, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid resection has better perioperative results than the open approach and is similar to pure laparoscopy. The hybrid technique should be considered a minimally invasive approach.

Laparoscopy-Assisted versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donor: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of laparoscopy-assisted living donor hepatectomy (LADH) in comparison with open living donor hepatectomy (ODH) for liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND

LADH is becoming increasingly common for living donor liver transplant around the world. We aim to determine the efficacy of LADH and compare it with ODH.

METHODS

A systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted in May 2017.

RESULTS

Nine studies were suitable for this analysis, involving 979 patients. LADH seemed to be associated with increased operation time (WMD = 24.85 min; 95% CI: -3.01~52.78, P = 0.08), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -59.92 ml; 95% CI: -94.58~-25.27, P = 0.0007), similar hospital stays (WMD = -0.47 d; 95% CI: -1.78~0.83, P = 0.47), less postoperative complications (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51~0.94, P = 0.02), less analgesic use (SMD = -0.22; 95% CI: -0.44~-0.11, P = 0.04), similar transfusion rates (RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.24~3.12, P = 0.82), and similar graft weights (WMD = 7.31 g; 95% CI: -23.45~38.07, P = 0.64).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that LADH is a safe and effective technique and, when compared to ODH.

Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donors

Objective

To document the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy in comparison with open liver resection for living donor liver transplantation.

Methods

Medline database, EMASE and Cochrane library were searched for original studies comparing laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy (LLDH) and open living donor hepatectomy (OLDH) by January 2015. Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate donors’ perioperative outcomes.

Results

Nine studies met selection criteria, involving 1346 donors of whom 318 underwent LLDH and 1028 underwent OLDH. The Meta analysis demonstrated that LLDH group had less operative blood loss [patients 1346; WMD: -56.09 mL; 95%CI: -100.28-(-11.90) mL; P = 0.01], shorter hospital stay [patients 737; WMD: -1.75 d; 95%CI: -3.01-(-0.48) d; P = 0.007] but longer operative time (patients 1346; WMD: 41.05 min; 95%CI: 1.91–80.19 min; P = 0.04), compared with OLDH group. There were no significant difference in other outcomes between LLDH and OLDH groups, including overall complication, bile leakage, postoperative bleeding, pulmonary complication, wound complication, time to dietary intake and period of analgesic use.

Conclusions

LLDH appears to be a safe and effective option for LDLT. It improves donors’ perioperative outcomes as compared with OLDH.

Effectiveness and safety of single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for treating liver diseases: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for treating liver diseases.

METHODS

Several databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies on the use of single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery to treat liver diseases from their inception until March 24, 2016. The primary outcomes were the operative time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, rate of postoperative complications, median length of postoperative stay, recovery time of gastrointestinal function, volume of postoperative drainage, and postoperative drainage time. The study-specific effect sizes and their 95 % confidence interval were all combined to calculate the pooled value by using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies were included, which involved 277 patients. The total and subgroup data were combined by meta-analysis. This meta-analysis showed that single-port and multi-port laparoscopic liver surgery for treating liver diseases did not differ in terms of operative time (P = 0.48), rate of postoperative complications (P = 0.56), median length of postoperative stay (P = 0.80), and recovery time of gastrointestinal function (P = 0.54). For liver diseases, the single-port group exhibited a lower volume of intraoperative blood loss than that presented by the multi-port group (P = 0.0006). In the hepatic resection subgroup, a lower volume of intraoperative blood loss was noted in the single-port group (P < 0.0001). By contrast, in the hepatic cyst subgroup, the single-port group showed a higher volume of intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.02) but a shorter median length of postoperative stay (P = 0.02). The findings of the potential subgroup analysis in these outcomes were consistent with the total data.

CONCLUSION

Compared with multi-port laparoscopic surgery, the single-port method showed comparable effectiveness and safety for the treatment of liver diseases in terms of current evidence.

Single port laparoscopic liver surgery: A minireview

Nowadays, the trend is to perform surgeries with "scarless" incisions. In light of this, the single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) technique is rapidly becoming widespread due to its lack of invasiveness and its cosmetic advantages, as the only entry point is usually hidden in the umbilicus. The interest in "scarless" liver resections did not grow as rapidly as the interest in other scarless surgeries. Hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons are reluctant to operate a malignant lesion through a narrow incision with limited exposure. There are concerns over adverse oncological outcomes for single-port laparoscopic liver resections (SPL-LR) for hepatocellular carcinoma or metastatic colorectal cancer. In addition, getting familiar with using the operating instruments through a narrow incision with limited exposure is very challenging. In this article, we reviewed the published literature to describe history, indications, contraindications, ideal patients for new beginners, technical difficulty, advantages, disadvantages, oncological concern and the future of SPL-LR.

Single-Port Laparoscopic Liver Resection: Largest Turkish Experience

Single-port laparoscopic surgery has the advantage of a hidden scar and reduced abdominal wall trauma. Although single-port laparoscopic surgery is widely performed for other organs, its application is very limited for liver resection. Here, we report our experience with nine patients who underwent single-port laparoscopic liver resection. Nine patients underwent single-port laparoscopic liver resection for the indications of hydatid cyst, hepatocellular carcinoma, and colorectal cancer liver metastasis. Nine patients were successfully treated with single-port laparoscopic surgery. The operative time was between 60 and 240 min. The only operative complication was bleeding up to 650 mL in a patient with cirrhosis. No postoperative complications occurred. All patients were discharged earlier than usual. Single-port laparoscopic liver surgery is a challenging surgery. Surgeon with the experience of laparoscopic liver surgery should perform the single-port laparoscopic liver surgery. It is technically feasible with a good outcome in well-selected patients. Initial cases must be benign lesions to avoid jeopardizing oncological safety.

Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy: a review of current status

Over the last two decades, laparoscopic surgery has been adopted in various surgical fields. Its advantages of reduced blood loss, reduced postoperative morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and excellent cosmetic outcome compared with conventional open surgery are well validated. In comparison with other abdominal organs, laparoscopic hepatectomy has developed relatively slowly due to the potential for massive bleeding, technical difficulties and a protracted learning curve. Furthermore, applications to liver graft procurement in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) have been delayed significantly due to concerns about donor safety, graft outcome and the need for expertise in both laparoscopic liver surgery and LDLT. Now, laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy in adult-to-pediatric LDLT is considered the standard of care in some experienced centers. Currently, the shift in application has been towards left lobe and right lobe graft procurement in adult LDLT from left lateral section in pediatric LDLT. However, the number of cases is too small to validate the safety and reproducibility. The most important concern in LDLT is donor safety. Even though a few studies reported the technical feasibility and comparable outcomes to conventional open surgery, careful validating through larger sample sized studies is needed to achieve standardization and wide application.

Single-port and multi-port laparoscopic left lateral liver sectionectomy for treating benign liver diseases: a prospective, randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

The use of single-port laparoscopy for left-lateral liver sectionectomy (LLLS) has been reported in the literature, but the effectiveness and safety of LLLS has not been validated in randomized, controlled trials. This prospective randomized controlled trial compared the effectiveness and safety of single-port and multi-port laparoscopic LLLS for the surgical treatment of benign liver disease.

METHODS

Altogether, 38 patients aged 17-65 years (16 men, 22 women) with benign liver diseases were hospitalized for elective laparoscopic LLLS between January 2010 and December 2012. Patients were randomly assigned to either single-port (n = 19) or multi-port (n = 19) laparoscopic LLLS. Main outcome measures were operative time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, complication rates, and postoperative hospitalization.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Single-port and multi-port laparoscopies were successfully completed in all but one patient (1/19, 5.3 %) who required conversion from a single-port to a multi-port procedure. The two groups had similar mean operative times and volumes of intraoperative blood loss. There were no clinically significant postoperative complications or deaths. The single-port group had a significantly shorter postoperative hospitalization than the multi-port group (2.5 ± 1.7 vs. 4.0 ± 2.1 days; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-port laparoscopic LLLS is a technically feasible, effective, safe alternative to multi-port laparoscopy for the treatment of benign liver diseases in cautiously selected patients.

Comparison between minimally invasive and open living donor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Living donor liver transplantation is a valid alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation, and its safety and feasibility have been well determined. Minimally invasive living donor hepatectomy (MILDH) has taken some time to be accepted because of inherent technical difficulties and the highly demanding surgical skills needed to perform the procedure, and its role is still being debated. Because of the lack of data, a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing MILDH and open living donor hepatectomy (OLDH) was performed. A systematic literature search was performed with PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library Central. Treatment outcomes, including blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, analgesia use, donor-recipient morbidity and mortality, and donor procedure costs, were analyzed. There were 573 articles, and a total of 11, dated between 2006 and 2014, fulfilled the selection criteria and were, therefore, included. These 11 studies included a total of 608 adult patients. Blood loss [mean difference (MD) = -46.35; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -94.04-1.34; P = 0.06] and operative times [MD = 19.65; 95% CI = -4.28-43.57; P = 0.11] were comparable between the groups, whereas hospital stays (MD = -1.56; 95% CI = -2.63 to -0.49; P = 0.004), analgesia use (MD = -0.54; 95% CI = -1.04 to -0.03; P = 0.04), donor morbidity rates [odds ratio (OR) = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.40-0.98; P = 0.04], and wound-related complications (OR = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.17-0.97; P = 0.04) were significantly reduced in MILDH. MILDH for right liver procurement was associated with a significantly reduced hospital stay (OR = -0.92; 95% CI = 0.17-0.97; P = 0.04). In conclusion, MILDH is associated with intraoperative results that are comparable to results for OLDH and with surgical outcomes that are no worse than those for the open procedure.

Donor safety in live donor laparoscopic liver procurement: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Donor safety is a major concern in live organ donation. Live donor laparoscopic liver procurement is an advanced surgical procedure that is performed in highly specialized centers. Since its first report, not much progress has been endeavored for that procedure.

METHODS

We planned to include all the randomized and comparative nonrandomized studies. Patients' population: live donors who are submitted to organ procurement via laparoscopy.

RESULTS

Out of 5,636 records retrieved from the literature, only seven nonrandomized studies were included in this review, which encompassed 418 patients, 151 patients of whom underwent laparoscopic procurement. The quality scores for the included studies ranged from 66 to 76 %. The operative time was significantly shorter in the conventional open group (SD = 0.863, 95 % CI 0.107-1.819). Blood loss in the laparoscopic group was comparable with the conventional open approach (SD = -0.307, 95 % CI -0.807 to 0.192). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy was protective against blood loss in laparoscopic parenchymal dissection (SD = -1.168, 95 % CI -1.758 to -0.577). The hospital stay was equal in both groups. Patients in laparoscopic group consumed fewer analgesics compared with conventional open group (SD = -0.33, 95 % CI -0.63 to -0.03). Analgesics use was lower in the laparoscopic group compared with the conventional approach. The rate of Clavien complications was equal in both groups (OR 0.721, 95 % CI 0.303-1.716). No difference was found between subgroup analysis based on the harvested liver lobe. Funnel plot and statistical methods used revealed low probability of publication BIAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Live donor laparoscopic liver procurement could be as safe as the conventional open approach. Lower blood loss and lower consumtion of analgesics might be offered in the laparoscopic approach.

Single port laparoscopy in gastroenterology and hepatology: A fine step forward

Single incision laparoscopy (SIL) has become an emerging technology aiming at a further reduction of abdominal wall trauma in minimally invasive surgery. Available data is encouraging for the safe application of standardized SIL in a wide range of procedures in gastroenterology and hepatology. Compared to technically simple SIL procedures, the merit of SIL in advanced surgeries, such as liver or colorectal interventions, compared to conventional laparsocopy is self-evident without any doubt. SIL has already passed the learning curve and is routinely utilized in expert centers. This minimized approach has allowed to enter a new era of surgical management that can not be acceded without a fruitful combination of prudent training, consistent day-to-day work and enthusiastic motivation for technical innovations. Both, basic and novel technical specifics as well as particular procedures are described herein. The focus is on the most important surgical interventions in gastroenterology and aims at reviewing the current literature and shares our experience in a high volume center.

Laparoscopic liver resection for living donation: Where do we stand?

In Western countries, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) may represent a valuable alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation. Yet, after an initial peak of enthusiasm, reports of high rates of complications and of fatalities have led to a certain degree of reluctance towards this procedure especially in Western countries. As for living donor kidney transplantation, the laparoscopic approach could improve patient’s tolerance in order to rehabilitate this strategy and reverse the current trend. In this setting however, initial concerns regarding patient’s safety and graft integrity, need for acquiring surgical expertise in both laparoscopic liver surgery and living donor transplantation and lack of evidence supporting the benefits of laparoscopy have delayed the development of this approach. Similarly to what is performed in classical resectional liver surgery, initial experiences of laparoscopy have therefore begun with left lateral sectionectomy, which is performed for adult to child living donation. In this setting, the laparoscopic technique is now well standardized, is associated with decreased donor blood loss and hospital stays and provides graft of similar quality compared to the open approach. On the other hand laparoscopic major right or left hepatectomies for adult-adult LDLT currently lack standardization and various techniques such as the full laparoscopic approach, the hand assisted approach and the hybrid approach have been reported. Hence, even-though several reports highlight the feasibility of these procedures, the true benefits of laparoscopy over laparotomy remain to be fully assessed. This could be achieved through standardization of the procedures and creation of international registries especially in Eastern countries where LDLT keeps on flourishing.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Wedge resections to living donor hepatectomy, are we heading in the right direction?

Despite inception over 15 years ago and over 3000 completed procedures, laparoscopic liver resection has remained mainly in the domain of selected centers and enthusiasts. Requirement of extensive open liver resection (OLR) experience, in-depth understanding of anatomy and considerable laparoscopic technical expertise may have delayed wide application. However healthy scepticism of its actual benefits and presence of a potential publication bias; concern about its safety and technical learning curve, are probably equally responsible. Given that a large proportion of our work, at least in transplantation is still OLR, we have attempted to provide an entirely unbiased, mature opinion of its pros and cons in the current invited review. We have divided this review into two sections as we believe they merit separate attention on technical and ethical grounds. The first part deals with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in patients who present with benign or malignant liver pathology, wherein we have discussed its overall outcomes; its feasibility based on type of pathology and type of resection and included a small section on application of LLR in special scenarios like cirrhosis. The second part deals with the laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy (LDH) experience to date, including its potential impact on transplantation in general. Donor safety, graft outcomes after LDH and criterion to select ideal donors for LLR are discussed. Within each section we have provided practical points to improve safety in LLR and attempted to reach reasonable recommendations on the utilization of LLR for units that wish to develop such a service.

International experience for laparoscopic major liver resection

Although minor laparoscopic liver resections (LLRs) appear as standardized procedures, major LLRs are still limited to few expert teams. The aim of this study was to report the combined data of 18 international centers performing major LLR. Variables evaluated were number and type of LLR, surgical indications, number of synchronous colorectal resections, details on technical points, conversion rates, operative time, blood loss and surgical margins. From 1996 to 2014, a total of 5388 LLR were carried out including 1184 major LLRs. The most frequent indication for laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) was colorectal liver metastases (37.0%). Seven centers used hand assistance or hybrid approach selectively for LRH mostly at the beginning of their experience. Seven centers apply Pringle's maneuver routinely. The conversion rate for all major LLRs was 10% and mean operative time was 291 min. Mean estimated blood loss for all major LLR was 327 ml and negative surgical margin rate was 96.5%. Major LLRs still remain challenging procedures requiring important experience in both laparoscopy and liver surgery. Stimulating the younger generation to learn and accomplish these techniques is the better way to guarantee further development of this surgical field.

Laparoscopic liver resection: a review

Laparoscopic liver surgery was slower to develop than other fields of laparoscopic surgery because of a steep learning curve, and fear of uncontrolled bleeding or gas embolism. However, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is associated with significant advantages: faster recovery, less post-operative pain, less morbidity, easier subsequent surgery and better cosmetic results. Since the inception of this technique, more than 3000 procedures have been reported. The aim of this update was to review the literature in order to define the indications (malignant tumors, benign tumors, major resections), the advantages and limits of this approach as well as the expected value of new technology, such as intra-operative guidance or robotics, in the development of this branch of surgery.

Robotic single port cholecystectomy (R-LESS-C): experience in 36 patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) has emerged as a result of a search for "pain-less" and "scar-less" surgery. Laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy (LESS-C) is probably the most common application in general surgery, although it harbors certain limitations. It was proposed that the da Vinci Single-Site (Si) robotic system may overcome some of the difficulties experienced during LESS, providing three dimensional views and the ability to work in a right-handed fashion. Thirty-six robotic single port cholecystectomies (R-LESS-C) performed with the da Vinci Si robotic system are evaluated in this paper

MATERIALS AND METHODS

R-LESS-C performed in 36 patients were reviewed. The data related to the perioperative period (i.e., anesthesia time, operation time, docking time, and console time) was recorded prospectively, whereas the hospitalization period, postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores were collected retrospectively.

RESULTS

A total number of 36 patients, with a mean age of 40.1 years (21-64 years), underwent R-LESS-C. There were five men and 31 women. The mean anesthesia and operation times were 79.3 minutes (45-130 minutes) and 61.8 minutes (34-110 minutes), respectively. The mean docking time was 9.8 minutes (4-30 minutes) and the mean console time was 24.9 minutes (7-60 minutes). The mean hospital stay was 1.05 days (1-2 days) and the mean pain score (VAS) was 3.6 (2-8) in the first 24 hours. Incisional hernia was recorded in one patient.

CONCLUSION

R-LESS-C can be performed reliably with acceptable operative times and safety. The da Vinci Si robotic system may ease LESS-C. Two issues should be considered for routine use: expensive resources are needed and the incidence of incisional hernia may increase.

Long-term outcome of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a case-controlled study with propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is usually applied to superficial and left-side small lesions. Therefore, well designed comparative studies about the results of LR versus open liver resection (OR) for HCC are difficult and still uncommon. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of LR versus OR for HCC between well-matched patient groups.

METHODS

Between January 2000 and March 2012, 205 patients (43 with intent-to-treat with LR, 162 OR) underwent primary liver resection of less than three segments for HCC in our center. To select a comparison group, propensity score matching (PSM) was used at 1:1 ratio with covariates of baseline characteristics, including tumor characteristics. Outcomes were compared between the matched groups.

RESULTS

The two groups were well balanced by PSM and 29 patients were matched respectively. In LR, there was more non-anatomical resection (65.5 vs. 34.5 %; p = 0.012), less postoperative ascites (0.0 vs. 17.2 %; p = 0.025), and shorter hospital stay (7.69 ± 2.94 vs. 13.38 ± 7.37 days; p < 0.001). With the exception of these, there were no significant differences in perioperative and long-term outcomes. The 1-, 3- and 5-year survivals were 100, 100 and 92.2 % in LR, and 96.5, 92.2 and 87.7 % in OR (p = 0.267), respectively. The 1-, 3- and 5-year disease-free survivals were 81.7, 61.7 and 54.0 % in LR, and 78.6, 60.9 and 40.1 % in OR, respectively (p = 0.929).

CONCLUSIONS

The outcome of LR for HCC was technically feasible and safe in selected patients, and LR showed similar perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes when compared with OR matched with PSM.

Totally laparoscopic full left hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation in adolescents and adults

In recent years different minimal access strategies have been designed in order to perform living donor liver surgery for adult recipients with less morbidity. Techniques involve shortening the length of the incision with or without previous laparoscopic mobilization of the liver. Herein we present two cases of totally laparoscopic living donor left hepatectomy, with and without removal of the middle hepatic vein, respectively. We describe in detail the anatomical and technical aspects of the procedure focusing on relevant points to enhance safety.

Laparoscopy in Liver Transplantation: The Future has Arrived

In the last two decades, laparoscopy has revolutionized the field of surgery. Many procedures previously performed with an open access are now routinely carried out with the laparoscopic approach. Several advantages are associated with laparoscopic surgery compared to open procedures: reduced pain due to smaller incisions and hemorrhaging, shorter hospital length of stay, and a lower incidence of wound infections. Liver transplantation (LT) brought a radical change in life expectancy of patients with hepatic end-stage disease. Today, LT represents the standard of care for more than fifty hepatic pathologies, with excellent results in terms of survival. Surely, with laparoscopy and LT being one of the most continuously evolving challenges in medicine, their recent combination has represented an astonishing scientific progress. The intent of the present paper is to underline the current role of diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy in patients waiting for LT, in the living donor LT and in LT recipients.