Hybrid procedure in living donor liver transplantation

Midline Incision Living Donor Liver Transplantation as a Step Toward Minimally Invasive Liver Transplantation: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Performing the living donor liver transplant (LDLT) recipient operation via a midline incision (MILT) may reduce perioperative morbidity and postoperative wound related issues. Also, it is likely to bear significance in the current era of minimally invasive recipient surgery (MIRS) as competence in performing an MILT is likely to be the stepping-stone toward and importantly, the safety net in performing a safe MIRS. We present our series of MILT, highlighting the evolution and its technical modifications.

METHODS

Propensity score matched analysis (based on MELD, GRWR, and etiology) of MILT versus standard LDLT (reverse L incision) (SILT) with a 1:2 ratio was performed from a prospectively collected database. All perioperative recipient data including postoperative morbidity and mortality were compared.

RESULTS

Among 75 MILT and 150 SILT patients, there were no significant differences between the groups with regards to operative time (520 ± 73 vs. 522 ± 120 min, p = 0.89) and cold ischemia time (110 ± 45 vs. 118 ± 60 min, p = 0.31). The warm ischemia time was significantly longer in the MILT group (52 ± 24 min vs. 46 ± 14 min, p = 0.02). While the mean blood loss was comparable between the groups (1675 ± 850 vs. 1550 ± 1150 mL, p = 0.41), blood transfusion requirements including packed red cells (5 (IQR:3-7) vs. 3 (IQR:1-6), p = 0.03) and fresh frozen plasma (3 (IQR:2-4) vs. 2 (IQR:0-3), p = 0.02) were significantly higher in MILT patients. There was no difference between the groups with regards to major 90-day morbidity (18.6% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.53), duration of hospital stay (15 (IQR:10-18) vs. 14 (IQR: 12-18) days, p = 0.06), and 1-year (92% vs. 95.3%) and 3-year mortality (92% vs. 91.4%) (p = 0.89).

CONCLUSION

We present the feasibility and safety of MILT in LDLT. In the current milieu of MIRS, competence in performing a safe MILT may become an essential component of the recipient surgeon's armamentarium.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation Using Right Posterior Section Graft in a Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Hepatitis C Virus-Coinfected Patient With Hemophilia: A Case Report

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is an important treatment option for liver cirrhosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection. In Japan, the limited number of deceased donors may force the selection of living donor liver transplantation. Appropriate graft selection is the key to success.

CASE PRESENTATION

The patient, a 66-year-old male with hemophilia A, acquired HIV and HCV through blood transfusions. He had a multidrug-resistant HIV strain, requiring frequent changes in antiretroviral therapy. Although his HCV cleared spontaneously, liver fibrosis progressed. With a Child-Pugh score of 9 and a MELD score of 13, liver transplantation was considered. His child became the living donor. A factor VIII concentrate test was performed preoperatively, and his HIV treatment was adjusted to avoid drug interactions. The chosen graft was a posterior segment (graft-to-recipient weight ratio of 0.8), and surgery lasted 787 min with a blood loss of 7046 g. Factor VIII concentrate was stopped on the second postoperative day as activity increased. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 47.

CONCLUSION

This is the first reported living donor liver transplantation using a posterior segment graft in a hemophilia patient coinfected with HIV and HCV. Liver transplantation can be safely performed by formulating a preoperative coagulation factor supplementation protocol.

Minimizing Incision in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Initial Experience and Comparative Analysis of Upper Midline Incision in 115 Recipients

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) needs "Mercedes Benz" or "J-shaped" incision, causing short and long-term complications. An upper midline incision (UMI) is less invasive alternative but technically challenging. Reporting UMI for recipients in LDLT vs. conventional J-shaped incision. Retrospective analysis, July 2021 to December 2022. Peri-operative details and post-transplant outcomes of 115 consecutive adult LDLT recipients transplanted with UMI compared with 140 recipients with J-shaped incision. Cohorts had similar preoperative and intraoperative variables. The UMI group had significant shorter time to ambulation (3 ± 1.6 vs. 3.6 ± 1.3 days, p = 0.001), ICU stay (3.8 ± 1.3 vs. 4.4 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.001), but a similar hospital stay (15.6±7.6 vs. 16.1±10.9 days, p = 0.677), lower incidence of pleural effusion (11.3% vs. 27.1% p = 0.002), and post-operative ileus (1.7% vs. 9.3% p = 0.011). The rates of graft dysfunction (4.3% vs. 8.5% p = 0.412), biliary complications (6.1% vs. 12.1% p = 0.099), 90-day mortality (7.8% vs. 12.1% p = 0.598) were similar. UMI-LDLT afforded benefits such as reduced pleuropulmonary complications, better early post-operative recovery and reduction in scar-related complaints in the medium-term. This is a safe, non-inferior and reproducible technique for LDLT.

Right Lobe Versus Left Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Donor and Recipient Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an established treatment for advanced liver disease. Whether right lobe (RL) or left lobe (LL) LDLT provides the best outcomes for donors and recipients remains contentious.

METHODS

MedLine, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central were searched to identify studies comparing RL- and LL-LDLT and reporting donor and/or recipient outcomes. Effect sizes were pooled using random-effect meta-analysis. Meta-regressions were used to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies were included. RL donors were more likely to experience major complications (relative risk [RR] = 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30-2.05; I2 = 19%) than LL donors; however, no difference was observed in the risk of any biliary complication (RR = 1.41; 95% CI = 0.91-2.20; I2 = 59%), bile leaks (RR = 1.56; 95% CI = 0.97-2.51; I2 = 52%), biliary strictures (RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.43-1.88; I2 = 27%), or postoperative death (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.25-1.05; I2 = 0%). Among recipients, the incidence of major complications (RR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.68-1.06; I2 = 21%), biliary complications (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 0.91-1.33; I2 = 8%), and vascular complications (RR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.44-1.43; I2 = 0%) was similar. Although the rate of small for size syndrome (RR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30-0.74; I2 = 0%) and postoperative deaths (RR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.44-0.87; I2 = 0%) was lower among RL-LDLT recipients, no differences were observed in long-term graft (hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.55-1.38; I2 = 74%) and overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.60-1.22; I2 = 44%).

CONCLUSIONS

LL donors experience fewer complications than RL donors, and LL-LDLT recipients had similar outcomes to RL-LDLT recipients. These findings suggest that LL-LDLT offers the best outcomes for living donors and similar outcomes for recipients when measures are taken to prevent small for size syndrome.

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.

Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Hepatectomy With/Without Fluorescence-Assisted Technology and Conventional Open Procedure: A Retrospective Study in Mainland China

Background: The application of laparoscopy in donor liver acquisition for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become increasingly popular in the past decade. Indole cyanide green (ICG) fluorescence technique is a new adjuvant method in surgery. The purpose was to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic and open surgery in living donor left lateral hepatectomy, and to evaluate the application of ICG in laparoscopy.

Methods: Donors received LDLT for left lateral lobe resection from November 2016 to November 2020 were selected and divided into pure laparoscopy donor hepatectomy (PLDH) group, fluorescence-assisted pure laparoscopy donor hepatectomy (FAPLDH) group and open donor hepatectomy (ODH) group. We compared perioperative data and prognosis of donors and recipients. Quality of life were evaluated by SF-36 questionnaires.

Results: The operation time of PLDH group (169.29 ± 26.68 min) was longer than FAPLDH group (154.34 ± 18.40 min) and ODH group (146.08 ± 25.39 min, p = 0.001). The blood loss was minimum in FAPLDH group (39.48 ± 10.46 mL), compared with PLDH group (52.44 ± 18.44 mL) and ODH group (108.80 ± 36.82 mL, p=0.001). The post-operative hospital stay was longer in PLDH group (5.30 ± 0.98 days) than FAPLDH group (4.81 ± 1.03 days) and ODH group (4.64 ± 1.20 days; p = 0.001). Quality of life of donors undergoing laparoscopic surgery was better.

Conclusion: Laparoscopic approaches for LDLT contribute to less blood loss, better cosmetic satisfaction. The fluorescence technique can further reduce bleeding and shorten operation time. In terms of quality of life, laparoscopic surgery is better than open surgery. Laparoscopy procedure for living-donor procurement with/without fluorescence-assist can be performed as safely as open surgery.

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.

Usefulness and safety of midline incision for right-sided hepatectomy: Cohort study

Background

While the adoption rates of laparoscopic hepatectomy are increasing, most patients still undergo open hepatectomy. Open hepatectomies use inverted L-shaped or Mercedes incisions for right-sided liver tumor. To decrease procedural invasiveness, we performed midline incisions in such cases, excluding those of laparoscopic hepatectomy. This retrospective study examined the effects of this change in treatment policy on overall patient surgical outcomes.

Materials and methods

From 2012 to 2018, 374 patients who underwent hepatectomy for right-sided hepatocellular carcinoma were enrolled, and short-term patient outcomes were compared following stratification into the 1st (n = 157) or 2nd (n = 217) Era group based on whether procedures occurred before or after the policy change, respectively.

Results

Short-term outcomes were mostly comparable between the two groups, with significantly increased postoperative aspartate aminotransferase maximum values found in the 2nd Era group relative to the 1st Era group (median: 393 vs. 331, p < 0.05). Pain scores at rest during postoperative day 1 and while moving on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3 were significantly lower in the 2nd Era group than in the 1st Era group (p < 0.05, <0.01, <0.05, <0.01, respectively).

Conclusions

Utilization of midline incisions may provide some benefits in postoperative outcomes for right-sided open hepatectomy cases.

•

Utilization of midline incisions may provide better postoperative outcomes in cases of right-sided open hepatectomy.

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 right hepatectomy: perspectives in manipulating a flexible scope

BACKGROUND

Interest in pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) is increasing worldwide with the donor's cosmetic demands and improvements in surgical techniques. Efficient manipulation of flexible scope is mandatory for successful PLDH, especially in right hepatectomy which requires more mobilization. This study provides guidelines on how to manipulate optimally a flexible scope.

METHODS

Data from 158 donors who underwent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) between November 2015 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

None of the donors required transfusion, conversion to open hepatectomy, or experienced any irreversible disabilities or mortalities. Three types of laparoscopic view provided by the flexible scope, which are bird's eye view, low angle view, and lateral view, were applied to each step of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

PLDRH can be successfully performed with maximizing visibility given by the tips and pitfalls in manipulating the flexible scope.

Long-term Follow-up of Laparoscope-Assisted Living Donor Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

We have introduced and performed laparoscope-assisted surgery in living donor hepatectomy. The objective of this study was to investigate the long-term results of laparoscope-assisted living donor hepatectomy.

METHODS

From 2006 to 2016, laparoscope-assisted living donor hepatectomy was performed in 11 patients (laparoscopic group), and conventional open living donor hepatectomy was performed in 40 patients (conventional group). Intraoperative and postoperative complications were evaluated according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and analyzed in the laparoscopic group for comparison with the conventional group.

RESULTS

The median postoperative follow-up period was 88 months (range, 58-120 months) in the laparoscopic group. One donor in the conventional group died from a motor vehicle crash 16 months after surgery. All others were alive and returned to their preoperative activity level. Regarding intraoperative and early (≤90 days after surgery) postoperative complications, 1 patient (1/11, 9%) showed biliary fistula (Grade IIIa) in the laparoscopic group. In the conventional group, 6 patients (6/40, 15%) showed surgical complications of Grade I in 2 patients and Grade II in 4 patients. Regarding late (>90 days after surgery) postoperative complications, biliary stricture was observed in 1 patient of the laparoscopic group; this patient developed hepatolithiasis 6 years after surgery, and endoscopic lithotomy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy were performed, resulting in successful treatment. Late complications were not observed in the conventional group.

CONCLUSION

One donor in the laparoscopic group showed Grade IIIa late complications. The introduction of laparoscopic surgery to living donor hepatectomy should be performed carefully.

UPPER MIDLINE INCISION IN RECIPIENTS OF DECEASED-DONORS LIVER TRANSPLANTATION

BACKGROUND

Liver transplant (LT) is the only effective and long-lasting option for patients with end-stage liver disease. Innovations and refinements in surgical techniques occurred with the advent of transplants with partial grafts and laparoscopy. Despite these modifications, the abdominal incision remains with only few changes.

AIM

Demonstrate the experience with the upper midline incision in LT recipients with whole liver grafts from deceased donors.

METHODS

Retrospective study with patients submitted to LT. Data were collected from the recipients who performed the surgical procedure through the upper midline incision.

RESULTS

The upper midline incision was used in 20 LT, 19 of which were performed in adult recipients. The main cause was liver disease secondary to alcohol. Male, BMI>25 kg/m² and MELD greater than 20 were prevalent in the study. Biliary complications occurred in two patients. Hemoperitoneum was an indication for reoperation at one of the receptors. Complication of the surgical wound occurred in two patients, who presented superficial surgical site infection and evisceration (omental). Two re-transplant occurred in the first postoperative week due to severe graft dysfunction and hepatic artery thrombosis, which were performed with the same incision, without the need to increase surgical access. There were two deaths due to severe graft dysfunction after re-transplant in 72 h and respiratory sepsis with multiple organ dysfunction in the third week.

CONCLUSION

The upper midline incision can be safely used in LT recipients with whole grafts from deceased donors. However, receptor characteristics and hepatic graft size should be considered in the option of abdominal surgical access.

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.

Standardized hybrid living donor hemihepatectomy in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of the most updated version and largest group of our standardized hybrid (laparoscopic mobilization and hepatectomy through midline incision) living donor (LD) hemihepatectomy compared with those from a conventional laparotomy in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Of 237 adult-to-adult LDLTs from August 1997 to March 2017, 110 LDs underwent the hybrid procedure. Preoperative and operative factors were analyzed and compared with conventional laparotomy (n = 126). The median duration of laparoscopic usage was 26 minutes in the hybrid group. Although there was improvement in applying this procedure over time from the beginning of the series of cases studied, blood loss and operative duration were still smaller and shorter in the hybrid group. There was no significant difference between the groups in the incidence of postoperative complications greater than or equal to Clavien-Dindo class III. There was no difference in recipient outcome between the groups. Our standardized procedure of hybrid LD hepatectomy is applicable and safe for all types of LD hepatectomies, and it enables the benefit of both the laparoscopic and the open approach in a transplant center without a laparoscopic expert. Liver Transplantation 24 363-368 2018 AASLD.

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.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted hybrid living donor hepatectomy: a comparison with the conventional open procedure

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive living donor surgery has been increasingly accepted, its safety remains to be fully clarified in a large-scale study. This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of our laparoscopy-assisted hybrid living donor surgery (LAHDS) procedure with an upper median incision in comparison with conventional open donor hepatectomy (ODH).

METHODS

From 2011 to 2016, 153 adult living donors [right lobe (RL) graft: 80 donors; left lobe (LL) graft: 73 donors] were enrolled and divided into LAHDS (n = 76) and ODH (n = 77) groups. Donor characteristics, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications were compared between the 2 groups in each graft subgroup. Postoperative liver function tests (LFTs), inflammatory markers, pain parameters, incision-related symptoms, and recipient outcomes were compared between the 2 groups in all donors.

RESULTS

In RL donors, operative blood loss was significantly lower in the LAHDS group than in the ODH group (201 vs. 313 g; p = 0.034). In LL donors, duration of surgery was significantly longer in the LAHDS group than in the ODH group (459 vs. 403 min; p = 0.034). The incidence of complications, length of hospital stay, and postoperative changes in both LFTs and inflammatory markers were comparable. The incidence of postoperative scar discomfort or tightness was significantly lower in the LAHDS group than in the ODH group (2.6 vs. 31.2%; p < 0.001), whereas postoperative pain parameters were comparable. The incidence of wound problems and abdominal wall numbness tended to be lower, but not significantly so, in the LAHDS group.

CONCLUSIONS

This large consecutive case series demonstrates that our LAHDS procedure can be performed as safely as ODH, and it can improve quality of life without impaired donor and recipient outcomes.

The liver hanging maneuver in laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic surgery has gained the acceptance of the hepatobiliary surgical community and expert teams are now advocating major laparoscopic liver resections (LLRs). In this setting, the liver hanging maneuver (LHM) has been described in numerous series. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the effectiveness of the LHM in LLR.

METHODS

We performed an electronic literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases. The final search was carried out in December, 2015.

RESULTS

We found 11 articles describing a collective total of 104 surgical procedures that were eligible for this study. Laparoscopic LHM was used in LLR for both benign and malignant conditions, and also in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The LHM was used mainly in right hepatectomy and only two authors reproduced the original LHM. We investigated the intraoperative parameters, preservation of postoperative liver function, and oncological outcomes. The clear benefit of using the LHM in LLR is for better identification of the parenchymal transection plane with less blood loss. The other benefits of LHM could not be corroborated by solid data on its positive value.

CONCLUSIONS

In view of the data published in the literature, our findings are not strong enough to support the systematic use of LHM in LLR.

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.

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.

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.