Comparing purely laparoscopic versus open living donor right hepatectomy: propensity score-matched analysis

Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH) involves either laparoscopic or robot-assisted technique, with the graft being retrieved through a remote incision. Current evidence reports faster recovery and better quality of life following MIDH than open donor hepatectomy, although these are limited to a handful of high-volume transplant centers. Nonetheless, grafts obtained by MIDH have a slight disadvantage of having shorter vein lengths than its open counterpart. Additionally, biliary complications are more prevalent in recipients of grafts retrieved by laparoscopic technique, while those obtained by the robotic platform demonstrate biliary complication rates comparable to, or even better than, those from open donor hepatectomy. Widespread application of MIDH has still not occurred across the world. This narrative review explores the challenges faced by the transplant surgeons when transitioning from open donor hepatectomy to MIDH, standard technique of robotic donor hepatectomy and suggests strategies to overcome the learning curve. It compares laparoscopic and robotic donor hepatectomies, detailing the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, as well as their outcomes.

Indications and results of right-lobe living donor liver transplantation

The shortage of deceased liver donor organs over the years has always posed the need to expand the donor pool. A viable alternative to deceased donors is that of the living donor. Indeed, the living donor in liver transplantation, initially in pediatric transplantation, but for several years now also in adult transplantation, is a more than viable alternative to deceased liver donation. In fact, right liver lobe donation has proven to be a surgical procedure with low impact on the donor's life in terms of morbidity and mortality, with excellent results in recipients of such organs. In recent years, an increasing number of studies have been published that show excellent results in right-lobe living donor liver transplantation, encouraging this practice not only in countries that have historically had a shortage of deceased donor organs, such as Asian countries, but making it a practice of increasing use in Western countries as well. In addition, thanks to improvements in surgical technique and the experience of high-volume centers, this surgery has also begun to be performed using minimally invasive surgical techniques, allowing us to envision ever better outcomes for both donor and recipient in the coming years.

Outcomes of 6000 living donor liver transplantation procedures: a pioneering experience at ASAN Medical Center

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has emerged as a favorable alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation, significantly reducing waitlist mortality, particularly in Asian countries with very low deceased organ donation rates. Asan Medical Center (AMC) in South Korea has pioneered innovative LDLT surgical techniques and become established as an extremely high-volume center for LDLT. This retrospective study analyzed 6000 consecutive LDLT procedures, including 510 dual-graft procedures, performed at AMC between December 1994 and January 2021. Of these, 312 LDLT procedures were performed in children aged < 18 years. In adult recipients, liver cirrhosis (LC) related to viral hepatitis was the most common indication, occurring in 69.8% of cases. Biliary atresia (46.8%) was the most common indication for pediatric LDLT. This study demonstrated outstanding long-term outcomes, with patient survival rates at 1, 5, 10, and 20 years of 92.7%, 85.9%, 82.1%, and 70.9%, respectively, in LDLT group for adults aged 50 and under at the time of LDLT, and 92.9%, 89.0%, 88.1%, and 81.9%, respectively, in the pediatric group. The in-hospital mortality rate of adult recipients was 3.8% (n = 214/5688). This study demonstrates the importance of refined surgical techniques, selection of grafts tailored to the recipient, and comprehensive multidisciplinary perioperative patient care in expanding the scope of LDLT and improving recipient outcomes.

Minimally Invasive Surgery in Liver Transplantation: From Living Liver Donation to Graft Implantation

Since the end of the 20th century and the establishment of minimally invasive techniques, they have become the preferred operative method by many surgeons. These techniques were applied to liver surgery for the first time in 1991, while as far as transplantation is concerned their application was limited to the living donor procedure. We performed a review of the literature by searching in Pubmed and Scopus using the following keywords: Liver transplantation, Minimally invasive surgery(MIS) living liver donor surgery. Applications of MIS are recorded in surgeries involving the donor and the recipient. Regarding the recipient surgeries, the reports are limited to 25 patients, including combinations of laparoscopic, robotic and open techniques, while in the living donor surgery, the reports are much more numerous and with larger series of patients. Shorter hospitalization times and less blood loss are recorded, especially in centers with experience in a large number of cases. Regarding the living donor surgery, MIS follows the same principles as a conventional hepatectomy and is already the method of choice in many specialized centers. Regarding the recipient surgery, significant questions arise mainly concerning the safe handling of the liver graft.

Donor Safety and Risk Factors of Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Korean Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify safety and risk factors of living donor after pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy in a Korean multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy is not yet a standardized surgical procedure due to lack of data.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 543 patients undergoing PLRDH between 2010 and 2018 in 5 Korean transplantation centers. Complication rates were assessed and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors of open conversion, overall complications, major complications, and biliary complications.

RESULTS

Regarding open conversion, the incidence was 1.7% and the risk factor was body mass index >30 kg/m 2 [ P =0.001, odds ratio (OR)=22.72, 95% CI=3.56-146.39]. Rates of overall, major (Clavien-Dindo classification III-IV), and biliary complications were 9.2%, 4.4%, and 3.5%, respectively. For overall complications, risk factors were graft weight >700 g ( P =0.007, OR=2.66, 95% CI=1.31-5.41), estimated blood loss ( P <0.001, OR=4.84, 95% CI=2.50-9.38), and operation time >400 minutes ( P =0.01, OR=2.46, 95% CI=1.25-4.88). For major complications, risk factors were graft weight >700 g ( P =0.002, OR=4.01, 95% CI=1.67-9.62) and operation time >400 minutes ( P =0.003, OR=3.84, 95% CI=1.60-9.21). For biliary complications, risk factors were graft weight >700 g ( P =0.01, OR=4.34, 95% CI=1.40-13.45) and operation time >400 minutes ( P =0.01, OR=4.16, 95% CI=1.34-12.88).

CONCLUSION

Careful donor selection for PLRDH considering body mass index, graft weight, estimated blood loss, and operation time combined with skilled procedure can improve donor safety.

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.

Textbook Outcomes After Open Live Donor Right Hepatectomy and Open Right Hepatic Lobectomy for Cancer in 686 patients: Redefining the Benchmark

OBJECTIVE

To compare textbook outcomes (TO) of open live donor right hepatectomy (RH) versus open right hepatic lobectomy for cancer in a single Western center and to identify clinical factors associated with failure to achieve a TO.

BACKGROUND

TO, a composite quality measure that captures multiple aspects of perioperative care, has not been thoroughly studied in open RH. We hypothesized that TO rates after RH for live donor transplant could represent the "best-achievable" results of this operation and could serve as the benchmark for RH performed for an oncologic indication.

METHODS

A prospective database was reviewed to compare TO rates after RH for live donor purposes versus RH for cancer at a single center from 2010 to 2020. A TO was defined as achieving 7 metrics: no perioperative transfusion, no major postoperative complications, no significant bile leak, no unplanned transfer to the ICU, no 30-day mortality, no 30-day readmission, and no R1 margins for cancer cases.

RESULTS

Among 686 RH patients (371 live donor and 315 cancer cases), a TO was achieved in 92.2% of RH donors and 53.7% of RH cancer cases. Live donor patients tended to be younger, healthier, and thinner. Among donors, increased intraoperative blood loss, and in cancer cases, male sex, tumor size, and increased intraoperative blood loss were associated with TO failure.

CONCLUSIONS

A TO can be achieved in over 90% of patients undergoing living donor RH and in approximately half of RH cancer cases. These metrics represent a new benchmark for "real-world" TO after open RH.

Risk Factors Associated With Surgical Morbidities of Laparoscopic Living Liver Donors

OBJECTIVE

This study analyzed the incidence and risk factors for surgical morbidities of laparoscopic living donors.

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic living donor programs have been established safely in leading centers, donor morbidities have not been discussed sufficiently.

METHODS

Laparoscopic living donors operated on from May 2013 to June 2022 were reviewed. Donor complications were reviewed, and factors related to bile leakage and biliary stricture were analyzed using the multivariable logistic regression method.

RESULTS

A total of 636 donors underwent laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy. The open conversion rate was 1.6%, and the 30-day complication rate was 16.8% (n=107). Grade IIIa and IIIb complications occurred in 4.4% (n=28) and 1.9% (n=12) of patients, respectively. The most common complication was bleeding (n=38, 6.0%). Fourteen donors (2.2%) required reoperation. Portal vein stricture, bile leakage, and biliary stricture occurred in 0.6% (n=4), 3.3% (n=21), and 1.6% (n=10) of cases, respectively. The readmission rate and reoperation rate were 5.2% (n=33) and 2.2% (n=14), respectively. Risk factors related to bile leakage were 2 hepatic arteries in the liver graft (OR=13.836, CI=4.092-46.789, P <0.001), division-free margin<5 mm from the main duct (OR=2.624, CI=1.030-6.686, P =0.043), and estimated blood loss during operation (OR=1.002, CI=1.001-1.003, P =0.008), while the Pringle maneuver (OR=0.300, CI=0.110-0.817, P =0.018) was protective against leakage. Regarding biliary stricture, bile leakage was the only significant factor (OR=11.902, CI=2.773-51.083, P =0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic living donor surgery showed excellent safety for the majority of donors, and critical complications were resolved with proper management. To minimize bile leakage, cautious surgical manipulation is needed for donors with complex hilar anatomy.

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.

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.

Complete transition from open surgery to laparoscopy: 8-year experience with more than 500 laparoscopic living donor hepatectomies

This study was designed to review laparoscopic living donor liver transplantations (LDLTs) at a single center that achieved complete transition from open surgery to laparoscopy. LDLTs performed from January 2013 to July 2021 were reviewed. Comparisons between open and laparoscopic surgeries were performed according to periods divided into initial, transition, and complete transition periods. A total of 775 LDLTs, 506 laparoscopic and 269 open cases, were performed. Complete transition was achieved in 2020. Bile duct variations were significantly abundant in the open group both in the initial period (30.2% vs. 8.1%; p < 0.001) and transition period (48.1% vs. 24.3%; p < 0.001). Portal vein variation was more abundant in the open group only in the initial period (13.0% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.03). Although the donor reoperation rate (0.0% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.02) and Grade III or higher complication rate (5.6% vs. 13.5%; p = 0.03) were significantly higher in the laparoscopy group in the initial period, there were no differences during the transition period as well as in overall cases. Median number of opioids required by the donor (three times [interquartile range, IQR, 1-6] vs. 1 time [IQR, 0-3]; p < 0.001) was lower, and the median hospital stay (10 days [IQR, 8-12] vs. 8 days [IQR, 7-9]; p < 0.001) was shorter in the laparoscopy group. Overall recipient bile leakage rate (23.8% vs. 12.8%; p < 0.001) and overall Grade III or higher complication rate (44.6% vs. 37.2%; p = 0.009) were significantly lower in the laparoscopy group. Complete transition to laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy was possible after accumulating a significant amount of experience. Because donor morbidity can be higher in the initial period, donor selection for favorable anatomy is required for both the donor and recipient.

Robotic donor hepatectomy: A major breakthrough in living donor liver transplantation

Living donation in many countries is the main resource of organs. Healthy, volunteering individuals deserve the highest safety standards possible in addition to the least invasive technique to procure the organs. Since the introduction of living donor liver transplantation, many efforts have been made to minimize the surgical trauma inherent to living donor surgery. The journey started with a large Mercedes incision and evolved to reverse L-shaped and small upper midline incisions before the introduction of minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques originated. The technical difficulties of the laparoscopic approach due to suboptimal instrumentation, challenging ergonomics, and the long learning curve limited the application of the fully laparoscopic approach to a few centers. The recent introduction of the robotic platform with its superb optical system and advanced instruments allows for the first time, a genuine emulation of open donor surgery in a closed abdomen, thus allowing all liver donors to benefit from minimally invasive surgery (better cosmesis, less pain and morbidity, and better quality of life) without compromising donor safety. This attribute in combination with the ubiquitous presence of the robot in major transplant centers may well lead to the desired endpoint of this technology, namely, the widespread dissemination of minimally invasive donor surgery.