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)

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.

Robotic and laparoscopic right lobe living donation compared to the open approach: A multicenter study on 1194 donor hepatectomies

Due to the success of minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive donor hepatectomies (MIDH) are increasingly performed worldwide. We conducted a retrospective, multicentre, propensity score-matched analysis on right lobe MIDH by comparing the robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches to assess the feasibility, safety, and early outcomes of MIDHs. From January 2016 until December 2020, 1194 donors underwent a right donor hepatectomy performed with a robotic (n = 92), laparoscopic (n = 306), and open approach (n = 796) at 6 high-volume centers. Donor and recipients were matched for different variables using propensity score matching (1:1:2). Donor outcomes were recorded, and postoperative pain was measured through a visual analog scale. Recipients' outcomes were also analyzed. Ninety-two donors undergoing robotic surgery were matched and compared to 92 and 184 donors undergoing laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. Conversions to open surgery occurred during 1 (1.1%) robotic and 2 (2.2%) laparoscopic procedures. Robotic procedures had a longer operative time (493 ± 96 min) compared to laparoscopic and open procedures (347 ± 120 and 358 ± 95 min; p < 0.001) but were associated with reduced donor blood losses ( p < 0.001). No differences were observed in overall and major complications (≥ IIIa). Robotic hepatectomy donors had significantly less pain compared to the 2 other groups ( p < 0.001). Fifty recipients of robotic-procured grafts were matched to 50 and 100 recipients of laparoscopic and open surgery procured grafts, respectively. No differences were observed in terms of postoperative complications, and recipients' survival was similar ( p =0.455). In very few high-volume centers, robotic right lobe procurement has shown to be a safe procedure. Despite an increased operative and the first warm ischemia times, this approach is associated with reduced intraoperative blood losses and pain compared to the laparoscopic and open approaches. Further data are needed to confirm it as a valuable option for the laparoscopic approach in MIDH.

Impact of thoracic shape on the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted living donor hepatectomy

Background

Although laparoscopic-assisted donor hepatectomy (LADH) has become the definitive procedure for harvesting living donor livers, its surgical outcomes in association with donor body shape have not been elucidated.

Methods

The impact of donor factors, including thoracic shape, on LADH outcomes was retrospectively investigated. Thoracic anthropometric data were examined in all LADHs with a left/right graft between 2013 and 2022.

Results

The study included 210 LADHs, consisting of 106 left- and 104 right-lobe donors with similar blood loss and similar operation time. Males have greater thoracic depth and greater thoracic width compared with females, respectively. Thoracic depth was associated with graft weight (p < 0.001), blood loss (p < 0.001), and operation time (p < 0.001). On multivariate analyses, blood loss >500 mL and operation time >8 h were associated with graft weight in the left-lobe donors, and blood loss >500 mL was associated with thoracic depth in the right-lobe donors.

Conclusion

The greater thoracic depth is associated with massive blood loss in right-lobe donors. Anthropometric parameters might be helpful for estimating LADH outcomes.

Indications to LDLT: a changing pathway?

Liver transplantation (LT) revolutionized the outlook for cirrhotic patients, offering a potential cure with over 80% life expectancy after 5 years. Cirrhosis, with or without hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), is the primary LT indication. Living donor LT (LDLT) initially explored as an alternative, declined due to poorer outcomes. Studies on LDLT improved outcomes through precise recipient selection, emphasizing the importance of careful donor/recipient matching. Emerging concepts like left lobe preference and minimally invasive donor approaches enhance LDLT outcomes. The RAPID technique shows promise in both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic livers. LDLT gains significance in transplant oncology, particularly for liver tumors like colorectal liver metastases (CLM), offering better survival than alternatives. Optimal timing integrates chemotherapy with the transplant. As LT indications evolve, LDLT finds a growing role in oncology, surpassing deceased donor transplants in certain scenarios. The decreasing prevalence of virus-related uncompensated cirrhosis highlights the expanding space for LDLT in liver transplantation.

3D auto-segmentation of biliary structure of living liver donors using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for enhanced preoperative planning

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to develop an automated segmentation system for biliary structures using a deep learning model, based on data from magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Living liver donors who underwent MRCP using the gradient and spin echo technique followed by three-dimensional modeling were eligible for this study. A three-dimensional residual U-Net model was implemented for the deep learning process. Data were divided into training and test sets at a 9:1 ratio. Performance was assessed using the dice similarity coefficient to compare the model's segmentation with the manually labeled ground truth.

RESULTS

The study incorporated 250 cases. There was no difference in the baseline characteristics between the train set (n=225) and test set (n=25). The overall mean Dice Similarity Coefficient was 0.80±0.20 between the ground truth and inference result. The qualitative assessment of the model showed relatively high accuracy especially for the common bile duct (88%), common hepatic duct (92%), hilum (96%), right hepatic duct (100%), and left hepatic duct (96%), while the third-order branch of the right hepatic duct (18.2%) showed low accuracy.

CONCLUSION

The developed automated segmentation model for biliary structures, utilizing MRCP data and deep learning techniques, demonstrated robust performance and holds potential for further advancements in automation.

Achieving Textbook Outcomes after Laparoscopic Resection in Posterosuperior Segments of the Liver: The Impact of the Learning Curve

Achieving textbook outcomes (TOs) improves the short-term and long-term performance of a hospital. Our objective was to assess TOs in the laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) of tumors in the PS (posterosuperior) section of the liver and identify the impact of the learning curve. We conducted a retrospective cohort study analyzing patients who underwent LLR for lesions located in the PS segments. Patients were divided into a TO and no-TO group. TOs were defined as negative margins, no transfusion, no readmission, no major complications, no 30-day mortality, and a length of stay ≤ 50th percentile. Patients' outcomes were assessed in two study periods before and after 2015. TOs were achieved in 47.6% (n = 117). In multivariable analysis, obesity (p = 0.001), shorter operation time (p < 0.001), less blood loss (p < 0.001), normal albumin (p = 0.003), and minor resection (p = 0.046) were significantly associated with achieving TOs. Although the 5-year recurrence-free survival rate (p = 0.096) was not significantly different, the 5-year overall survival rate was significantly greater in the TO group (p = 0.001). Body mass index > 25 kg/m2 (p = 0.020), age > 65 years (p = 0.049), and achievement of TOs (p = 0.024) were independently associated with survival. The proportion of patients who achieved a TO was higher after 2015 than before 2015 (52.3% vs. 36.1%; p = 0.022). TOs are important markers not only for assessing hospital and surgeon performance but also as predictors of overall survival. As the number of surgeons who achieve the learning curve increases, the number of patients with TOs will gradually increase with a subsequent improvement in overall survival.

Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy: Experience of 556 cases at Seoul National University Hospital

Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) has become a routine procedure at Seoul National University Hospital, and the pure laparoscopic method is now being applied to liver recipients as well. This study aimed to review the procedure and outcomes of PLDH to identify any areas that required improvement. Data from 556 donors who underwent PLDH between November 2015 and December 2021 and their recipients were retrospectively reviewed. Among these, 541 patients underwent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH). The mean hospital stay of the donor was 7.2 days, and the rate of grade I, II, IIIa, and IIIb complications was 2.2%, 2.7%, 1.3%, and 0.9%, respectively, without any irreversible disabilities or mortalities. The most common early and late major complications in the recipient were intraabdominal bleeding (n = 47, 8.5%) and biliary problems (n = 198, 35.6%), respectively. Analysis of the PLDRH procedure showed that operative time, liver removal time, warm ischemic time, Δhemoglobin%, Δtotal bilirubin%, and postoperative hospital stay decreased significantly as the number of cases accumulated. In conclusion, the operative outcomes of PLDRH improved as the number of cases increased. However, continuous caution is needed because major complications still occur in donors and recipients even after hundreds of cases.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Left Lobe or Right Lobe

Living Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT) has seen great advancements since its inception in 1988. Herein, the nuances of LDLT are discussed spanning from donor evaluation to the recipient operation. Special attention is given to donor anatomy and graft optimization techniques in the recipient.

Minimally Invasive Robotic Techniques for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Resection: How I Do It

The adoption of minimally invasive techniques for hepatocellular resection has progressively increased in North America. Cumulative evidence has demonstrated improved surgical outcomes in patients who undergo minimally invasive hepatectomy. In this review, the authors' approach and methodology to minimally invasive robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma is discussed.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Artificial Intelligence and liver: Opportunities and barriers

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has recently been shown as an excellent tool for the study of the liver; however, many obstacles still have to be overcome for the digitalization of real-world hepatology. The authors present an overview of the current state of the art on the use of innovative technologies in different areas (big data, translational hepatology, imaging, and transplant setting). In clinical practice, physicians must integrate a vast array of data modalities (medical history, clinical data, laboratory tests, imaging, and pathology slides) to achieve a diagnostic or therapeutic decision. Unfortunately, machine learning and deep learning are still far from really supporting clinicians in real life. In fact, the accuracy of any technological support has no value in medicine without the support of clinicians. To make better use of new technologies, it is essential to improve clinicians' knowledge about them. To this end, the authors propose that collaborative networks for multidisciplinary approaches will improve the rapid implementation of AI systems for developing disease-customized AI-powered clinical decision support tools. The authors also discuss ethical, educational, and legal challenges that must be overcome to build robust bridges and deploy potentially effective AI in real-world clinical settings.

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.

Preventing Small-for-size Syndrome in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) is a well-recognized complication following liver transplantation (LT), with up to 20% developing this following living donor LT (LDLT). Preventing SFSS involves consideration of factors before the surgical procedure, including donor and recipient selection, and factors during the surgical procedure, including adequate outflow reconstruction, graft portal inflow modulation, and management of portosystemic shunts. International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplant Society of India Consensus Conference was convened in January 2023 to develop recommendations for the prediction and management of SFSS in LDLT. The format of the conference was based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. International experts in this field were allocated to 4 working groups (diagnosis, prevention, anesthesia, and critical care considerations, and management of established SFSS). The working groups prepared evidence-based recommendations to answer-specific questions considering the currently available literature. The working group members, independent panel, and conference attendees served as jury to edit and confirm the final recommendations presented at the end of the conference by each working group separately. This report presents the final statements and evidence-based recommendations provided by working group 2 that can be implemented to prevent SFSS in LDLT patients.

Left Lobe First With Purely Laparoscopic Approach: A Novel Strategy to Maximize Donor Safety in Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate outcome of left-lobe graft (LLG) first combined with purely laparoscopic donor hemihepatectomy (PLDH) as a strategy to minimize donor risk.

BACKGROUND

An LLG first approach and a PLDH are 2 methods used to reduce surgical stress for donors in adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). But the risk associated with application LLG first combined with PLDH is not known.

METHODS

From 2012 to 2023, 186 adult LDLTs were performed with hemiliver grafts, procured by open surgery in 95 and PLDH in 91 cases. LLGs were considered first when graft-to-recipient weight ratio ≥0.6%. Following a 4-month adoption process, all donor hepatectomies, since December 2019, were performed laparoscopically.

RESULTS

There was one intraoperative conversion to open (1%). Mean operative times were similar in laparoscopic and open cases (366 vs 371 minutes). PLDH provided shorter hospital stays, lower blood loss, and lower peak aspartate aminotransferase. Peak bilirubin was lower in LLG donors compared with right-lobe graft donors (1.4 vs 2.4 mg/dL, P < 0.01), and PLDH further improved the bilirubin levels in LLG donors (1.2 vs 1.6 mg/dL, P < 0.01). PLDH also afforded a low rate of early complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ II, 8% vs 22%, P = 0.007) and late complications, including incisional hernia (0% vs 13.7%, P < 0.001), compared with open cases. LLG was more likely to have a single duct than a right-lobe graft (89% vs 60%, P < 0.01). Importantly, with the aggressive use of LLG in 47% of adult LDLT, favorable graft survival was achieved without any differences between the type of graft and surgical approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The LLG first with PLDH approach minimizes surgical stress for donors in adult LDLT without compromising recipient outcomes. This strategy can lighten the burden for living donors, which could help expand the donor pool.

Ten years of Italian mini-invasiveness: the I Go MILS registry as a tool of dissemination, characterization and networking

Purposes of this study are to evaluate the main changes that have occurred in the Italian MILS activity in the last decade in terms of indications, approaches and outcomes as reported in the national registry and to provide specific details on the main areas of development of MILS. Data from patients undergoing minimally invasive liver resections at centers included in the I Go MILS Registry from its start-up (November 2014) to March 2023 were analyzed for the purposes of this study. The registry is intention-to-treat and prospective. Global recruitment trends stratified by indication to surgery and type of approach were analysed. 7413 MILS procedures were performed across all centers (median number of procedures per center: 63). Years (2020-2023) displayed a significantly higher proportion of treated patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (38.2% vs. 28.9% and 33.9%, p < 0.001) and cholangiocarcinoma (6.7% vs. 6.5% and 4.2%, p < 0.001) compared to the preceding triennial periods. Additionally, technical complexity demonstrated an increased prominence in Years (2019-2023) with a significantly higher percentage of grade III cases compared to the earlier periods (39.3% vs. 21.7% and 25.6%, p < 0.001). Annual case trends focusing on laparoscopic and robotic techniques demonstrated a steadily increase in the use of these techniques for complex case mix of indications. Overall, attitude and attention to MILS approach has evolved, so that currently indications to hepatic mini-invasiveness have expanded and surgical technique has been refined: Areas mainly involved in increasing growth trends are hepatocellular carcinoma, possible applications of MILS in transplant setting, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and robotic approach.

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.

Proceedings of the 27th Annual Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society

After a virtual congress in 2021 and a previous absence in 2020 because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the 27th Annual Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society was held from May 4 to 7, 2022, in a hybrid format in Istanbul, with 1123 (58% on-site) liver transplant professionals from 61 countries attending the meeting. The hybrid format successfully achieved a balance of much yearned-for "in-person interaction" and global online participation. Almost 500 scientific abstracts were presented. In this report, the Vanguard Committee aims to present a summary of key invited lectures and selected abstracts for the liver transplant community.

Safely Implementing a Program of Pure Laparoscopic Donor Right Hepatectomy: The Experience From a Southeast Asian Center

Laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) is a technically challenging procedure. There is increasing evidence demonstrating the safety of LDRH in high-volume expert centers. We report our center's experience in implementing an LDRH program in a small- to medium-sized transplantation program.

Methods

Our center systematically introduced a laparoscopic hepatectomy program in 2006. We started with minor wedge resections followed by major hepatectomies with increasing complexities. In 2017, we performed our first laparoscopic living donor left lateral sectionectomy. Since 2018, we have performed 8 cases of right lobe living donor hepatectomy (laparoscopy-assisted: 4 and pure laparoscopic: 4).

Results

The median operative time was 418 (298-540) min, whereas the median blood loss was 300 (150-900) mL. Two patients (25%) had surgical drain placed intraoperatively. The median length of stay was 5 (3-8) d, and the median time to return to work was 55 (24-90) d. None of the donors sustained any long-term morbidity or mortality.

Conclusions

Small- to medium-sized transplant programs face unique challenges in adopting LDRH. Progressive introduction of complex laparoscopic surgery, a mature living donor liver transplantation program, appropriate patient selection, and the invitation of an expert to proctor the LDRH are necessary to ensure success.

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.

Safety and Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs. Open Hepatectomy of Central-Located Liver Lesions: A Multicenter, Propensity Score-Matched, Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy of central-located liver lesions (LHCL) compared with traditional open hepatectomy of central-located liver lesions (OHCL) remain unclear. The aim of this study was to explore the safety and efficacy of LHCL. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 262 patients who underwent hepatectomies involving resections of liver segment II, IV or VIII from January 2015 to June 2021 in two institutions. Patients in the LHCL group were matched in a 1:2 ratio to patients in the OHCL group. Results: After propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis, 61 patients remained in the LHCL group and 122 patients were in the OHCL group. What needs to be mentioned is that although not significant, patients in the OHCL group had increased lesion size (4.3 vs. 3.6 cm, p = 0.052), number (single/multiple, 84.8%/15.2% vs. 93.4%/6.6%, p = 0.097), and number of liver segments involved (one/two/three, 47.3%/42.0%/10.7% vs. 57.4%36.1%/10.7%, p = 0.393). To ensure surgical safety, fewer patients in the LHCL group underwent vascular exclusion than those in the OHCL group (p = 0.004). In addition, LHCL was associated with lower blood loss (p = 0.001) and transfusion requirement (p = 0.004). In terms of short-term outcomes, the LHCL group had significantly lower levels of peak ALT (p < 0.001), peak DBIL (p = 0.042), peak PT (p = 0.012), and higher levels of bottom ALB (p = 0.049). Moreover, the LHCL group demonstrated quicker postoperative recovery, which was represented by shorter time to first flatus, time to oral intake, time to drain off, and hospital stay (all p < 0.001). Importantly, the LHCL group had a significantly reduced occurrence of postoperative complications (p < 0.001) and similar R0 resection rates (p = 0.678) when compared to the OHCL group. Conclusion: LHCL is associated with increased safety and better perioperative outcomes and thus could be recommended for patients with central space-occupying liver lesions when appropriately selecting the surgical procedure according to the total tumor burden and carefully handled by experienced surgeons. From the experience of our center, LHCL could be performed to solitary lesion involving liver segment IV/V/VIII, <5 cm, with good safety and feasibility.

Laparoscopic-assisted liver transplantation: A realistic perspective

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

Influence of surgical technique in donor hepatectomy on immediate and short-term living donor outcomes - A systematic review of the literature, meta-analysis, and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

There are currently no guidelines pertaining to ERAS pathways in living donor hepatectomy.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify whether surgical technique influences immediate and short-term outcomes after living liver donation surgery.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel (CRD42021260707). Endpoints were mortality, overall complications, serious complications, bile eaks, pulmonary complications, estimated blood loss and length of stay.

RESULTS

Of the 2410 screened articles, 21 articles were included for final analysis; three observational, 13 retrospective cohort, four prospective cohort studies, and one randomized trial. Overall complications were higher with right versus left hepatectomy (26.8% vs. 20.8%; OR 1.4, P = .010). Donors after left hepatectomy had shorter length of stay (MD 1.4 days) compared to right hepatectomy. There was no difference in outcomes after right donor hepatectomy with versus without middle hepatic vein. We had limited data on the influence of incision type and minimally invasive approaches on living donor outcomes, and no data on the effect of operative time on donor outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Left donor hepatectomy should be preferred over right hepatectomy, as it is related to improved donor short-term outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Right donor hepatectomy with or without MHV has equivalent outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong); no preference is recommended, decision should be based on program's experience and expertise. No difference in outcomes was observed related to incision type, minimally invasive vs. open (QOE; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Weak); no preference can be recommended.

When is it safe for the liver donor to be discharged home and prevent unnecessary re-hospitalizations? - A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

Few data are available on discharge criteria after living liver donation (LLD).

OBJECTIVES

To identify the features for fit for discharge checklist after LLD to prevent unnecessary re-hospitalizations and to provide international expert recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.

METHODS

Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. The critical outcomes included were complications rates and liver function (defined by elevated bilirubin and INR) (CRD42021260725).

RESULTS

Total 57/1710 studies were included in qualitative analysis and 28/57 on the final analysis. No randomized controlled trials were identified. The complications rate was reported in 20/28 studies and ranged from 7.8% to 71.2%. Post hepatectomy liver function was reported in 13 studies. The Quality of Evidence (QoE) was Low and Very-Low for complications rate and liver function test, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Monitoring and prevention of donor complications should be crucial in decision making of discharge. Pain and diet control, removal of all drains and catheters, deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, and use routine imaging (CT scan or liver ultrasound) before discharge should be included as fit for discharge checklist (QoE; Low | GRADE of recommendation; Strong). Transient Impaired liver function (defined by elevated bilirubin and INR), a prognostic marker of outcome after liver resection, usually occurs after donor right hepatectomy and should be monitored. Improving trends for bilirubin and INR value should be observed by day 5 post hepatectomy and be included in the fit for discharge checklist. (QoE; Very-Low | GRADE; Strong).

OPEN TO ROBOTIC RIGHT DONOR HEPATECTOMY: A TECTONIC SHIFT IN SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Robotic right live donor hepatectomy(r-LDRH) has been reported with reduced morbidity compared to open donor right hepatectomy(o-LDRH) in few recent series. Nevertheless, its routine use is debated. We present a large series comparing pure r-LDRH with o-LDRH. Consecutive r-LDRH performed from June 2018 to June 2020 (n = 102) were compared with consecutive donors undergoing o-LDRH (n = 152) from February 2016 to February 2018, a period when r-LDRH was not available at this centre. Propensity score matched (PSM) analysis of 89 case-control pairs was additionally performed. Primary endpoints were length of high dependency unit (HDU) & hospital stay and Clavien-Dindo graded complications among donors. Although r-LDRH took longer to perform (540 versus 462 mins, P<0.001), the post-operative peak transaminases levels(P<0.001), the length of HDU (3 versus 4 days, P<0.001) and hospital stay (8 versus 9 days, P<0.001) were lower in in donors undergoing r-LDRH. Clavien-Dindo graded complications were similar (16.67% in r-LDRH and 13.16% in o-LDRH). The rates of early allograft dysfunction (1.6% versus 3.3%), bile leak (14.7% versus 10.7%), and 1-year mortality (13.7% versus 11.8%) were comparable between r-LDRH and o-LDRH recipients. PSM analysis yielded similar results between the groups. These data support the safety and feasibility of r-LDRH in select donors. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.

Optimal Intervention for Initial Treatment of Anastomotic Biliary Complications After Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Background: This study evaluated endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) as interventions for patients with anastomotic biliary complications (ABC) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

Methods: Prospectively collected data of patients who were diagnosed with ABC after LDLT between January 2013 and June 2017 were retrospectively reviewed.

Results: There were 57 patients who underwent LDLT with a right liver graft using duct-to-duct biliary reconstruction and experienced ABC. Among the patients with RAD involvement, there were no significant differences in the intervention success (p = 0.271) and patency rates (p = 0.267) between ERCP and PTBD. Similarly, among the patients with RPD involvement, there were no significant differences in the intervention success (p = 0.148) and patency rates (p = 0.754) between the two procedures. Graft bile duct variation (p = 0.013) and a large angle between the recipient and graft bile duct (R-G angle) (p = 0.012) significantly increased the likelihood of failure of ERCP in the RAD. When the R-G angle was greater than 47.5°, the likelihood of ERCP failure increased.

Conclusion: We recommend PTBD when graft bile duct variation is presented in patients with RAD involvement and/or when the R-G angle is greater than 47.5°.

Extended criteria donors for Robotic Right Hepatectomy- A Propensity Score matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic right donor hepatectomy (RDH) has been reported from experienced centers with reduced morbidity when compared to open RDH. However, outcomes in donors with large grafts/ complex biliovascular anatomy are unknown.

METHODS

Out of 170 robotic RDH, 100 had one or more of the following: graft weight ≥ 800gms, type 2/3 portal vein, >1 bile duct or hepatic artery and inferior hepatic veins >5mm requiring reconstruction (extended criteria donors- ExRDH), while the remaining 70 had standard anatomy (SRDH). After propensity score matching, 66 ExRDH were compared with 66 SRDH. Additionally, all robotic RDH performed were analysed in 3 temporal phases (60, 60 and 50).

RESULTS

Peak AST and ALT were higher among donors and recipients in the ExRDH arm compared to SRDH. Other intraoperative parameters and post-operative complications were similar between the two groups. During the last phase, donors demonstrated reduction in duration of surgery, postoperative complications and hospital stay while recipients showed decreased blood loss and hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Robotic right hepatectomy performed in donors with extended criteria have similar perioperative outcomes as standard donors. However, a significant learning curve needs to be traversed. Further studies are required before safely recommending robotic RDH for all donors.

Robotic monosegment donor hepatectomy for pediatric liver transplantation: First report

BACKGROUND

LT for infants less than 5 kg remains a challenge with high technical complication rates, which is further compounded by large-for-size grafts requiring hyper-reduction. The benefits of MIDH especially for standard left lateral segment (LLS) resection have been unequivocally demonstrated. However, given the fine margins of error, the highly challenging technical aspects of anatomical graft reduction test the limits of safety and may not be routinely feasible with the conventional laparoscopic approach.

CASE REPORT

A 14-month-old girl weighing 4.4 kg with extrahepatic biliary atresia was referred to our unit for an LT. Her mother volunteered to donate and the calculated volume of the LLS was 342 ml, with an estimated GRWR of 7.6. Given the extremely high GRWR, a segment II monosegment graft was planned. A RMDH was performed, with a final GRWR of 4. The donor and recipient were discharged on the 5th and 12th post-operative days, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We present the first-ever report of an RMDH. Our report highlights the fact that robotic surgery can safely replicate a highly precise surgical operation, thereby safely pushing the limits of MIDH.

Pure laparoscopic versus open donor hepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation - A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) for adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of donor outcomes following PLDH for adult LDLT.

Materials and Methods

Systematic review in line with the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology guidelines.

Results

Eight studies were included in the systematic review and six in the meta-analysis. A total of 575 donors underwent PLDH for adult LDLT. The mean donor age was 32.8 years with a BMI of 23.4 kg/m² and graft weight of 675 g. The mean operative time was 353 min and the conversion rate was 2.8% (n = 16). Overall morbidity was 10.8% with 1.6% major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 3b), zero mortality and 9.0 days length of stay (LOS). The meta-analysis demonstrated that the operative time was significantly shorter for the open donor hepatectomy group (mean difference 29.15 min; P = 0.006) and the LOS was shorter for the PLDH group (mean difference -0.73 days; P = 0.02), with a trend towards lesser estimated blood loss in PLDH group. However, no difference between the two groups was noted in terms of overall morbidity or major complications.

Conclusions

Perioperative outcomes of PLDH are similar to the standard open approach in highly specialised centers with trend towards lesser blood loss and overall shorter hospital stay. Careful donor selection and standardisation of the technique are imperative for the successful implementation and adoption of the procedure worldwide.

World Survey on Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy: A Global Snapshot of Current Practices in 2370 Cases

BACKGROUND

Having little evidence on the real extent of the minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH), a world survey was conducted aiming to picture the spread of MIDH and to identify geographical, institutional, and individual differences.

METHODS

A web-based survey was created with 5 sections (general, institutional, surgeon's experience, technical, and spread and dissemination), comprising up to a total of 47 questions. A thorough search was carried out to identify all possible centers and surgeons performing MIDH.

RESULTS

A global MIDH experience of 2370 cases was collected: 1587 right hepatectomies (RHs; 48.9% pure laparoscopic), 471 left lateral sectionectomies (LLS; 81.1% pure laparoscopic), and 366 left hepatectomies (LHs; 77.6% laparoscopic-assisted). LLS and adult MIDH conversion rates were 5.4% and 3.9%, respectively. Median blood loss was 250 mL (100-600), 100 mL (50-250), and 150 mL (50-500) for RH, LLS, and LH, respectively. Intra- and postoperative transfusion rates were 0.5%, 0%, and 0.3%; and 1.3%, 1.6%, and 0% for RH, LLS, and LH, respectively. Geographically, Asia accounts up to 1730 cases (73% of the global experience, 49.6% pure lap), of which 1374 cases are RH; Europe and Middle East-395 cases-stands out for its experience in left lateral sectionectomy: 289 cases (93% pure lap). Finally, America accounts for 245 cases, using a laparoscopic-assisted technique in 72.6% of the cases (178).

CONCLUSIONS

This world survey provides evidence and data on the global spread of MIDH and anticipates how in a near future a large-scale adoption of these techniques may be observed.

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.

Pure Laparoscopic vs. Open Right Hepatectomy in Living Liver Donors: Bench-Surgery Time

Background: Recently, there have been several reports on pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH), but the effect of pure laparoscopy on bench surgery has not been evaluated. This study aimed to compare bench-surgery time between PLDRH and conventional donor right hepatectomy (CDRH).

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 758 live liver donors between January 2012 and December 2019. We divided the patients into two groups: between January 2012 and September 2015, when we exclusively performed CDRH, and between March 2016 and December 2019, when PLDRH was standardized. We excluded all other types of graft donor hepatectomy, laparoscopic assisted donor hepatectomy, and cases with no recorded data.

Results: In total, 267 donors were included in the PLDRH group and were compared with 247 donors in the CDRH group. Similar proportions of graft vascular variations were observed between the two groups. The mean bench-surgery time was longer in the PLDRH group than in the CDRH group (49.3 ± 19.9 vs. 39.5 ± 17.5 min; P < 0.001).

Conclusion: The bench-surgery time was longer in the PLDRH group than the CDRH group, regardless of whether the vascular network was reconstructed. Expertise in bench-surgery as well as donor surgery and recipient surgery is mandatory for PLDRH to be safe and feasible.

Minimally invasive liver resection for huge (≥10 cm) tumors: an international multicenter matched cohort study with regression discontinuity analyses

Background

The application and feasibility of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) for huge liver tumours (≥10 cm) has not been well documented.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of data on 6,617 patients who had MILR for liver tumours were gathered from 21 international centers between 2009-2019. Huge tumors and large tumors were defined as tumors with a size ≥10.0 cm and 3.0-9.9 cm based on histology, respectively. 1:1 coarsened exact-matching (CEM) and 1:2 Mahalanobis distance-matching (MDM) was performed according to clinically-selected variables. Regression discontinuity analyses were performed as an additional line of sensitivity analysis to estimate local treatment effects at the 10-cm tumor size cutoff.

Results

Of 2,890 patients with tumours ≥3 cm, there were 205 huge tumors. After 1:1 CEM, 174 huge tumors were matched to 174 large tumors; and after 1:2 MDM, 190 huge tumours were matched to 380 large tumours. There was significantly and consistently increased intraoperative blood loss, frequency in the application of Pringle maneuver, major morbidity and postoperative stay in the huge tumour group compared to the large tumour group after both 1:1 CEM and 1:2 MDM. These findings were reinforced in RD analyses. Intraoperative blood transfusion rate and open conversion rate were significantly higher in the huge tumor group after only 1:2 MDM but not 1:1 CEM.

Conclusions

MILR for huge tumours can be safely performed in expert centers It is an operation with substantial complexity and high technical requirement, with worse perioperative outcomes compared to MILR for large tumors, therefore judicious patient selection is pivotal.

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.

Robotic donor hepatectomy: Are we there yet?

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) the safety of the live donor (LD) is of paramount importance. Despite all efforts, the morbidity rates approach 25%-40% with conventional open donor hepatectomy (DH) operations. However, most of these complications are related to the operative wound and despite increased self- esteem and satisfaction in various quality of life analyses on LD, the most common grievance is that of the scar. Performing safe and precise DH through a conventional laparoscopic approach is a formidable task with a precipitous learning curve for the whole team. Due to the ramifications the donor operation carries for the donor, the recipient, the transplant team and for the LDLT program in general, the development and acceptance of minimally invasive DH (MIDH) has been slow. The robotic surgical system overcomes the reduced visualization, restricted range of motion and physiological tremor associated with laparoscopic surgery and allows for a comparatively easier transition from technical feasibility to reproducibility. However, many questions especially with regards to standardization of surgical technique, comparison of outcomes, understanding of the learning curve, etc. remain unanswered. The aim of this review is to provide insights into the evolution of MIDH and highlight the current status of robotic DH, appreciating the existing challenges and its future role.

A snapshot of the 2020 conception of anatomic liver resections and their applicability on minimally invasive liver surgery. A preparatory survey for the Expert Consensus Meeting on Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery

BACKGROUND

The main aim of this survey was to analyze how liver surgeons perform liver resections and to define their conception of anatomic procedures within the incorporation of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS).

METHODS

The survey was distributed among liver surgeons. It mainly focused on personal experience on open and MILS, methods and landmarks, and experience on anatomic resections and Glissonean approach.

RESULTS

A total of 445 valid answers from 54 countries was obtained. Surgeons performing MILS mainly have below 10 years of experience (81.8% of responders) and one third has never done complex MILS. New techniques, including indocyanine green demarcation are marginally used (<25%). More than 60% of surgeons do not make a full exposure of hepatic veins during MILS, mainly due to the risk of injury or not considering it to be of utility. Although 88% of responders agreed with the concept of anatomic resection as the "resection along the border/watersheds of each order division identified by the portal vein flow", only 55% of surgeons have ever performed MILS Glissonean approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Liver anatomy is not a static concept. Anatomic resections need training and precision. Standardization of complex anatomic resections by a minimally invasive approach should be encouraged.