Laparoscopic donor hepatectomy

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.

Extreme living donation: A single center simultaneous and sequential living liver-kidney donor experience with long-term outcomes under literature review

Objective: Living liver and kidney donor surgeries are major surgical procedures applied to healthy people with mortality and morbidity risks not providing any direct therapeutic advantage to the donor. In this study, we aimed to share our simultaneous and sequential living liver-kidney donor experience under literature review in this worldwide rare practice.

Material and Methods: Between January 2007 and February 2018, a total of 1109 living donor nephrectomies and 867 living liver donor hepatectomies were performed with no mortality to living-related donors. Eight donors who were simultaneous or sequential living liver-kidney donors in this time period were retrospectively reviewed and presented with their minimum 2- year follow-up.

Results: Of the 8 donors, 3 of them were simultaneous and 5 of them were sequential liver-kidney donation. All of them were close relatives. Mean age was 39 (26-61) years and mean BMI was 25.7 (17.7-40). In 3 donors, right lobe, in 4 donors, left lateral sector, and in 1 donor, left lobe hepatectomy were performed. Median hospital stay was 9 (7-13) days. Two donors experienced early and late postoperative complications (Grade 3b and Grade 1). No mortality and no other long-term complication occurred.

Conclusion: Expansion of the donor pool by utilizing grafts from living donors is a globally-accepted proposition since it provides safety and successful outcomes. Simultaneous or sequential liver and kidney donation from the same donor seems to be a reasonable option for combined liver-kidney transplant recipients in special circumstances with acceptable outcomes.

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.

Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Left Lateral Sectionectomy Using Glissonean Approach and Original Bridging Technique

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the final treatment for children with end-stage liver disease. Congenital biliary atresia (CBA) is the most common disease requiring LDLT in Japan, and a left lateral sector graft is preferably procured owing to its anatomic predictivity and identical graft volume for preschool recipients. Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (L-LLS) for LDLT has been recently established; however, there is no report about the innovative technique in L-LLS. The aim of this study was to introduce our L-LLS using the Glissonean approach and bridging technique for pediatric LDLT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From September 2017 to September 2020, 5 cases of L-LLS for pediatric LDLT because of CBA were performed and we performed L-LLS using the original technique on their donors. In this novel procedure, the left Glissonean pedicle was encircled at the parenchymal side of the Laennec capsule after mobilization of the lateral sector and visualization of the left hepatic vein. Then, we passed 2 tapes through the encircled Glissonean pedicle at the hepatic side and the duodenal side, as the caudate lobe branch is enclosed like a bridge. By virtue of this bridging technique, we encircled the caudate lobe branch alone by switching the tape, and we clipped and divided it; this technique secured an adequately long hepatic duct on the graft side to perform a hepaticojejunostomy. The left hepatic duct was divided after indocyanine green fluorescence cholangiography, and the left hepatic artery and portal vein were divided as well. Finally, the left hepatic vein was transected and procured from an extended intraumbilical incision.

RESULTS

We achieved L-LLS by using the Glissonean approach and the bridging technique in the 5 donors. The median operating time and blood loss were 282 (268 to 332) minutes and 34 (25 to 75) mL, respectively. There was no conversion to hybrid or open LLS and no postoperative complications. Regarding recipient outcomes, hepatic artery thrombosis occurred on postoperative day 4 in a 5-year-old female. All grafts function well and all recipients are alive after discharge (range of observation period, 3 to 26 mo).

CONCLUSIONS

We herein present standardized L-LLS using the Glissonean approach and bridging technique for pediatric LDLT. Our technique can secure a longer margin of the left hepatic duct for recipients' hepaticojejunotomy. Our results have demonstrated the advantage in pediatric LDLT, especially in patients with CBA after the Kasai procedure.

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.

Complications and outcomes of 890 living liver donor hepatectomies at a single center: risks of saving loved one's life

Objectives

Living liver donor surgery is a major surgical procedure applied to healthy people with mortality and morbidity risks and does not provide any direct therapeutic advantage to the donor. We retrospectively analyzed the postoperative complication of our living liver donors to figure out the risks of donation.

Material and Methods

Between November, 2006 and December, 2018, a total of 939 living liver donor hepatectomies were performed with no mortality to the living-related donors. Eight hundred and ninety donors with a minimum 1-year follow-up were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

Of the 890 donors, 519 (58.3%) were males and 371 (41.7%) were females. Mean age was 35 years (18-64) and mean body mass index was 25.7 kg/m² (17.7-40). Right donor hepatectomy was performed to 601 (67.5%), left donor hepatectomy to 28 (3.2%) and left lateral sector hepatectomy to 261 (29.3%) of the donors. Of the 890 donors, 174 (19.5%) donors experienced a total of 204 early and late complications including life- threatening and nearly life- threatening complications in 26 (2.9%) of them. Intraoperative complication occurred in 4 (0.5%) donors. Right donors hepatectomy complication rate (23.3%) was higher than left donor (14.3%) and left lateral sector donor hepatectomy (11.5%).

Conclusion

All donor candidates should be well-informed not only on the details of early and late complications of living liver donation, also possible outcomes of the recipient. In addition to detailed physical evaluation, preoperative psychosocial evaluation is also mandatory. Comprehensive donor evaluation, surgical experience, surgical technique, close postoperative follow-up and establishing a good dialog with the donor allows better outcomes.

Comparison of liver regeneration in laparoscopic versus open right hemihepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation

Backgrounds/Aims

This study aims to compare differences between laparoscopic donor right hemihepatectomy (LDRH) and open donor right hemihepatectomy (ODRH) in the quality of the operation, postoperative complications, and liver regeneration measured via volumetry.

Methods

This study included 119 patients who underwent living donor right hemihepatectomy at Samsung Medical Center from January 2016 to December 2017. We compared several aspects of LDRH and ODRH and analyzed the results using the independent t-test, chi-square test and Fisher's exact test.

Results

Among 119 enrolled patients, 66 patients (55.5%) underwent open surgery, and 53 patients (44.5%) underwent laparoscopic surgery. The mean operation time was significantly shorter for ODRH (290.57±54.04 minutes) than LDRH (312.28±53.5 minutes) (p=0.031). Estimated blood loss was significantly less in LDRH (258.49±119.99 ml) than ODRH (326.52±157.68 ml) (p=0.011). The remnant liver recovered to 83.35±10.71% of the preoperative estimate whole liver volume (pre-EWLV) in the ODRH group and 84.04±8.98% of the pre-EWLV in the LDRH group (p=0.707). The percentage of increased estimated liver volume to postoperative estimate remnant liver volume (post-ERLV) was 137.62±40.34% in the ODRH group and 130.56±36.78% in the LDRH group, and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p=0.326). An analysis of postoperative complications showed no significant differences.

Conclusions

LDRH is safe, and there is no significant difference in hepatic regeneration compared with ODRH. Therefore, LDRH can be applied for living donation of liver.