Robotic donor hepatectomy: a niche advancement or the way forward? A perspective from the world’s largest center

The application of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) in the field of living donor hepatectomy has been exceedingly slow, and its impact is limited to a handful of centers worldwide. Widespread adoption has been primarily hampered by the technical limitations of laparoscopy, namely rigid instrumentation, suboptimal optics, and a seemingly steep learning curve. These deficiencies are magnified in the donor hepatectomy operation wherein the parenchyma and vasculature must be handled atraumatically to produce a pristine allograft fit for implantation. Donor safety concerns and medicolegal ramifications are also cited as impediments to MILS in donor surgery. In 2013, our institution embraced a purely laparoscopic approach to living donor left lateral sectionectomy, and it quickly became our default technique. However, with donor hemi-hepatectomy, we gravitated to the robotic surgical system as our preferred modality. Herein, we describe our experience with minimally invasive donor hepatectomy, which we now universally offer to all living donors. Our extensive familiarity with robotic donor hepatectomy will provide the reader with an instructive perspective on the attributes and merits of the robotic approach. With appropriate collaboration and proctorship, we believe that the robotic platform will actualize a more rapid and widespread adoption than that experienced with the purely laparoscopic technique.

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.

Handling of hilar vasculature in living donor right hepatectomy using extrahepatic Glissonean approach

Donor hepatectomy is one of the most important procedures in LDLT because it affects the safety of donors and the outcome of the recipients. We standardized a method of securing the important vessels at the hepatic hilum while advancing the dissection toward the central direction. This research introduces our technique of handling hilar vasculature in living donor hepatectomy, using the extrahepatic Glissonean approach, and discusses its efficacy. At first, after the extrahepatic right Glissonean approach, the resected hepatic artery and portal vein are secured on the same line as with the secured the glisson. The resected hepatic artery and portal vein are followed in the central direction, and the surrounding area is dissected. The dissection is continued up to the main brunch of hepatic artery and portal vein. The bile duct can be secured by subtracting the hepatic artery and portal vein from the tape that secured the Glissonean pedicle. The bile duct, hepatic artery, and the portal vein are dissected in this order, before dissecting the right hepatic vein, completing the surgery. This method of dissection approaching the extrahepatic Glisson is carried out towards the central direction suggest to acquire minimal tissue removal and to shorten operative time. This could result in adequate perfusion to the remaining liver and donor safety, taken together effective results on recipient.

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.