Advertisement

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of outcomes after open, mini-laparotomy, hybrid, totally laparoscopic, and robotic living donor right hepatectomy

      Abstract

      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.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Mahmud N.
        Selection for liver transplantation: indications and evaluation.
        Curr Hepatol Reports. 2020; 19: 203-212
        • Chen C.L.
        • Kabiling C.S.
        • Concejero A.M.
        Why does living donor liver transplantation flourish in Asia?.
        Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013; 10: 746-751
        • Lai Q.
        • Sapisochin G.
        • Gorgen A.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of the intention-to-treat benefit of living donation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma awaiting a liver transplant.
        JAMA Surg. 2021; e213112-e
        • Brige P.
        • Hery G.
        • Chopinet S.
        • Palen A.
        • Azoulay D.
        • Gregoire E.
        Morbidity and mortality of hepatic right lobe living donors: systematic review and perspectives.
        J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2018; 27: 169-178
        • Ciria R.
        • Cherqui D.
        • Geller D.A.
        • Briceno J.
        • Wakabayashi G.
        Comparative short-term benefits of laparoscopic liver resection: 9000 cases and climbing.
        Ann Surg. 2016; 263: 761-777
        • Hong S.K.
        • Tan M.Y.
        • Worakitti L.
        • et al.
        pure laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy in live liver donors: a propensity score-matched analysis.
        Ann Surg. 2022; 275: e206-e212
        • Han E.S.
        • Suh K.-S.
        • Lee K.-W.
        • et al.
        Advances in the surgical outcomes of 300 cases of pure laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy divided into three periods of 100 cases: a single-centre case series.
        Ann Translat Med. 2021; 9: 553
        • Hutton B.
        • Salanti G.
        • Caldwell D.M.
        • et al.
        The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.
        Ann Intern Med. 2015; 162: 777-784
        • Dindo D.
        • Demartines N.
        • Clavien P.-A.
        Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.
        Ann Surg. 2004; 240: 205-213
        • Feng S.
        • Goodrich N.P.
        • Bragg-Gresham J.L.
        • et al.
        Characteristics associated with liver graft failure: the concept of a donor risk index.
        Am J Transplant. 2006; 6: 783-790
        • Cherqui D.
        • Ciria R.
        • Kwon C.H.D.
        • et al.
        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).
        Ann Surg. 2021; 273: 96-108
        • Buell J.F.
        • Cherqui D.
        • Geller D.A.
        • et al.
        The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: the Louisville Statement, 2008.
        Ann Surg. 2009; 250: 825-830
        • Kim S.H.
        • Cho S.Y.
        • Lee K.W.
        • Park S.J.
        • Han S.S.
        Upper midline incision for living donor right hepatectomy.
        Liver Transpl. 2009; 15: 193-198
        • Rössler F.
        • Sapisochin G.
        • Song G.
        • et al.
        Defining benchmarks for major liver surgery: a multicenter analysis of 5202 living liver donors.
        Ann Surg. 2016; 264: 492-500
        • Yeow M.
        • Wijerathne S.
        • Lomanto D.
        Intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Hernia. 2021;
        • Guyot P.
        • Ades A.E.
        • Ouwens M.J.N.M.
        • Welton N.J.
        Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12: 9
        • Hozo S.P.
        • Djulbegovic B.
        • Hozo I.
        Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005; 5: 13
        • Wan X.
        • Wang W.
        • Liu J.
        • Tong T.
        Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14: 135
        • Higgins J.P.T.
        • Li T.
        • Deeks J.J.
        Chapter 6: Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect.
        in: Higgins J.P.T. Thomas J. Chandler J. Cumpston M. Li T. Page M.J. Welch V.A. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2022 (Version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane)
        • Furukawa T.A.
        • Barbui C.
        • Cipriani A.
        • Brambilla P.
        • Watanabe N.
        Imputing missing standard deviations in meta-analyses can provide accurate results.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59: 7-10
        • White I.R.
        • Barrett J.K.
        • Jackson D.
        • Higgins J.P.T.
        Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression.
        Res Synth Methods. 2012; 3: 111-125
        • Baker T.B.
        • Jay C.L.
        • Ladner D.P.
        • et al.
        Laparoscopy-assisted and open living donor right hepatectomy: a comparative study of outcomes.
        Surgery. 2009; 146 (discussion 23–25): 817-823
        • Broering D.C.
        • Elsheikh Y.
        • Alnemary Y.
        • et al.
        Robotic versus open right lobe donor hepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation: a propensity score-matched analysis.
        Liver Transpl. 2020; 26: 1455-1464
        • Chen P.D.
        • Wu C.Y.
        • Hu R.H.
        • et al.
        Robotic liver donor right hepatectomy: a pure, minimally invasive approach.
        Liver Transpl. 2016; 22: 1509-1518
        • Cho H.D.
        • Kim K.H.
        • Yoon Y.I.
        • et al.
        Comparing purely laparoscopic versus open living donor right hepatectomy: propensity score-matched analysis.
        Br J Surg. 2021; 108: e233-e234
        • Choi H.J.
        • You Y.K.
        • Na G.H.
        • Hong T.H.
        • Shetty G.S.
        • Kim D.G.
        Single-port laparoscopy-assisted donor right hepatectomy in living donor liver transplantation: sensible approach or unnecessary hindrance?.
        Transplant Proc. 2012; 44: 347-352
        • Ha T.Y.
        • Hwang S.
        • Ahn C.S.
        • et al.
        Role of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery in living-donor right liver harvest.
        Transplant Proc. 2013; 45: 2997-2999
        • Lee B.
        • Choi Y.
        • Han H.S.
        • et al.
        Comparison of pure laparoscopic and open living donor right hepatectomy after a learning curve.
        Clin Transplant. 2019; 33e13683
        • Lei H.J.
        • Lin N.C.
        • Chen C.Y.
        • et al.
        Safe strategy to initiate total laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy: a stepwise approach from a laparoscopy-assisted method.
        World J Surg. 2020; 44: 3108-3118
        • Makki K.
        • Chorasiya V.K.
        • Sood G.
        • Srivastava P.K.
        • Dargan P.
        • Vij V.
        Laparoscopy-assisted hepatectomy versus conventional (open) hepatectomy for living donors: when you know better, you do better.
        Liver Transpl. 2014; 20: 1229-1236
        • Rho S.Y.
        • Lee J.G.
        • Joo D.J.
        • et al.
        Outcomes of robotic living donor right hepatectomy from 52 consecutive cases: comparison with open and laparoscopy-assisted donor hepatectomy.
        Ann Surg. 2022; 275: e433-e442
        • Rhu J.
        • Kim M.S.
        • Choi G.S.
        • Kim J.M.
        • Kwon C.H.D.
        • Joh J.W.
        Laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy regarding the anatomical variation of the portal vein: a propensity score-matched analysis.
        Liver Transpl. 2021; 27: 984-996
        • Rotellar F.
        • Pardo F.
        • Benito A.
        • et al.
        Totally laparoscopic right hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation: analysis of a preliminary experience on 5 consecutive cases.
        Transplantation. 2017; 101: 548-554
        • Safwan M.
        • Nagai S.
        • Collins K.
        • Rizzari M.
        • Yoshida A.
        • Abouljoud M.
        Impact of abdominal shape on living liver donor outcomes in mini-incision right hepatic lobectomy: comparison among 3 techniques.
        Liver Transpl. 2018; 24: 516-527
        • Song J.L.
        • Yang J.
        • Wu H.
        • et al.
        Pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy of living donor is feasible and safe: a preliminary comparative study in China.
        Surg Endosc. 2018; 32: 4614-4623
        • Kitajima T.
        • Kaido T.
        • Iida T.
        • et al.
        Short-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted hybrid living donor hepatectomy: a comparison with the conventional open procedure.
        Surg Endosc. 2017; 31: 5101-5110
        • Soyama A.
        • Takatsuki M.
        • Hidaka M.
        • et al.
        Hybrid procedure in living donor liver transplantation.
        Transplant Proc. 2015; 47: 679-682
        • Takahara T.
        • Wakabayashi G.
        • Nitta H.
        • et al.
        The first comparative study of the perioperative outcomes between pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy and laparoscopy-assisted donor hepatectomy in a single institution.
        Transplantation. 2017; 101: 1628-1636
        • Li H.
        • Zhang J.-B.
        • Chen X.-L.
        • et al.
        Different techniques for harvesting grafts for living donor liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        World J Gastroenterol. 2017; 23: 3730-3743
        • Coelho F.F.
        • Bernardo W.M.
        • Kruger J.A.P.
        • et al.
        Laparoscopy-assisted versus open and pure laparoscopic approach for liver resection and living donor hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        HPB (Oxford). 2018; 20: 687-694
        • Gao Y.
        • Wu W.
        • Liu C.
        • Liu T.
        • Xiao H.
        Comparison of laparoscopic and open living donor hepatectomy: a meta-analysis.
        Medicine. 2021; 100e26708
        • Lai Q.
        • Giovanardi F.
        • Mennini G.
        • Berardi G.
        • Rossi M.
        The impact of mini-invasive right hepatectomy in the setting of living donation: a meta-analysis.
        Updates Surg. 2022; 74: 23-34
        • Zhang W.
        • Xu L.
        • Zhang J.
        • Che X.
        Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy for adult liver transplantation: a meta-analysis.
        HPB. 2021; 23: 344-358
        • Kabir T.
        • Syn N.
        • Koh Y.X.
        • Teo J.Y.
        • Chung A.Y.
        • Chan C.Y.
        • Goh B.K.P.
        Impact of tumor size on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resection.
        Eur J Surg Oncol. 2022; 48: 169-176
        • Tranchart H.
        • O’Rourke N.
        • Van Dam R.
        • et al.
        Bleeding control during laparoscopic liver resection: a review of literature.
        J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2015; 22: 371-378
        • Kabir T.
        • Goh B.K.P.
        Contemporary techniques commonly adopted for performing laparoscopic liver resection.
        Laparosc Surg. 2018; 2
        • Kabir T.
        • Tan H.L.
        • Syn N.L.
        • Wu E.J.
        • Kam J.H.
        • Goh B.K.P.
        Outcomes of laparoscopic, robotic, and open pancreatoduodenectomy: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies.
        Surgery. 2022; 171: 476-489
        • Rotellar F.
        • Ciria R.
        • Wakabayashi G.
        • Shu K.S.
        • Cherqui D.
        World survey on minimally invasive donor hepatectomy: a global snapshot of current practices in 2370 cases in association with the Expert Consensus and Clinical Guidelines Conference on MIDH held in Seoul, South Korea, September 7, 2019.
        Transplantation. 2022; 106: 96-105
        • Cherqui D.
        • Soubrane O.
        • Husson E.
        • et al.
        Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy for liver transplantation in children.
        Lancet. 2002; 359: 392-396
        • Strasberg S.M.
        Nomenclature of hepatic anatomy and resections: a review of the Brisbane 2000 system.
        J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2005; 12: 351-355
        • Berardi G.
        • Tomassini F.
        • Troisi R.I.
        Comparison between minimally invasive and open living donor hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Liver Transpl. 2015; 21: 738-752
        • Jung D.H.
        • Ikegami T.
        • Balci D.
        • Bhangui P.
        Biliary reconstruction and complications in living donor liver transplantation.
        Int J Surg. 2020; 82s: 138-144
        • Baker T.B.
        • Zimmerman M.A.
        • Goodrich N.P.
        • et al.
        Biliary reconstructive techniques and associated anatomic variants in adult living donor liver transplantations: the adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study experience.
        Liver Transpl. 2017; 23: 1519-1530