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.

Effect of donor warm ischemia time during graft extraction in right lobe robotic donor hepatectomy on recipient outcomes-A propensity score matched analysis.

One of the concerns specific to minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH) is the prolonged time required for graft extraction after completion of the donor hepatectomy (donor warm ischemia time [DWIT]). There has never been an objective evaluation of minimally invasive donor hepatectomy-DWIT on allograft function in living donor liver transplantation. We evaluated the effect of DWIT following robotic donor hepatectomy (RDH) on recipient outcomes and compared them with a matched cohort of open donor hepatectomy (ODH). Demographic, perioperative, and recipient's postoperative outcome data for all right lobe (RL)-RDH performed between September 2019 and July 2023 were analyzed and compared with a propensity score matched cohort (1:1) of RL-ODH from the same time period. Of a total of 103 RL-RDH and 446 RL-ODH, unmatched and propensity score matched analysis (1:1) revealed a significantly longer DWIT in the RDH group as compared to the ODH group (9.33 ± 3.95 vs 2.87 ± 2.13, P < .0001). This did not translate into any difference in the rates of early allograft dysfunction (EAD), biliary complications, major morbidity, or overall 1-and 3-month survival. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis threshold for DWIT-early allograft dysfunction was 9 minutes (area under receiver operating characteristic: 0.67, sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 53.8%). We show that prolonged DWIT within an acceptable range in RDH does not have deleterious effects on short-term recipient outcomes. Further long-term studies are required to confirm our findings, especially with regard to nonanastomotic biliary complications.

Robotic living donor hepatectomy is associated with superior outcomes for both the donor and the recipient compared with laparoscopic or open - A single-center prospective registry study of 3448 cases.

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy is an emerging surgical technique in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We examined outcomes across open, laparoscopic, and robotic LDLT using a prospective registry. We analyzed 3448 cases (1724 donor-recipient pairs) from January 2011 to March 2023 (NCT06062706). Among donors, 520 (30%) were female. Adult-to-adult LDLT comprised 1061 (62%) cases. A total of 646 (37%) of the donors underwent open, 165 (10%) laparoscopic, and 913 (53%) robotic hepatectomies. Primary outcomes: donor overall morbidity was 4% (35/903) for robotic, 8% (13/165) laparoscopic, and 16% (106/646) open (P < .001) procedures. Pediatric and adult recipient mortality was similar among the 3 donor hepatectomy approaches: robotic 1.5% and 7.0%, compared with 2.3% and 8.3% laparoscopic, and 1.6% and 5.5% for open donor surgery, respectively (P = .802, P = .564). Secondary outcomes: pediatric and adult recipients major morbidity after robotic hepatectomy was 15% and 23%, compared with 25% and 44% for laparoscopic surgery and 19% and 31% for open surgery, respectively (P = .033, P < .001). Graft and recipient 5-year survival were 90% and 93% for pediatrics and 79% and 80% for adults, respectively. In conclusion, robotic LDLT was associated with superior outcomes when compared with the laparoscopic and open approaches. Both donors and, for the first time reported, recipients benefitted from lower morbidity rates in robotic surgery, emphasizing its potential for further advancing this field.

An international survey of venous thromboembolic events and current practices of peri-operative VTE prophylaxis after living donor hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolic complications are an uncommon but significant cause of morbidity & mortality after live donor hepatectomy . The precise incidence of these events and the current practices of centers performing living donor liver transplantation worldwide are unknown. METHODS: An online survey was shared amongst living donor liver transplantation centers containing questions regarding center activity, center protocols for donor screening, peri-operative thromboembolic prophylaxis and an audit of -perioperative venous thromboembolic events after live donor hepatectomy in the previous five years (2016-2020). RESULTS: Fifty-one centers from twenty countries completed the survey. These centers had cumulatively performed 11500 living donor liver transplants between 2016-2020. All centers included pre-operative l assessment for thromboembolic risk amongst potential liver donors in their protocols. Testing for inherited prothrombotic conditions was performed by 58% of centers. Dual-mode prophylaxis was the most common practice (65%), while eight and four centers used single mode or no routine prophylaxis respectively. Twenty (39%) and 15 (29%) centers reported atleast one perioperative deep venous thrmobosis or pulmonary embolism event respectively. There was one donor mortality directly related to post-operative pulmonary embolism. Overall incidence of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism events was 3.65 and 1.74 per 1000 live donor hepatectomies respectively. Significant variations in center practices and incidence of thromboembolic events was identified in the survey primarily divided along world regions. 75% of participating centers agreed on the need for clear international guidelines. CONCLUSION: Venous thromboembolic events after live donor hepatectomy are an uncommon but important cause of donor morbidity. There is significant variation in practice among centers. Evidence-based guidelines regarding risk assessment, and peri-operative prophylaxis are needed.

Revisiting the forgotten "full-right full-left" liver division: Simplified technique and new strategical considerations for clinical implementation in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Full-right/full-left liver splitting was introduced early in the 90s as part of the great wave of technical innovations that characterized that decade. One approach was to divide the liver on the right of the Cantlie's line and leave the middle hepatic vein with the left graft, with both grafts allocated to adults. Both grafts had some functional disadvantages and exposed the adult recipients to some early hepatic dysfunction, and the results were not great. An alternative approach consisted of an ex situ division of the liver, exactly along Cantlie's line, thus sharing the middle hepatic vein between the two grafts. None of these two techniques were really adopted, and there has been nearly no transplantation of this type in the last decade worldwide. METHOD AND RESULTS: The authors propose a variation of the latter technique that was used recently with success: The division of the liver is made simpler; the two grafts are prepared ex situ and need a simple vascular reconstruction (one venous patch on each graft); and the grafts can be implanted using very standard techniques. CONCLUSION: Because candidates for liver transplantation weighing 25-60 kg (old children, teenagers, and some small adults) are often at some disadvantage in getting size-matched livers (this range of weight is less represented in the donor population), implementing the latter technique would help provide adequate grafts for them. In Italy, where many livers offered for splitting are not used, there would be ample room for implementing this option within the actual donor pool and allocation system.

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy in patients over 50 years old: Why age should not be a barrier.

INTRODUCTION: Given the global aging population, the average age of liver donors is increasing. This study aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes of grafts from pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) in liver donors aged > 50 years. METHODS: The medical records of liver donors were retrospectively reviewed. The donors underwent conventional donor right hepatectomy (CDRH) from January 2011 to May 2019 or PLDRH from March 2016 to May 2019. We divided the donors into three groups: PLDRH donors aged ≥50 (n = 26; Group 1) and aged < 50 (n = 257; Group 2), and CDRH donors aged ≥50 years (n = 66; Group 3). RESULTS: Operation time (p < .01) and hospital stay (p < .01) were significantly lower in Group 1 than in Group 3. Other postoperative outcomes of donors including graft anatomical variation, graft weight, graft-to-recipient weight ratio, and hepatic steatosis were similar among the three groups. Although no postoperative complications occurred in Groups 1 and 3, they were detected in 17 cases (6.6%) in Group 2. No postoperative complications were detected among the recipients. CONCLUSIONS: PLDRH was feasible and safe in donors aged over 50 years, with outcomes similar to those for donors aged <50 years. PLDRH should not be avoided solely based on the donor's age ≥50 years.

Early drain removal after live liver donor hepatectomy is safe - a randomized controlled pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: The current study aimed to assess the safety of early drain removal after live donor hepatectomy (LDH). METHODS: One hundred eight consecutive donors who met the inclusion criteria were randomized to early drain removal (EDR - postoperative day (POD) 3 - if serous and the drain bilirubin level was less than 3 mg/dl - "3 × 3" rule) and routine drain removal (RDR - drain output serous and less than 100 ml). The primary outcome was to compare the safety. The secondary outcome was to compare the postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters except for the timing of drain removal were comparable. EDR was feasible in 46 out of 54 donors (85.14%) and none required re-intervention after EDR. There was significantly better pain relief with EDR (p = 0.00). Overall complications, pulmonary complications, and hospital stay were comparable on intention-to-treat analysis. However, pulmonary complications (EDR - 1.9% vs RDR - 16.3% P = 0.030), overall complications (18.8% vs 36.3%, P = 0.043), and hospital stay (8 vs 9, P = 0.014) were more in the RDR group on per treatment analysis. Bile leaks were seen in three donors (3.7% in the EDR group vs 1.9% in RDR, P = 0.558), and none of them required endo-biliary interventions. Re-exploration for intestinal obstruction was required for 3 donors in RDR (0% vs 5.7%; p = 0.079). CONCLUSION: EDR by the "3 × 3" rule after LDH is safe and associated with better pain relief. On per treatment analysis, EDR was associated with significantly less hospital stay and lower pulmonary and overall complications. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinical Trials.gov - NCT04504487.

Pure laparoscopic left lateral graft procurement with removing segment 3 employing Glissonean approach, indocyanine green fluorescence imaging and in situ splitting for a small infant.

We report on a pure laparoscopic left lateral graft procurement with removing segment 3 that employs the Glissonean approach, indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging and in situ splitting. We first mobilised the liver and confirmed the root of the left hepatic vein (LHV). We then encircled the left Glissonean pedicle, and the segment 3 Glissonean pedicle (G3) was also individually encircled. We performed parenchymal transection of the left lateral segmentectomy using Pringle's manoeuvre. We clipped G3 and confirmed the demarcation line using ICG fluorescence imaging. The inflow in the S2 area was confirmed via intraoperative sonography, and we split segment 3 (S3) from the left lateral sector graft in situ. The left hepatic artery, left portal vein and left hepatic duct were also encircled and divided. The LHV was transected using a linear stapler, and the S2 monosegment liver graft and removed S3 were procured. Our technique reasonably prevents graft-related complications.

Safety of glucose-6 phosphate dehydrogenase deficient donors in living right lobe liver donation.

BACKGROUND: The literature lacks data on World Health Organization (WHO) class II and III deficient liver donors who underwent right hepatectomy during living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we compared the perioperative outcomes of 15 glucose-6 phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficient living liver donors with a matched cohort of 39 nondeficient living liver donors undergoing right lobe donation. RESULTS: Out of 15 G6PD deficient donors, four (26.67%) donors had class II, and 11 (73.34%) had class III G6PD deficiency. The mean postoperative trough hemoglobin level was significantly lower in the deficient group than the nondeficient group (9.38 ± 1.59 g/dL vs. 10.27 ± .91 g/dL, p = .046). The mean peak indirect bilirubin level was significantly higher in the deficient group than the nondeficient group (2.22 ± 1.38 mg/dL vs. 1.40 ± .89 mg/dL, p = .047), and a similar trend was observed in total serum bilirubin (3.99 ± 2.57 mg/dL vs. 2.99 ± 1.46 mg/dL, p = .038). Biochemical evidence of hemolysis was found only in three (20%) deficient donors, but none of them needed a blood transfusion. No mortality was observed in either group. All other parameters, including demographics, operative parameters, graft characteristics, and hospital stay were comparable between both groups (p > .05). CONCLUSION: G6PD deficiency with WHO class II and above should not be considered a contraindication for right lobe donation.

Outcomes of right lobe donors with BMI≥30 for living donor liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Donor BMI above 30 is generally considered contraindication for donor hepatectomy. We compared the donor outcomes based on BMI threshold and weight loss. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All potential donors were identified and data were collected retrospectively. Steatosis was assessed based on liver-spleen Hounsfield unit difference and absolute liver intensity values. We compared BMI≥30 (n = 53) and BMI < 30 (n = 64) donor outcomes. Donors with weight loss (WL) prior to surgery were also analyzed separately. Complications were graded by Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: All donors underwent open right donor hepatectomy. There was no difference between BMI≥30 and < 30 groups except female predominance in BMI≥30 group (P = .006). Both groups had similar rates of complication rates in all categories, similar remnant volume, operative time, length of stay and similar postoperative liver function recovery (all P > .05). On the other hand, donors with WL were more commonly male, had smaller graft size, and higher biliary complications rates compared to no-WL donors (all P < .05). Multivariate binary logistics regression analysis revealed no association between BMI or WL and outcomes. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that donors with BMI≥30 have similar outcomes compared to BMI < 30 donors with our defined selection criterion, therefore BMI≥30 is not an absolute contraindication to donate right liver, provided that there is no significant steatosis and remnant liver is satisfactory. For potential overweight donors, WL down to BMI < 30 is a reasonable target. Higher biliary complication rates after WL should be investigated further.

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 center. Propensity score matched (PSM) analysis of 89 case-control pairs was additionally performed. Primary endpoints were length of high dependency unit (HDU) and hospital stay and Clavien-Dindo graded complications among donors. Although r-LDRH took longer to perform (540 vs. 462 min, P < .001), the postoperative peak transaminases levels (P < .001), the length of HDU (3 vs. 4 days, P < .001), and hospital stay (8 vs. 9 days, P < .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% vs. 3.3%), bile leak (14.7% vs. 10.7%), and 1-year mortality (13.7% vs. 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.

Sequential liver and kidney living donors: Making the ultimate gift twice.

There are nearly 150 living donors in the United States who donated more than one solid organ. Using our divisional database, we found 20 individuals who donated a liver and a kidney at different times. We performed a retrospective chart review of these donors, studying their motivating factors, complications and outcomes. The donors included 11 (55%) males and nine females. Thirteen (65%) donated the kidney before the liver. Fourteen (70%) were nondirected donors at the first donation, and four of the six directed donors in the first donation became nondirected in the second donation. Seventeen (85%) were nondirected at the second donation. Common reasons for donating the second time were a good experience with the first donation and knowing that one can donate again. Outcomes and the incidence of early complications were not significantly different after the 2nd versus the 1st donation. All donors recovered and currently are doing well. Our results show a significant number of dual organ donors are nondirected and motivated by their strong desire to help. A positive experience with the 1st donation often was the driving factor for the 2nd. A history of previous organ donation did not negatively impact the 2nd donation.

Timing of Organ Procurement From Brain-Dead Donors Associates With Short- and Long-Term Outcomes After Liver Transplantation.

Brain death-induced cytokine storm is thought to harm transplantable organs. However, longer procurement times have been associated with non-inferior or better outcomes in kidney, heart, and lung transplants, while optimal procurement time for liver allografts is unknown. Our aim was to analyze the association of time interval from brain death to organ procurement with liver allograft outcomes in two nationwide cohorts. The association of procurement interval with graft survival and short-term complications was analysed in multivariable models. Altogether 643 and 58,017 orthotopic liver transplantations from brain-dead donors were included from Finland between June 2004 and December 2017 and the US between January 2008 and August 2018, respectively. Median time from brain death to organ procurement was 10.5 h in Finland and 34.6 h in the US. Longer interval associated with better graft survival (non-linearly, p = 0.016) and less acute rejections (OR 0.935 95% CI 0.894-0.978) in the US cohort, and better early allograft function (p = 0.005; Beta -0.048 95% CI -0.085 -(-0.011)) in the Finnish cohort, in multivariable models adjusted with Donor Risk Index, recipient age, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and indication for transplantation. Progressive liver injury after brain death is unlikely. Rushing to recover seems unnecessary; rest and repair might prove beneficial.

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.

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 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 the 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 carried out toward the central direction suggests 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 the recipient.

Future liver remnant volume is associated with postoperative fentanyl consumption following open donor hepatectomy: a retrospective multivariate analysis.

PURPOSE: Liver resection has a risk of postoperative hepatic dysfunction, including drug metabolism. Since fentanyl is primarily metabolized in the liver, liver resection requires exercising caution against fentanyl overdose in postoperative analgesia. The rationale for dose adjustment of fentanyl in the preoperative prescription for patients undergoing liver resection remains unclear. We examined whether postoperative fentanyl consumption is associated with the future liver remnant after liver resection and investigated factors influencing fentanyl consumption. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 89 living liver donors undergoing open liver resection received intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with fentanyl 2 mg with thoracic epidural analgesia. The primary outcome was postoperative hourly consumption of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with fentanyl. Future liver remnant volume (ml) and the ratio of future liver remnant volume to whole liver volume (%) were estimated by computed tomography volumetry and compared to determine which correlated more strongly with fentanyl hourly consumption. Multivariable analysis identified independent factors affecting fentanyl consumption, with adjustments for patient characteristics and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia setting. RESULTS: Future liver remnant volume (ml) was significantly correlated more strongly than the ratio of future liver remnant (%) with postoperative fentanyl consumption (r = 0.53 vs. 0.36, p < 0.001). Larger future liver remnant volume (ß = 0.25, p = 0.006) and age < 45 years (ß = 0.24, p = 0.009) were independently associated with higher fentanyl consumption, while sex and weight were not. CONCLUSIONS: Future liver remnant volume was significantly associated with postoperative fentanyl consumption. Smaller remnant liver volume and older age (≥ 45 years) were independent factors reducing postoperative fentanyl consumption in patients undergoing open donor hepatectomy.

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.

"Time is tissue"-A minireview on the importance of donor nephrectomy, donor hepatectomy, and implantation times in kidney and liver transplantation.

Donor organs are exposed to sequential temperature changes during the transplantation process. The role of donor warm ischemia and cold ischemia times on post-transplant outcomes has been extensively studied. Much less attention has been paid to the transient ischemia occurring during donor organ removal and implantation. Recently, it has become clear that prolonged donor nephrectomy and implantation time are independently associated with delayed graft function after kidney transplantation. In addition, implantation time correlates with post-transplant kidney graft function, histology, and survival. Similar detrimental associations of donor hepatectomy and implantation time with early allograft dysfunction, ischemic cholangiopathy, and graft and patient survival after liver transplantation have been demonstrated. This review details kidney and liver temperature changes occurring during procurement and transplantation. It summarizes the effects of the ischemia the kidney and liver sustain during these phases on short- and long-term post-transplant outcomes, advocating the standardized reporting of donor hepatectomy, donor nephrectomy, and implantation times in (inter)national registries. The review also explores strategies to protect the graft from this ischemic injury.

Diagnostic and therapeutic management algorithm for biliary complications in living liver donors.

This study aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of our diagnostic and therapeutic management algorithm and catheter-assisted (percutaneous transhepatic biliary tract drainage [PTBD] or transanastomotic feeding tube) hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) procedures in living liver donors (LLDs) with biliary complications. Living donor hepatectomy (LDH) was performed between September 2005 and April 2021 in 2 489 LLDs. Biliary complications developed in 220 LLDs (8.8%), 136 of which were male, and the median age was 29 (interquartile range [IQR]: 12) years. Endoscopic sphincterotomy ± stenting was performed in 132 LLDs, which was unsuccessful in 9 LLDs and required HJ. Overall, 142 LLDs underwent interventional radiologic procedures. Fifteen LLDs with biliary complications underwent HJ (PTBD catheter = 6 and transanastomotic feeding tube = 9) at a median of 44 days (IQR: 82). Following HJ, 14 LLDs did not have any complications throughout the median follow-up period of 1619 days (IQR: 1454). However, percutaneous dilation for HJ anastomotic stricture was performed in one patient. Biliary complications are very common following LDH; therefore, surgeons in the field should have a low threshold to perform HJ for biliary complications that persist after other treatments. Our catheter-assisted HJ techniques demonstrated a high success rate and aided HJ in a hostile abdomen during revisional surgery.

Donor wound satisfaction after living-donor liver transplantation in the era of pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Donor safety and cosmetic outcome are the main concerns raised by most living-donors. Pure laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy (PLLDH) can provide the balance between those concerns. No studies evaluated the donors' satisfaction after PLLDH. The aim of this study is to evaluate the donors' satisfaction after PLLDH compared with donors who underwent open approach. METHODS: We randomly assigned a questionnaire (Donor satisfaction questionnaire) to the donors, operated between 2011 and 2017, during their follow-up visits in the outpatient clinic. Donors who responded to the questionnaire were included in our study. Donors were divided into 3 groups: L group (conventional inverted L incision), M group (midline incision), and PL group (laparoscopic approach). RESULTS: 149 donors were included in our study. L group included 60 donors (40.3%), M group included 39 patients (26.2%), and PL group included 50 patients (33.5%). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding preoperative and perioperative outcomes apart from shorter operation time in PL group and higher wound infection in M group. Body image scale was significantly better in PL group (p = 0.001). Cosmetic scale was significantly higher in PL group (p = 0.001). Regarding self-confidence scale, it was significantly higher in PL group (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the sense of dullness or numbness on the scar (p = 0.113). CONCLUSION: PLLDH is safe and feasible for living-donor hepatectomy. Donors operated by pure laparoscopic approach have better satisfaction scores compared to conventional open approach.