World Survey on Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy: A Global Snapshot of Current Practices in 2370 Cases.
Journal
Transplantation
ISSN: 1534-6080
Titre abrégé: Transplantation
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0132144
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 01 2022
01 01 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
16
2
2021
medline:
25
3
2022
entrez:
15
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33586922
pii: 00007890-202201000-00026
doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000003680
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
96-105Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest.
Références
Wakabayashi G, Cherqui D, Geller DA, et al. Recommendations for laparoscopic liver resection: a report from the second international consensus conference held in Morioka. Ann Surg. 2015;261:619–629.
Ciria R, Cherqui D, Geller DA, et al. Comparative short-term benefits of laparoscopic liver resection: 9000 cases and climbing. Ann Surg. 2016;263:761–777.
Cherqui D, Soubrane O, Husson E, et al. Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy for liver transplantation in children. Lancet. 2002;359:392–396.
Soubrane O, Cherqui D, Scatton O, et al. Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy in living donors: safety and reproducibility of the technique in a single center. Ann Surg. 2006;244:815–820.
Kim KH, Jung DH, Park KM, et al. Comparison of open and laparoscopic live donor left lateral sectionectomy. Br J Surg. 2011;98:1302–1308.
Koffron AJ, Kung R, Baker T, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted right lobe donor hepatectomy. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:2522–2525.
Troisi RI, Wojcicki M, Tomassini F, et al. Pure laparoscopic full-left living donor hepatectomy for calculated small-for-size LDLT in adults: proof of concept. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:2472–2478.
Samstein B, Cherqui D, Rotellar F, et al. Totally laparoscopic full left hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation in adolescents and adults. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:2462–2466.
Soubrane O, Perdigao Cotta F, Scatton O. Pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy in a living donor. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:2467–2471.
Rotellar F, Pardo F, Benito A, et al. Totally laparoscopic right-lobe hepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation: useful strategies to enhance safety. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:3269–3273.
Han HS, Cho JY, Yoon YS, et al. Total laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:184.
Cherqui D, Ciria R, Kwon CHD, 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.
Kim KH, Kang SH, Jung DH, et al. Initial outcomes of pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy in an experienced adult living donor liver transplant center. Transplantation. 2017;101:1106–1110.
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.
Samstein B, Griesemer A, Cherqui D, et al. Fully laparoscopic left-sided donor hepatectomy is safe and associated with shorter hospital stay and earlier return to work: a comparative study. Liver Transpl. 2015;21:768–773.
Suh SW, Lee KW, Lee JM, et al. Clinical outcomes of and patient satisfaction with different incision methods for donor hepatectomy in living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2015;21:72–78.
Takahara T, Wakabayashi G, Hasegawa Y, et al. Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy: evolution from hybrid to pure laparoscopic techniques. Ann Surg. 2015;261:e3–e4.
Soubrane O, Eguchi S, Uemoto S, et al. Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation: an international, multi-institutional evaluation of safety, efficacy and early outcomes. Ann Surg. [Epub ahead of print. March 27, 2020]. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003852
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003852
Giulianotti PC, Tzvetanov I, Jeon H, et al. Robot-assisted right lobe donor hepatectomy. Transpl Int. 2012;25:e5–e9.
Broering DC, 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 PD, Wu CY, Hu RH, et al. Robotic liver donor right hepatectomy: A pure, minimally invasive approach. Liver Transpl. 2016;22:1509–1518.
Troisi RI, Elsheikh Y, Alnemary Y, et al. Safety and feasibility report of robotic-assisted left lateral sectionectomy for pediatric living donor liver transplantation: a comparative analysis of learning curves and mastery achieved with the laparoscopic approach. Transplantation 2021;105:1044–1051.
Soubrane O, de Rougemont O, Kim KH, et al. Laparoscopic living donor left lateral sectionectomy: a new standard practice for donor hepatectomy. Ann Surg. 2015;262:757–761.
Kwon CHD, Choi GS, Kim JM, et al. Laparoscopic donor hepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation recipients. Liver Transpl. 2018;24:1545–1553.
Lee B, Choi Y, Han HS, et al. Comparison of pure laparoscopic and open living donor right hepatectomy after a learning curve. Clin Transplant. 2019;33:e13683.
Jeong JS, Wi W, Chung YJ, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between pure laparoscopic surgery and open right hepatectomy in living donor hepatectomy: propensity score matching analysis. Sci Rep. 2020;10:5314.
Samstein B, Griesemer A, Halazun K, et al. Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomies: ready for widespread adoption? Ann Surg. 2018;268:602–609.
Broering DC, Berardi G, El Sheikh Y, et al. Learning curve under proctorship of pure laparoscopic living donor left lateral sectionectomy for pediatric transplantation. Ann Surg. 2020;271:542–548.
Brown RS Jr, Russo MW, Lai M, et al. A survey of liver transplantation from living adult donors in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:818–825.
Kluger MD, Memeo R, Laurent A, et al. Survey of adult liver transplantation techniques (SALT): an international study of current practices in deceased donor liver transplantation. HPB (Oxford). 2011;13:692–698.
Rhu J, Choi GS, Kwon CHD, et al. Learning curve of laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy. Br J Surg. 2020;107:278–288.
Hong SK, Suh KS, Yoon KC, et al. The learning curve in pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy: a cumulative sum analysis. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(11):3741–3748.