Donor operation in adult living donor liver transplantation is associated with significant postoperative morbidity. To avoid laparotomy wound complications and shorten postoperative recovery, laparoscopic liver graft harvest has been developed recently. However, to determine the cut point of bile duct is challenging. Herein, we report the application of totally laparoscopic approach for right liver graft harvest in a donor with trifurcation of the bile duct. A19-year-old man volunteered for living donation to his father who suffered from hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis of liver and hepatocellular carcinoma. The graft was 880 mL with a single right hepatic artery and portal vein. The graft to recipient weight ratio was 1.06. The middle hepatic vein was preserved for the donor and the liver remnant was 42.3%. Two branches of middle hepatic veins were > 5 mm in diameter and needed reconstruction with cryopreserved allograft. Ductoplasty using laparoscopic intracorporeal suture technique was done to achieve single orifice of the graft bile duct. The postoperative course was uneventful for the donor. This report adds evidence of the feasibility of pure laparoscopic right donor hepatectomy and describes the necessary steps for bile duct division in donors with trifurcation of bile duct.

Objective: To establish global benchmark outcomes indicators after laparoscopic liver resections (L-LR). Background: There is limited published data to date on the best achievable outcomes after L-LR. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 11,983 patients undergoing L-LR in 45 international centers in 4 continents between 2015 and 2020. Three specific procedures: left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), left hepatectomy (LH), and right hepatectomy (RH) were selected to represent the 3 difficulty levels of L-LR. Fifteen outcome indicators were selected to establish benchmark cutoffs. Results: There were 3519 L-LR (LLS, LH, RH) of which 1258 L-LR (40.6%) cases performed in 34 benchmark expert centers qualified as low-risk benchmark cases. These included 659 LLS (52.4%), 306 LH (24.3%), and 293 RH (23.3%). The benchmark outcomes established for operation time, open conversion rate, blood loss ≥500 mL, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, and 90-day mortality after LLS, LH, and RH were 209.5, 302, and 426 minutes; 2.1%, 13.4%, and 13.0%; 3.2%, 20%, and 47.1%; 0%, 7.1%, and 10.5%; 11.1%, 20%, and 50%; 0%, 7.1%, and 20%; and 0%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. Conclusions: This study established the first global benchmark outcomes for L-LR in a large-scale international patient cohort. It provides an up-to-date reference regarding the “best achievable” results for L-LR for which centers adopting L-LR can use as a comparison to enable an objective assessment of performance gaps and learning curves.

Laparoscopic liver resection has been applied to treat most indications for liver resection during the past two decades. According to the literature, patient numbers have increased exponentially as a result, and surgical difficulty has increased as well. In expert centers, laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy and major liver resection more than 3 segments have become the acceptable treatment. Moreover, with surgical innovations and accumulated experience, living donor liver transplantation has become an established treatment choice for patients on the transplant waiting list. It is even considered an inevitable choice in regions with limited access to organs from deceased donors. However, significant morbidity and rare but catastrophic mortality are associated with donor hepatectomy and remain major concerns. Therefore, to decrease the incidence of complications, a minimally invasive approach in donor hepatectomy was adopted in the early 2000s. Initially, a minimally invasive approach was used for left lateral sectionectomy for pediatric liver transplant, then for laparoscopy-assisted hemihepatectomy and pure laparoscopic/robotic right donor hepatectomy, and more recently, for adult living donor liver transplantation. The extent of procedure complexity and potential complications depends on the approach and the size of the graft to be harvested. Early results from expert teams have seemed promising in terms of shortened donor recovery and improved perioperative outcomes. However, the combination of these two highly sophisticated surgical procedures raise more concerns about donor safety, especially with regard to unexpected events during the operation. A high level of evidence is very difficult to achieve in this highly specialized surgical practice with limited penetration. Therefore, an international registry has been suggested to determine the risks and benefits before the use of laparoscopic right donor hepatectomy spreads.

Objective: To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH). Background: Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups Results: A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.

Objective: To compare the outcomes of robotic limited liver resections (RLLR) versus laparoscopic limited liver resections (LLLR) of the posterosuperior segments. Background: Both laparoscopic and robotic liver resections have been used for tumors in the posterosuperior liver segments. However, the comparative performance and safety of both approaches have not been well examined in existing literature. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 5,446 patients who underwent RLLR or LLLR of the posterosuperior segments (I, IVa, VII and VIII) at 60 international centers between 2008 and 2021. Data on baseline demographics, center experience and volume, tumour features and perioperative characteristics were collected and analysed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis (in both 1:1 and 1:2 ratios) was performed to minimize selection bias. Results: A total of 3510 cases met the study criteria, of whom 3049 underwent LLLR (87%) and 461 underwent RLLR (13%). After PSM (1:1: and 1:2), RLLR was associated with a lower open conversion rate (10 of 449 [2.2%] vs. 54 of 898 [6.0%]; P=0.002), less blood loss (100 mL [IQR; 50-200] days vs. 150 mL [IQR; 50-350]; P<0.001) and a shorter operative time (188 min [IQR; 140-270] vs. 222 min [IQR; 158-300]; P<0.001). These improved perioperative outcomes associated with RLLR were similarly seen in a subset analysis of patients with cirrhosis - lower open conversion rate (1 of 136 [0.7%] vs. 17 of 272 [6.2%]; P=0.009), less blood loss (100 mL [IQR; 48-200] vs. 160 mL [IQR; 50-400]; P<0.001) and shorter operative time (190 min [IQR; 141-258] vs. 230 min [IQR; 160-312]; P=0.003). Post-operative outcomes in terms of readmission, morbidity and mortality were similar between RLLR and LLLR in both the overall PSM cohort and cirrhosis patient subset. Conclusion: RLLR for the posterosuperior segments was associated with superior perioperative outcomes in terms of decreased operative time, blood loss and open conversion rate when compared to LLLR.