According to recent international consensus conferences, pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH), particularly right and left hepatectomies, is not yet considered a standard practice because studies remain limited. Thus, we present the outcomes of more than 500 PLDH patients, mostly receiving a right hepatectomy. To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date on PLDH. Data from all living liver donors who underwent PLDH at 5 centers in Korea until June 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The outcomes of both donors and recipients were included. Pearson correlation analysis was used to explore the relationship between the duration of surgery and cumulative experience at each center, which reflects the learning curve. Overall, 545 PLDH cases were analyzed, including 481 right hepatectomies, 25 left hepatectomies, and 39 left lateral sectionectomies (LLS). The open conversion was necessary for 10 (1.8%) donors, and none of the donors died or experienced irreversible disability. Notably, there were 25 (4.6%) patients with major complications (higher than Clavien-Dindo grade 3). All centers except one showed a significant decrease in surgery duration as the number of cases accumulated. Regarding recipient outcomes, there were 110 cases (20.2%) of early major complications and 177 cases (32.5%) of late major complications. This study shows the early and late postoperative outcomes of 545 donors and corresponding recipients, including 481 right hepatectomies and 25 left hepatectomies, from 5 experienced centers. Although the results are comparable to those of previously reported open donor hepatectomy series, further studies are needed to consider PLDH a new standard practice.

Earn MOC for this article: www.wileyhealthlearning.com/aasld.aspxThis study is designed to analyze the feasibility of laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy in living donors with portal vein variation. Living donor liver transplantation cases using a right liver graft during the period of January 2014 to September 2019 were included. Computed tomographic angiographies of the donor were 3-dimensionally reconstructed, and the anatomical variation of the portal vein was classified. To reduce selection bias, a 1:1 ratio propensity score-matched analysis between the laparoscopy group and the open group was performed. Surgical and recovery-related outcomes as well as portal vein complication-free survival, graft survival, and overall survival rates were analyzed. After matching, 171 cases in each group from 444 original cases were compared. The laparoscopy group had a shorter operation time (P < 0.001), a smaller number of additional opioids required by the donor (P < 0.001), and a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001). There were no differences in the portal vein complication-free survival (P = 0.16), graft survival (P = 0.26), or overall survival rates (P = 0.53). Although portal vein complication-free survival was inferior in portal veins other than type I (P = 0.01), the laparoscopy group showed similar portal vein complication-free survival regardless of the anatomical variation of portal vein (P = 0.35 in type I and P = 0.30 in other types). Laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy can be performed as safely as open surgery regardless of the anatomical variation of the portal vein.

This study was designed to review laparoscopic living donor liver transplantations (LDLTs) at a single center that achieved complete transition from open surgery to laparoscopy. LDLTs performed from January 2013 to July 2021 were reviewed. Comparisons between open and laparoscopic surgeries were performed according to periods divided into initial, transition, and complete transition periods. A total of 775 LDLTs, 506 laparoscopic and 269 open cases, were performed. Complete transition was achieved in 2020. Bile duct variations were significantly abundant in the open group both in the initial period (30.2% vs. 8.1%; p < 0.001) and transition period (48.1% vs. 24.3%; p < 0.001). Portal vein variation was more abundant in the open group only inthe initial period (13.0% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.03). Although the donor reoperation rate (0.0% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.02) and Grade III or higher complication rate (5.6% vs. 13.5%; p = 0.03) were significantly higher in the laparoscopy group in the initial period, there were no differences during the transition period as well as in overall cases. Median number of opioids required by the donor (three times [interquartile range, IQR, 1-6] vs. 1 time [IQR, 0-3]; p < 0.001) was lower, and the median hospital stay (10 days [IQR,[8][9][10][11][12] vs. 8 days [IQR, 7-9]; p < 0.001) was shorter in the laparoscopy group. Overall recipient bile leakage rate (23.8% vs. 12.8%; p < 0.001) and overall Grade III or higher complication rate (44.6% vs. 37.2%; p = 0.009) were significantly lower in the laparoscopy group. Complete transition to laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy was possible after accumulating a significant amount of experience.Because donor morbidity can be higher in the initial period, donor selection for favorable anatomy is required for both the donor and recipient.

Objective Muscle depletion in patients undergoing liver transplantation affects the recipients' prognosis and therefore cannot be overlooked. We aimed to evaluate whether changes in muscle and fat mass during the preoperative period are associated with prognosis after deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Materials and Methods This study included 72 patients who underwent DDLT and serial computed tomography (CT) scans. Skeletal muscle index (SMI) and fat mass index (FMI) were calculated using the muscle and fat area in CT performed 1 year prior to surgery (1 yr Pre-LT), just before surgery (Pre-LT), and after transplantation (Post-LT). Simple aspects of serial changes in muscle and fat mass were analyzed during three measurement time points. The rate of preoperative changes in body composition parameters were calculated (preoperative ΔSMI [%] = [SMI at Pre-LT − SMI at 1 yr Pre-LT] / SMI at Pre-LT × 100; preoperative ΔFMI [%] = [FMI at Pre-LT − FMI at 1 yr Pre-LT] / FMI at Pre-LT × 100) and assessed for correlation with patient survival. Results SMI significantly decreased during the preoperative period (mean preoperative ΔSMI, −13.04%, p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, preoperative ΔSMI ( p = 0.016) and model for end-stage liver disease score ( p = 0.011) were independent prognostic factors for overall survival. The mean survival time for patients with a threshold decrease in the preoperative ΔSMI (≤ −30%) was significantly shorter than for other patients ( p = 0.007). Preoperative ΔFMI was not a prognostic factor but FMI increased during the postoperative period ( p = 0.009) in all patients. Conclusion A large reduction in preoperative SMI was significantly associated with reduced survival after DDLT. Therefore, changes in muscle mass during the preoperative period can be considered as a prognostic factor for survival after DDLT.

Donor safety and graft results of pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy (LLDRH) have previously been compared with those of open living donor right hepatectomy (OLDRH). However, the clinical outcomes of recipients at 1‐year follow‐up have never been accurately compared. We aimed to compare 1‐year outcomes of recipients of living donor right liver transplantation (LRLT) using pure LLDRH and OLDRH. From May 2013 to May 2017, 197 consecutive recipients underwent LRLT. Donor hepatectomies were performed either by OLDRH (n = 127) or pure LLDRH (n = 70). After propensity score matching, 53 recipients were included in each group for analysis. The clinical outcomes at 1‐year follow‐up were compared between the 2 groups. The primary outcome was recipient death or graft failure during the 1‐year follow‐up period. In the propensity‐matched analysis, the incidence of death or graft failure during the 1‐year follow‐up period was not different between the 2 groups (3.8% versus 5.7%; odds ratio [OR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24‐8.95; P = 0.69). However, the composite of Clavien‐Dindo 3b‐5 complications was more frequent in the pure LLDRH group (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.15‐5.96; P = 0.02). In conclusion, although pure LLDRH affords a comparable incidence of fatal complications in recipients, operative complications may increase at the beginning of the program. The safety of the recipients should be confirmed to accept pure LLDRH as a feasible option.

Living donor liver transplantation was first developed to mitigate the limited access to deceased donor organs in Asia in the 1990s. This alternative liver transplantation method has become a widely practiced and established transplantation option for adult patients suffering with end-stage liver disease, and it has successfully helped address the shortage of deceased donors. The Society for the Advancement of Transplant Anesthesia and the Korean Society of Transplantation Anesthesiologists jointly reviewed published studies on the perioperative management of adult live liver donors undergoing donor hemi-hepatectomy. The goal of the review is to offer transplant anesthesiologists and critical care physicians a comprehensive overview of the perioperative management of adult live donors. We featured the current status, donor selection process, outcomes and complications, surgical procedure, anesthetic management, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols, avoidance of blood transfusion, and considerations

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is accepted as an effective and tolerable drug for treatment of HBV, similar to entecavir. However, there are some concerns about the nephrotoxicity of tenofovir. The aim of this study is to compare the renal-function change of liver recipients who received tenofovir or entecavir for HBV. Methods: Among 468 patients with HBV who underwent liver transplantation at Samsung Medical Center between January 2008 and December 2015, the patients treated with tenofovir (n = 39) or entecavir (n = 429) were reviewed retrospectively. Baseline characteristics and renal-function change after 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years were compared. Propensity-score matching was performed for 37 patients using tenofovir and 132 patients using entecavir. We also analyzed risk factors of renal dysfunction. Results: Age, preoperative creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (e-GFR), and hepatic encephalopathy score showed statistical difference between the tenofovir and entecavir groups. The proportion of patients with 'decreased renal function (e-GFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m 2)' was higher in the tenofovir group than in the entecavir group (33.3% vs. 12.4% at postoperative one year, P < 0.005). After propensity-score matching, there was no statistical difference in preoperative characteristics. Postoperative 1-, 2-, and 3-year e-GFR and creatinine showed no statistical difference in either group. On multivariate analysis, only preoperative high e-GFR showed a protective effect on renal-function change (odds ratio, 0.97; P < 0.001), and there was no aggravating factor. Conclusion: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate does not induce renal dysfunction in liver-transplanted patients with HBV more than does entecavir.

No abstract