Timing for Introduction of Total Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy; Initial Experience Based on the Data of Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the timing of safe introduction of total laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (TLDRH) based on outcomes of laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH). METHODS: The data of 1013 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection from 2003 to 2017 were reviewed; the cumulative sum method was used to evaluate the learning curve of LMH. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to the timing of introduction of TLDRH (since 2010) and learning curve of LMH. Surgical outcomes of LMH and TLDRH were evaluated. RESULTS: Cumulative sum analysis demonstrated a learning curve of approximately 73 cases of LMH. In phase I (before the introduction of TLDRH, 2003-2009), 38 cases of LMH were performed. Phase II (after the introduction of TLDRH until learning curve of LMH, 2010-2014), 35 and 15 cases of LMH and TLDRH were performed, respectively. Phase III (after learning curve of LMH until 2017, 2014-2017), 59 and 20 cases of LMH and TLDRH were performed, respectively. In cases of LMH, there was significant improvement in the operation time 398.9 ± 140.9 versus 403.7 ± 165.2 versus 265.5 ± 91.7; P < 0.001), estimated blood loss (1122.9 ± 1460.2 versus 1209.3 ± 1409.1 versus 359.8 ± 268.8; P < 0.001), and open conversion rate (26.3% versus 22.9% versus 13.6%; P = 0.026) between phases I versus II versus III. In cases of TLDRH, the operation time (567.8 ± 117.9 versus 344.2 ± 71.8; P < 0.001), estimated blood loss (800.7 ± 514.8 versus 439.4 ± 347.0; P = 0.004), and hospital stay (12.5 ± 4.36 versus 9.15 ± 4.84; P = 0.025) significantly improved in phase III. CONCLUSIONS: Overcoming the learning curve of LMH before starting TLDRH is advisable to ensure donor's surgical outcomes.

Feasibility of Solo Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery in Non-anatomical Minor Liver Resection: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: We introduced solo surgery using a laparoscopic scope holder to wide an operator's activity range and reduce instrument crowding and clashing in single incisional surgery. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of solo single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (MULS) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Among 477 consecutive patients between January 2004 and December 2017, 214 patients were included. To overcome selection bias, we performed 1:1 match using propensity score matching between SILS and MULS. Baseline characteristics, operative outcomes, and postoperative complications were compared. RESULTS: No significant differences in baseline characteristics and pathologic features were found between the two groups. Operation time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative major complication were not significantly different (119.0 min vs 141.6 min, p = 0.275; 200.0 mL min vs 373.3 min, p = 0.222; 0 vs 0, p = 1.000). However, postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in SILS (2.73 days vs 7.67 days, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Solo SILS had comparable postoperative complications and feasibility in the aspect of operation time and hospital stay compared with conventional MULS for a favorable located single HCC.

Solo single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the parallel method; Surgical technique reducing a steep learning curve.

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS: To describe the techniques, short-term outcomes, and learning curve of solo single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Solo-SILC) using a laparoscopic scope holder. METHODS: A total of 591 patients who underwent Solo-SILC from July 2014 to December 2016 performed by four experienced hepatobiliary surgeons were retrospectively assessed. Solo-SILC was performed using the parallel method using a scope holder. The moving average method was used to investigate the learning curve in terms of operative time. RESULTS: In total, 590 Solo-SILC procedures were performed. Very few procedures were converted to multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There was one case of bile duct injury. The mean operative time (59.93±25.77 min) was shorter than that in other studies of SILC. Three postoperative complications, delaying bile leakage, occurred in the patients treated by one surgeon. These cases were resolved by ultrasound-guided puncture and drainage. The learning curve for surgeons A, B, and C was overcome after 14, 12, and 12 cases. Surgeon D, who had the most experience with SILC, had no obvious learning curve. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatobiliary surgeons experienced in LC can perform Solo-SILC almost immediately. Solo-SILC using the parallel technique represents a more stable option and is a promising treatment for gallbladder disease.

Comparison of pure laparoscopic and open living donor right hepatectomy after a learning curve.

This study aims to compare the early outcomes between pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) and open living donor right hepatectomy (ODRH) after those learning curve. Our analysis was based on 78 consecutive cases of living liver donor, who underwent right hepatectomy, of which 43 underwent ODRH and 35 PLDRH. The learning curve for each group was analyzed. Donor characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Two donors in the PLDRH required conversion to an open due to bleeding and large graft size (open conversion rate: 6.06%). The following outcomes during the study period were comparable between the two groups: operative time (P = .64); estimated blood loss (EBL; P = .86); intra-operative transfusion (P = .57); hospital stay (P = .41); and postoperative complications (P = .51). The operative time stabilized for the ODRH group after 17 cases and for the PLDRH group after 15 cases. After the learning curve, the EBL was lower for PLDRH than ODRH (P = .04). Pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy can be performed as safely as ODRH and with a lower volume of EBL once the surgeon has attained an appropriate level of learning.

Current Status of Discarded Grafts in Korean Organ Transplantation.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the severe shortage of available organs, many are discarded after procurement. This study aims to analyze the current status of discarded organs (retrieved, but not transplanted organs) from deceased donors in Korea. METHODS: Deceased donor organ and procurement data were collected from the Korean Network for Organ Sharing and Korea Organ Donation Agency database from 2013 to 2016. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2016, a total of 6315 deceased donor organ transplants were performed nationwide. A total of 63 organs were discarded. The most commonly discarded organs were kidney (n = 24), followed by islet cell (n = 23), lung (n = 9), liver (n = 6), and pancreas (n = 1). The most common cause for discarding solid organs was poor organ condition (n = 24). Other reasons included aggravation of donor condition, incidental cancer detection of the donor, and the abscence of matching recipient. Islet cells (n = 23) were not used because of inadequate separation and purification. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce unnecessary graft discard in Korea, systems-based improvements in preprocurement organ evaluation and postprocurement preservation are imperative.

Spleen Preservation in Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm is Oncologically Safe.

Purpose: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has been widely performed for solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) involving the body or tail of the pancreas. However, it has not been established whether spleen preservation in LDP is oncologically safe for the treatment of SPN with malignant potential. In this study, we compared the short- and long-term outcomes between patients with SPN who underwent laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) vs laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (LDPS). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 46 patients with SPN who underwent LDP between January 2005 and November 2016. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to spleen preservation: the LSPDP group (n=32) and the LDPS group (n=14). Clinicopathologic characteristics and perioperative outcomes were compared between groups. Results: There were no significant differences in pathologic variables, including tumor size, tumor location, node status, angiolymphatic invasion, or perineural invasion between groups. Median operating time was significantly longer in the LSPDP group vs the LDPS group (243 vs 172 minutes; p=0.006). Estimated intraoperative blood loss was also significantly greater in the LSPDP group (310 vs 167 ml; p=0.063). There were no significant differences in incidence of postoperative complications (≥ Clavien-Dindo class IIIa) or pancreatic fistula between groups. After a median follow-up of 35 months (range, 3~153 months), there was no recurrence or disease-specific mortality in either group. Conclusion: The results show that LSPDP is an oncologically safe procedure for SPN involving the body or tail of the pancreas.

Fatigue and weakness hinder patient social reintegration after liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: With improvements in the survival of liver transplantation (LT) recipients, the focus is shifting to patient quality of life (QOL), and employment is an important factor in aiding the social reintegration of LT patients. This study aims to evaluate the current employment status of liver graft recipients and various factors that may hinder reemployment. METHODS: Fifty patients above age 18 who underwent either living or deceased donor LT at a single center from March 2009 to July 2016 were interviewed during their visit to the outpatient clinic. The internally developed questionnaire consisted of 10 items. The Karnofsky Performance Scale and EQ-5D were used to evaluate patient function and QOL. RESULTS: A total of 25 (50%) patients returned to work after transplantation (the working group), and 21 (84%) patients in the working group returned to work within the first year after transplantation. In the non-working group (n=25), 17 (68%) answered that their health was the reason for unemployment. Fatigue and weakness were the most frequent symptoms. CONCLUSION: The data shows that as many as 50% of total patients returned to work after receiving LT. Fatigue and weakness were the most common complaints of the unemployed group, and resolving the causes of these symptoms may help to increase the employment rate.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas.

The incidence of incidentally discovered nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) is increasing because of the widespread use of radiologic imaging studies. Due to their mostly small size, PNETs in the body and tail of the pancreas are suited for laparoscopic surgery. This video described our technique of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with and without preservation of spleen and splenic vessels for PNET. The decision on preservation of spleen and splenic vessels was made according to the relative location of tumors to the splenic vessels.

A blunt dissection technique using the LigaSure vessel-sealing device improves perioperative outcomes and postoperative splenic-vessel patency after laparoscopic spleen- and splenic-vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: We have recently performed a blunt dissection technique using LigaSure technology for laparoscopic spleen- and splenic-vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy to reduce the risk of bleeding during the dissection of the splenic vessels. The aim of this study was to compare the utility of the blunt dissection technique and a conventional dissection technique during laparoscopic spleen- and splenic-vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: Fifty-five patients who underwent laparoscopic spleen- and splenic-vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy performed by a single surgeon between March 2003 and December 2015 were enrolled in this retrospective single-center study. The patients were divided into the LigaSure group (n = 23) and non-LigaSure group (n = 26). Perioperative clinical outcomes and the postoperative patency of the preserved splenic vessels in the two groups were compared. RESULTS: The patient and tumor characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. The incidence of postoperative complications was similar in the two groups. However, the mean operative time (145 vs. 231.1 min, P = 0.001), intraoperative blood loss (95.6 vs. 360 ml, P = 0.001), and postoperative hospital stay (6.4 vs. 9.8 days, P = 0.001) were significantly lower in the LigaSure group than in the non-LigaSure group, respectively. The splenic artery patency rate was similar in both groups, but the splenic vein patency was significantly better in the LigaSure group than in the non-LigaSure group (total occlusion rate: 4.5 vs. 30.8%, respectively, P = 0.017). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the blunt dissection technique using a LigaSure reduces the operating time and intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic spleen- and splenic-vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy and increases the patency of the preserved splenic vessels.

Outcomes of major laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: To compare the surgical outcomes of major laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 177 patients who underwent major liver resection for HCC between January 2004 and June 2015. We divided the 177 patients into two groups according to the type of procedure: major LLR (LLR group; n = 67) and major OLR (OLR group; n = 110). RESULTS: Procedures in the LLR group were right hepatectomy (30 patients), right posterior sectionectomy (28), left hepatectomy (11), right anterior sectionectomy (6), extended right hepatectomy (6), and central bisectionectomy (2). Tumor size was greater in the OLR group than in the LLR group (6.3 ± 3.8 vs 4.1 ± 2.4 cm; P = 0.016). The mean indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min (P = 0.698) and serum α-fetoprotein (P = 0.186) were similar in both groups. The mean operation time was longer in the LLR group (416.6 ± 166.9 vs 332.5 ± 105.4 min; P = 0.002). Blood loss (P = 0.319), transfusion rate (P = 0.260), and R0 rate (P = 0.255) were similar in both groups. Hospital stay was shorter (11.3 ± 8.3 vs. 18 ± 21.4 days; P = 0.007) and the complication rate was lower (20.5% vs. 38.7%; P = 0.005) in the LLR group. The 5-year overall survival (77.3% vs 60.2%; P = 0.087) and disease-free survival (50.8% vs 40.1%; P = 0.139) rates were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION: Major LLR of HCC is feasible and oncologically safe when performed by experienced surgeons. Further refinements of the surgical technique are needed to reduce operation time.

Clinical and oncologic outcomes of totally robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: initial results in a center for minimally invasive surgery.

PURPOSE: A robotic system was mainly designed to allow precise dissection in deep and narrow spaces. We report the clinical and oncologic outcomes of totally robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. METHODS: Between July 2009 and January 2012, 60 consecutive patients undergoing robotic surgery for rectal cancer at the Eulji University Hospital were included. RESULTS: The mean total operation time, docking time, and surgeon console time were 466.8 ± 115.6, 7.5 ± 6.7, and 261 ± 87.5 min, respectively. Oral intake of diet was started at 3.3 ± 0.9 days and the mean hospital stay was 8.6 ± 2.4 days. All 60 procedures were technically successful without the need for conversion to open or laparoscopic surgery. Complications included anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, postoperative bleeding, ileus, and perineal wound infection in 3 (5 %), 1 (1.7 %), 2 (3.3 %), 2 (3.3 %), and 1 (1.7 %) patient, respectively. The mean distal resection margin and total number of lymph nodes harvested was 3.1 ± 1.7 cm and 20.1 ± 11.5, respectively. During the mean follow-up period of 48.5 months (range, 7-75), the 4-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 87.7 and 72.8 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A totally robotic approach for rectal cancer operations was a time-consuming procedure, although we already had a lot experience in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. However, the dexterity of the robotic surgery could enable the surgeon to expand the choice of surgical methods according to the condition of the rectal cancer without the need for conversion.