Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2022 Feb 1;275(2):e433-e442.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004067.

Outcomes of Robotic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy From 52 Consecutive Cases: Comparison With Open and Laparoscopy-assisted Donor Hepatectomy

Seoung Yoon Rho  1 , Jae Geun Lee  2 , Dong Jin Joo  2 , Myoung Soo Kim  2 , Soon Il Kim  2 , Dai Hoon Han  1 , Jin Sub Choi  1 , Gi Hong Choi  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Outcomes of Robotic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy From 52 Consecutive Cases: Comparison With Open and Laparoscopy-assisted Donor Hepatectomy

Seoung Yoon Rho et al. Ann Surg. .

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the feasibility and safety of RLDRH.

Summary of background data: Data for minimally invasive living-donor right hepatectomy, especially RLDRH, from a relatively large donor cohort that have not been reported yet.

Methods: From March 2016 to March 2019, 52 liver donors underwent RLDRH. The clinical and perioperative outcomes of RLDRH were compared with those of CODRH (n = 62) and LADRH (n = 118). Donor satisfaction with cosmetic results was compared between RLDRH and LADRH using a body image questionnaire.

Results: Although RLDRH was associated with longer operative time (minutes) (RLDRH, 493.6; CODRH, 404.4; LADRH, 355.9; P < 0.001), mean estimated blood loss (mL) was significantly lower (RLDRH, 109.8; CODRH, 287.1; LADRH, 265.5; P = 0.001). Postoperative complication rates were similar among the 3 groups (RLDRH, 23.1%; CODRH, 35.5%; LADRH, 28.0%; P = 0.420). Regarding donor satisfaction, body image and cosmetic appearance scores were significantly higher in RLDRH than in LADRH. After propensity score matching, RLDRH showed less estimated blood loss compared to those of CODRH (RLDRH, 114.7 mL; CODRH, 318.4 mL; P < 0.001), but complication rates were similar among the three groups (P = 0.748).

Conclusions: RLDRH resulted in less blood loss compared with that of CODRH and similar postoperative complication rates to CODRH and LADRH. RLDRH provided better body image and cosmetic results compared with those of LADRH. RLDRH is feasible and safe when performed by surgeons experienced with both robotic and open hepatectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Adam R, Karam V, Delvart V, et al. Evolution of indications and results of liver transplantation in Europe. A report from the European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR). J Hepatol 2012; 57:675–688.
    1. Chen C-L, Kabiling CS, Concejero AM. Why does living donor liver transplantation flourish in Asia? Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 10:746–751.
    1. Barr ML, Belghiti J, Villamil FG, et al. A report of the Vancouver Forum on the care of the live organ donor: lung, liver, pancreas, and intestine data and medical guidelines. Transplantation 2006; 81:1373–1385.
    1. Ratner LE, Sandoval PR. When disaster strikes: death of a living organ donor. Am J Transplant 2010; 10:2577–2581.
    1. Cheah YL, Simpson MA, Pomposelli JJ, et al. Incidence of death and potentially life-threatening near-miss events in living donor hepatic lobectomy: a world-wide survey. Liver Transpl 2013; 19:499–506.

Publication types