Jeong-Moo Lee1, Ahmed Shehta1,2, Kwang-Woong Lee3, Suk Kyun Hong1, Jae-Hyung Cho1, Nam-Joon Yi1, Kyung-Suk Suh1. 1. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 28 Yongon-Dong, Chongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea. 2. Liver Transplantation Unit, Gastrointestinal Surgery Center, College of Medicine, Mansoura University, Dakahlia Governorate, Egypt. 3. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 28 Yongon-Dong, Chongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea. kwleegs@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Donor safety and cosmetic outcome are the main concerns raised by most living-donors. Pure laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy (PLLDH) can provide the balance between those concerns. No studies evaluated the donors' satisfaction after PLLDH. The aim of this study is to evaluate the donors' satisfaction after PLLDH compared with donors who underwent open approach. METHODS: We randomly assigned a questionnaire (Donor satisfaction questionnaire) to the donors, operated between 2011 and 2017, during their follow-up visits in the outpatient clinic. Donors who responded to the questionnaire were included in our study. Donors were divided into 3 groups: L group (conventional inverted L incision), M group (midline incision), and PL group (laparoscopic approach). RESULTS:149 donors were included in our study. L group included 60 donors (40.3%), M group included 39 patients (26.2%), and PL group included 50 patients (33.5%). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding preoperative and perioperative outcomes apart from shorter operation time in PL group and higher wound infection in M group. Body image scale was significantly better in PL group (p = 0.001). Cosmetic scale was significantly higher in PL group (p = 0.001). Regarding self-confidence scale, it was significantly higher in PL group (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the sense of dullness or numbness on the scar (p = 0.113). CONCLUSION:PLLDH is safe and feasible for living-donor hepatectomy. Donors operated by pure laparoscopic approach have better satisfaction scores compared to conventional open approach.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Donor safety and cosmetic outcome are the main concerns raised by most living-donors. Pure laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy (PLLDH) can provide the balance between those concerns. No studies evaluated the donors' satisfaction after PLLDH. The aim of this study is to evaluate the donors' satisfaction after PLLDH compared with donors who underwent open approach. METHODS: We randomly assigned a questionnaire (Donor satisfaction questionnaire) to the donors, operated between 2011 and 2017, during their follow-up visits in the outpatient clinic. Donors who responded to the questionnaire were included in our study. Donors were divided into 3 groups: L group (conventional inverted L incision), M group (midline incision), and PL group (laparoscopic approach). RESULTS: 149 donors were included in our study. L group included 60 donors (40.3%), M group included 39 patients (26.2%), and PL group included 50 patients (33.5%). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding preoperative and perioperative outcomes apart from shorter operation time in PL group and higher wound infection in M group. Body image scale was significantly better in PL group (p = 0.001). Cosmetic scale was significantly higher in PL group (p = 0.001). Regarding self-confidence scale, it was significantly higher in PL group (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the sense of dullness or numbness on the scar (p = 0.113). CONCLUSION: PLLDH is safe and feasible for living-donor hepatectomy. Donors operated by pure laparoscopic approach have better satisfaction scores compared to conventional open approach.