The value of minimally invasive approaches for living donor hepatectomy remains unclear. Our aim was to compare the donor outcomes after open versus laparoscopy-assisted versus pure laparoscopic versus robotic living donor hepatectomy (OLDH vs. LALDH vs. PLLDH vs. RLDH). A systematic literature review of the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement (up to December 8, 2021). Random-effects meta-analyses were performed separately for minor and major living donor hepatectomy. The risk of bias in nonrandomized studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A total of 31 studies were included. There was no difference in donor outcomes after OLDH versus LALDH for major hepatectomy. However, PLLDH was associated with decreased estimated blood loss, length of stay (LOS), and overall complications versus OLDH for minor and major hepatectomy, but also with increased operative time for major hepatectomy. PLLDH was associated with decreased LOS versus LALDH for major hepatectomy. RLDH was associated with decreased LOS but with increased operative time versus OLDH for major hepatectomy. The scarcity of studies comparing RLDH versus LALDH/PLLDH did not allow us to meta-analyze donor outcomes for that comparison. There seems to be a marginal benefit in estimated blood loss and/or LOS in favor of PLLDH and RLDH. The complexity of these procedures limits them to transplant centers with high volume and experience. Future studies should investigate self-reported donor experience and the associated economic costs of these approaches.

Background.: Young children and small-statured candidates are dying on liver candidate waitlists. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and United Network for Organ Sharing have proposed a split liver (SL) variance encouraging transplant programs to split more livers to aid these smaller statured candidates. Methods.: We evaluated the US experience of splitting donor livers during 2002–2016. The results of our analysis provide new evidence to support this variance. Results.: During 2002–2016, SL grafts from 935 donors were transplanted into 1870 recipients. Controlling for recipient factors and using time period and program identification as random variables, a multivariable mixed Cox proportional hazards model for graft failure revealed that donor aged 3–10 years had a relative risk (RR) of 3.94 (2.86–5.44), and donor aged >30 years had a RR of 1.94 (1.59–2.35) for graft failure. Donor-to-recipient body surface area ratio <0.90 had a RR of 1.40 (1.13–1.75). Programs with experience transplanting <23 SLs had a RR of 1.43 (1.21–1.75). The same program transplanting both split segments had a RR of 1.38 (1.20–1.59). Conclusions.: Splitting protocols based on these findings could improve graft survival after SL transplantation, which would encourage programs to opt into splitting more livers. The new protocols may consider donor age restrictions, necessary program experience, donor with body surface area appropriate for recipient, and improved logistical factors to share segments between transplant programs. The result would likely be a drastic reduction in liver waitlist deaths for young children and small-statured candidates.