OBJECTIVE: To identify the most efficient parenchyma transection technique for liver resection using a prospective randomized protocol. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Liver resection can be performed by different transection devices with or without inflow occlusion (Pringle maneuver). Only limited data are currently available on the best transection technique. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was performed in noncirrhotic and noncholestatic patients undergoing liver resection comparing theclamp crushing technique with Pringle maneuver versus CUSA versus Hydrojet versus dissecting sealer without Pringle maneuver (25 patients each group). Primary endpoints were intraoperative blood loss, resection time, and postoperative liver injury. Secondary end points included the use of inflow occlusion, postoperative complications, and costs. RESULTS: The clamp crushing technique had the highest transection velocity (3.9 +/- 0.3 cm/min) and lowest blood loss (1.5 +/- 0.3 mL/cm) compared with CUSA (2.3 +/- 0.2 cm/min and 4 +/- 0.7 mL/cm), Hydrojet (2.4 +/- 0.3 cm/min and 3.5 +/- 0.5 mL/cm), and dissecting sealer (2.5 +/- 0.3 cm/min and 3.4 +/- 0.4 mL/cm) (velocity: P = 0.001; blood loss: P = 0.003). Clamp crushing technique was associated with the lowest need for postoperative blood transfusions. The degree of postoperative reperfusion injury and complications were not significantly different among the groups. The clamp crushing technique proved to be most cost-efficient device and had a cost-saving potential of 600 to 2400 per case. CONCLUSIONS: The clamp crushing technique was the most efficient device in terms of resection time, blood loss, and blood transfusion frequency compared with CUSA, Hydrojet, and dissecting sealer, and proved to be also the most cost-efficient device.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To identify the most efficient parenchyma transection technique for liver resection using a prospective randomized protocol. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Liver resection can be performed by different transection devices with or without inflow occlusion (Pringle maneuver). Only limited data are currently available on the best transection technique. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was performed in noncirrhotic and noncholestatic patients undergoing liver resection comparing the clamp crushing technique with Pringle maneuver versus CUSA versus Hydrojet versus dissecting sealer without Pringle maneuver (25 patients each group). Primary endpoints were intraoperative blood loss, resection time, and postoperative liver injury. Secondary end points included the use of inflow occlusion, postoperative complications, and costs. RESULTS: The clamp crushing technique had the highest transection velocity (3.9 +/- 0.3 cm/min) and lowest blood loss (1.5 +/- 0.3 mL/cm) compared with CUSA (2.3 +/- 0.2 cm/min and 4 +/- 0.7 mL/cm), Hydrojet (2.4 +/- 0.3 cm/min and 3.5 +/- 0.5 mL/cm), and dissecting sealer (2.5 +/- 0.3 cm/min and 3.4 +/- 0.4 mL/cm) (velocity: P = 0.001; blood loss: P = 0.003). Clamp crushing technique was associated with the lowest need for postoperative blood transfusions. The degree of postoperative reperfusion injury and complications were not significantly different among the groups. The clamp crushing technique proved to be most cost-efficient device and had a cost-saving potential of 600 to 2400 per case. CONCLUSIONS: The clamp crushing technique was the most efficient device in terms of resection time, blood loss, and blood transfusion frequency compared with CUSA, Hydrojet, and dissecting sealer, and proved to be also the most cost-efficient device.
Authors: Y Yamamoto; I Ikai; M Kume; Y Sakai; A Yamauchi; H Shinohara; T Morimoto; Y Shimahara; M Yamamoto; Y Yamaoka Journal: World J Surg Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Stefan Schmidbauer; Klaus K Hallfeldt; Günther Sitzmann; Thorsten Kantelhardt; Arnold Trupka Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: J Yamamoto; T Kosuge; T Takayama; K Shimada; S Yamasaki; H Ozaki; N Yamaguchi; S Mizuno; M Makuuchi Journal: Surgery Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: David A Kooby; Jennifer Stockman; Leah Ben-Porat; Mithat Gonen; William R Jarnagin; Ronald P Dematteo; Scott Tuorto; David Wuest; Leslie H Blumgart; Yuman Fong Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Nsehniitooh A Mbah; Russell E Brown; Matthew R Bower; Charles R Scoggins; Kelly M McMasters; Robert C G Martin Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Marco Giordano; Santiago Lopez-Ben; Antoni Codina-Barreras; Berta Pardina; Laia Falgueras; Silvia Torres-Bahi; Maite Albiol; Ernest Castro; Joan Figueras Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Melanie E Tsang; Paul J Karanicolas; Rogeh Habashi; Eva Cheng; Sherif S Hanna; Natalie G Coburn; Calvin H L Law; Julie Hallet Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.647