BACKGROUND: High-pressure water-jet dissection was originally developed for industry where ultra-precise cutting and engraving were desirable. This technology has been adapted for medical applications with favorable results, but little is understood about its performance in hepatic resections. Blood loss may be limited by the thin laminar liquid-jet effect that provides precise, controllable, tissue-selective dissection with excellent visualization and minimal trauma to surrounding fibrous structures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The efficacy of the Water-jet system for hepatic parenchymal dissection was examined in a consecutive case series of 101 hepatic resections (including 22 living donor transplantation resections) performed over 11 months. Perioperative outcomes, including blood loss, transfusion requirements, complications, and length of stay (LOS), were assessed. RESULTS: Three-quarters of the cases were major hepatectomies and 22% were cirrhotic. Malignancy was the most common indication (77%). Median operative time was 289 min. Median estimated blood loss (EBL) was 900 ml for all cases, and only 14% of patients had >2000 ml EBL. Furthermore, EBL was 1000 ml for major resections, 775 ml for living donor resections, 600 ml in cirrhotic patients, and 1950 ml for steatotic livers. In all, 14% of patients received heterologous packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusions for an average of 0.59 units per case. Median LOS was 7 days. EBL, transfusion requirements, and LOS were slightly increased in the major resection cohort. There was one mortality (1%) overall. These results are equivalent to, or better than, those from our contemporary series of resections performed with ultrasonic dissection. CONCLUSION: Water-jet dissection minimizes large blood volume loss, requirements for transfusion, and complications. This initial experience suggests that this precision tool is safe and effective for hepatic division, and compares favorably to other established methods for hepatic parenchymal transection.
BACKGROUND: High-pressure water-jet dissection was originally developed for industry where ultra-precise cutting and engraving were desirable. This technology has been adapted for medical applications with favorable results, but little is understood about its performance in hepatic resections. Blood loss may be limited by the thin laminar liquid-jet effect that provides precise, controllable, tissue-selective dissection with excellent visualization and minimal trauma to surrounding fibrous structures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The efficacy of the Water-jet system for hepatic parenchymal dissection was examined in a consecutive case series of 101 hepatic resections (including 22 living donor transplantation resections) performed over 11 months. Perioperative outcomes, including blood loss, transfusion requirements, complications, and length of stay (LOS), were assessed. RESULTS: Three-quarters of the cases were major hepatectomies and 22% were cirrhotic. Malignancy was the most common indication (77%). Median operative time was 289 min. Median estimated blood loss (EBL) was 900 ml for all cases, and only 14% of patients had >2000 ml EBL. Furthermore, EBL was 1000 ml for major resections, 775 ml for living donor resections, 600 ml in cirrhotic patients, and 1950 ml for steatotic livers. In all, 14% of patients received heterologous packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusions for an average of 0.59 units per case. Median LOS was 7 days. EBL, transfusion requirements, and LOS were slightly increased in the major resection cohort. There was one mortality (1%) overall. These results are equivalent to, or better than, those from our contemporary series of resections performed with ultrasonic dissection. CONCLUSION:Water-jet dissection minimizes large blood volume loss, requirements for transfusion, and complications. This initial experience suggests that this precision tool is safe and effective for hepatic division, and compares favorably to other established methods for hepatic parenchymal transection.
Authors: Stefan Schmidbauer; Klaus K Hallfeldt; Günther Sitzmann; Thorsten Kantelhardt; Arnold Trupka Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Matthew R Porembka; M B Majella Doyle; Nicholas A Hamilton; Peter O Simon; Steven M Strasberg; David C Linehan; William G Hawkins Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Walter Linzenbold; Andreas Fech; Manuela Hofmann; Wilhelm K Aicher; Markus D Enderle Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 5.923