BACKGROUND: In this study we analyzed our most recent experience in the use of the extraglissonian approach to the hilar structures in two circumstances: pedicle transection during major liver resections, and selective clamping in minor hepatectomies. METHODS: The major liver resections study group consisted of 89 cases. Extraglissonian approach and stapler transection of hilar structures was used in 61 (69%). The study group of minor liver resections consisted of 103 cases. Extraglissonian approach and selective clamping was used in 27 cases (26%). RESULTS: In major hepatectomies pedicle stapling and hilar dissection demonstrated a similar operative time (240 vs. 260 min; P = 0.230); no differences were observed in the amount of haemorrhage (800 ml vs. 730 ml; P = 0.699), number of patients transfused (16 vs. 6; P = 0.418) and volume of blood transfused (4 PRC vs. 4 PRC; P = 0.521). Duration of vascular pedicle occlusion was 35 vs. 30 min respectively (P = 0.293). Major complications (grade >or=3a) occurred in 18 (20%) patients and mortality rates (4.9% vs. 3.5%; P = 0.882) were similar for both group. In minor liver resections there were no differences between Pringle and selective clamping in operative time (240 vs. 240 min; P = 0.321), haemorrhage (435 ml vs. 310 ml; P = 0.575), number of patients transfused (18 vs. 7; P = 0.505) and volume blood transfused (4 PRC vs. 3 PRC; P = 0.423). Major complications (grade >or=3a) occurred in 14 (14%) patients, and mortality (2.6% vs. 3.7%; P = 0.719) were similar for both groups. However, the duration of pedicle clamping was significantly longer in the selective clamping group (26 +/- 21 minutes vs. 44 +/- 18 minutes) (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The extraglissonian approach can be extremely useful in liver surgery. Selective clamping with extraglissonian approach avoids ischemia to the other hemiliver. Selective clamping it is also important from the homodynamic point of view because there is no splanchnic stasis and low fluid replacement.
BACKGROUND: In this study we analyzed our most recent experience in the use of the extraglissonian approach to the hilar structures in two circumstances: pedicle transection during major liver resections, and selective clamping in minor hepatectomies. METHODS: The major liver resections study group consisted of 89 cases. Extraglissonian approach and stapler transection of hilar structures was used in 61 (69%). The study group of minor liver resections consisted of 103 cases. Extraglissonian approach and selective clamping was used in 27 cases (26%). RESULTS: In major hepatectomies pedicle stapling and hilar dissection demonstrated a similar operative time (240 vs. 260 min; P = 0.230); no differences were observed in the amount of haemorrhage (800 ml vs. 730 ml; P = 0.699), number of patients transfused (16 vs. 6; P = 0.418) and volume of blood transfused (4 PRC vs. 4 PRC; P = 0.521). Duration of vascular pedicle occlusion was 35 vs. 30 min respectively (P = 0.293). Major complications (grade >or=3a) occurred in 18 (20%) patients and mortality rates (4.9% vs. 3.5%; P = 0.882) were similar for both group. In minor liver resections there were no differences between Pringle and selective clamping in operative time (240 vs. 240 min; P = 0.321), haemorrhage (435 ml vs. 310 ml; P = 0.575), number of patients transfused (18 vs. 7; P = 0.505) and volume blood transfused (4 PRC vs. 3 PRC; P = 0.423). Major complications (grade >or=3a) occurred in 14 (14%) patients, and mortality (2.6% vs. 3.7%; P = 0.719) were similar for both groups. However, the duration of pedicle clamping was significantly longer in the selective clamping group (26 +/- 21 minutes vs. 44 +/- 18 minutes) (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The extraglissonian approach can be extremely useful in liver surgery. Selective clamping with extraglissonian approach avoids ischemia to the other hemiliver. Selective clamping it is also important from the homodynamic point of view because there is no splanchnic stasis and low fluid replacement.
Authors: Juan Figueras; Laura Llado; David Ruiz; Emilio Ramos; Juli Busquets; Antonio Rafecas; Jaume Torras; Juan Fabregat Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: J Figueras; F Burdio; E Ramos; J Torras; L Llado; S Lopez-Ben; A Codina-Barreras; S Mojal Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2007-04-13 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Fernando Rotellar; Fernando Pardo; Alberto Benito; Pablo Martí-Cruchaga; Gabriel Zozaya; Nicolás Pedano Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-03-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Demetrios Moris; Amir A Rahnemai-Azar; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Ioannis Ntanasis-Stathopoulos; Hugo P Marques; Eleftherios Spartalis; Evangelos Felekouras; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 3.452