OBJECTIVES: In laparoscopic liver resection, multiple options for parenchymal transection techniques exist; however, none have emerged as superior. The aim of this study was to compare operative characteristics and outcomes between bipolar compression and ultrasonic devices used for parenchymal transection during laparoscopic liver resection. METHODS: A review of a prospective hepatopancreatobiliary database from December 2002 to August 2009 identified 54 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection with parenchymal division using either a bipolar compression (n= 35) or an ultrasonic (n= 19) device. Operative data, histology and 90-day complication rates were compared between the groups using analysis of variance (anova) and Pearson's chi-squared test. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of age, body mass index, parenchymal steatosis/inflammation or number of segments resected. A shorter time of parenchymal transection was noted for the bipolar compression device (median: 35 min; range: 20-65 min) vs. the ultrasonic device (median: 55 min; range: 29-75 min) (P < 0.001). Median total operative time was also shorter using the bipolar compression device (130 min) than the ultrasonic device (180 min) (P= 0.050). No significant differences between device groups were noted for estimated blood loss, complications of any type or liver-specific complications. CONCLUSIONS: Bipolar compression devices may offer advantages over ultrasonic devices in terms of decreased transection time and total operative time. No differences in postoperative complications in laparoscopic liver resection emerged between patients operated using the devices.
OBJECTIVES: In laparoscopic liver resection, multiple options for parenchymal transection techniques exist; however, none have emerged as superior. The aim of this study was to compare operative characteristics and outcomes between bipolar compression and ultrasonic devices used for parenchymal transection during laparoscopic liver resection. METHODS: A review of a prospective hepatopancreatobiliary database from December 2002 to August 2009 identified 54 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection with parenchymal division using either a bipolar compression (n= 35) or an ultrasonic (n= 19) device. Operative data, histology and 90-day complication rates were compared between the groups using analysis of variance (anova) and Pearson's chi-squared test. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of age, body mass index, parenchymal steatosis/inflammation or number of segments resected. A shorter time of parenchymal transection was noted for the bipolar compression device (median: 35 min; range: 20-65 min) vs. the ultrasonic device (median: 55 min; range: 29-75 min) (P < 0.001). Median total operative time was also shorter using the bipolar compression device (130 min) than the ultrasonic device (180 min) (P= 0.050). No significant differences between device groups were noted for estimated blood loss, complications of any type or liver-specific complications. CONCLUSIONS: Bipolar compression devices may offer advantages over ultrasonic devices in terms of decreased transection time and total operative time. No differences in postoperative complications in laparoscopic liver resection emerged between patients operated using the devices.
Authors: Aryeh Shander; Axel Hofmann; Sherri Ozawa; Oliver M Theusinger; Hans Gombotz; Donat R Spahn Journal: Transfusion Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Robert Martin; Philip Paty; Yuman Fong; Andrew Grace; Alfred Cohen; Ronald DeMatteo; William Jarnagin; Leslie Blumgart Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 6.113
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: Antonio Giuliani; Luca Aldrighetti; Fabrizio Di Benedetto; Giuseppe Maria Ettorre; Paolo Bianco; Francesca Ratti; Giuseppe Tarantino; Roberto Santoro; Emanuele Felli Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2015-06-16
Authors: John Wehry; Robert Cannon; Charles R Scoggins; Lisa Puffer; Kelly M McMasters; Robert C G Martin Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Ioannis D Kostakis; Nikolaos Machairas; Zoe Garoufalia; Anastasia Prodromidou; Georgios C Sotiropoulos Journal: In Vivo Date: 2018 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.155