BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Intermittent Pringle manoeuvre (IPM) is frequently used during liver surgery. This meta-analysis aimed to review the impact on blood loss, operating time and morbidity and mortality with and without use of IPM. METHODS: An electronic search was performed of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed databases using both subject headings (MeSH) and truncated word searches to identify all articles published that related to this topic. Pooled risk ratios were calculated for categorical outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) for secondary continuous outcomes, using the fixed-effects and random-effects models for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials encompassing 392 patients were analysed to achieve a summated outcome. Pooled data analysis showed the use of IPM resulted in reduced transection time/cm(2) (MD -0.53 (-0.88, -0.18) min/cm(2) (P = 0.003)) but with comparable blood loss (mL/cm(2)) (MD -1.67 (-4.41, 1.08) mL/cm(2), P = 0.23), overall blood loss (MD -20.42 (-89.42, 48.58) mL), blood transfusion requirements (risk ratio 0.78 (0.40, 1.52, P = 0.47)) and morbidity and mortality compared to no Pringle manoeuvre. In addition, there was no significant difference in the post-operative hospital stay (MD 0.37 (-0.60, 1.34) days). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that the routine use of IPM improves perioperative and post-operative outcomes compared to no Pringle manoeuvre and its routine may not be recommended.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Intermittent Pringle manoeuvre (IPM) is frequently used during liver surgery. This meta-analysis aimed to review the impact on blood loss, operating time and morbidity and mortality with and without use of IPM. METHODS: An electronic search was performed of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed databases using both subject headings (MeSH) and truncated word searches to identify all articles published that related to this topic. Pooled risk ratios were calculated for categorical outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) for secondary continuous outcomes, using the fixed-effects and random-effects models for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials encompassing 392 patients were analysed to achieve a summated outcome. Pooled data analysis showed the use of IPM resulted in reduced transection time/cm(2) (MD -0.53 (-0.88, -0.18) min/cm(2) (P = 0.003)) but with comparable blood loss (mL/cm(2)) (MD -1.67 (-4.41, 1.08) mL/cm(2), P = 0.23), overall blood loss (MD -20.42 (-89.42, 48.58) mL), blood transfusion requirements (risk ratio 0.78 (0.40, 1.52, P = 0.47)) and morbidity and mortality compared to no Pringle manoeuvre. In addition, there was no significant difference in the post-operative hospital stay (MD 0.37 (-0.60, 1.34) days). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that the routine use of IPM improves perioperative and post-operative outcomes compared to no Pringle manoeuvre and its routine may not be recommended.
Authors: Jenna Silverberg; Thomas W Clements; Salila Hashmi; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Francis R Sutherland; Chad G Ball Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Franz G M Poch; Christina A Neizert; Ole Gemeinhardt; Beatrice Geyer; Katharina Eminger; Christian Rieder; Stefan M Niehues; Janis Vahldiek; Stefan F Thieme; Kai S Lehmann Journal: Innov Surg Sci Date: 2018-05-11