Wei-Kai Xiao1, Dong Chen1, An-Bin Hu2, Bao-Gang Peng1, Yi-Zhan Guo1, Shun-Jun Fu1, Li-Jian Liang1, Shao-Qiang Li3. 1. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. 2. Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. 3. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address: lisq@medmail.com.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conflicting results were found between radiofrequency-assisted liver resection (RF-LR) and clamp-crush liver resection (CC-LR) during liver surgery. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs to compare the effectiveness and safety of RF-LR versus CC-LR during liver surgery. METHODS: Articles comparing RF-LR and CC-LR that were published before December 2012 were retrieved and subjected to a systematic review and meta-analysis. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out by Review Manager Version 5.2 software. RESULTS: In all, four RCTs and five nonrandomized studies evaluating 728 patients were included. Compared with CC-LR, the RF-LR group had significantly reduced total intraoperative blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -187 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -312, -62; data on 628 patients), and blood loss during liver transection (WMD = -143.7 mL; 95% CI = -200, -87; data on 190 patients). However, RF-LR is associated with a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess than the clamp-crushing method (odds ratio = 3.61; 95% CI = 1.26, 10.32; data on 366 patients). No significant difference was observed between both the groups for the incidence of both blood transfusion and bile leak. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently not sufficient evidence to support or refute the use of RF-LR in liver surgery. RF-LR has advantages in terms of reducing blood loss. However, RF-LR may increase the rates of both bile leak and abdominal abscess. So, the safety of RF-LR has not been established. Future well-designed RCTs are awaited to further investigate the efficacy and safety of RF devices in liver resection.
BACKGROUND: Conflicting results were found between radiofrequency-assisted liver resection (RF-LR) and clamp-crush liver resection (CC-LR) during liver surgery. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs to compare the effectiveness and safety of RF-LR versus CC-LR during liver surgery. METHODS: Articles comparing RF-LR and CC-LR that were published before December 2012 were retrieved and subjected to a systematic review and meta-analysis. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out by Review Manager Version 5.2 software. RESULTS: In all, four RCTs and five nonrandomized studies evaluating 728 patients were included. Compared with CC-LR, the RF-LR group had significantly reduced total intraoperative blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -187 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -312, -62; data on 628 patients), and blood loss during liver transection (WMD = -143.7 mL; 95% CI = -200, -87; data on 190 patients). However, RF-LR is associated with a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess than the clamp-crushing method (odds ratio = 3.61; 95% CI = 1.26, 10.32; data on 366 patients). No significant difference was observed between both the groups for the incidence of both blood transfusion and bile leak. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently not sufficient evidence to support or refute the use of RF-LR in liver surgery. RF-LR has advantages in terms of reducing blood loss. However, RF-LR may increase the rates of both bile leak and abdominal abscess. So, the safety of RF-LR has not been established. Future well-designed RCTs are awaited to further investigate the efficacy and safety of RF devices in liver resection.
Authors: Christof Mittermair; Michael Weiss; Jan Schirnhofer; Eberhard Brunner; Katharina Fischer; Christian Obrist; Michael de Cillia; Vanessa Kemmetinger; Emanuel Gollegger; Tobias Hell; Helmut Weiss Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Jung Yeon Lee; Young Hoon Kim; Young Hoon Roh; Kyung Bin Roh; Kwan Woo Kim; Sung Hwa Kang; Yang Hyun Baek; Sung Wook Lee; Sang Young Han; Hee Jin Kwon; Jin Han Cho Journal: Ann Surg Treat Res Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 1.859