Xiaogang Dong1,2,3,4,5, Zhongquan Sun1,3,4,5, Tianchun Wu1,3,4,5, Wenjia Guo6, Sheng Yan7,8,9,10, Shusen Zheng11,12,13,14. 1. Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 79 Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. 2. Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, 830011, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China. 3. Key Laboratory of Combined Multi-Organ Transplantation, Ministry of Public Health, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. 4. Key Laboratory of Organ Transplantation, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. 5. Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis Treatment of Infectious Diseases, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. 6. Department of Cancer Research Institute, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, 830011, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China. 7. Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 79 Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. shengyan@zju.edu.cn. 8. Key Laboratory of Combined Multi-Organ Transplantation, Ministry of Public Health, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. shengyan@zju.edu.cn. 9. Key Laboratory of Organ Transplantation, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. shengyan@zju.edu.cn. 10. Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis Treatment of Infectious Diseases, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. shengyan@zju.edu.cn. 11. Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 79 Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. shusenzheng@zju.edu.cn. 12. Key Laboratory of Combined Multi-Organ Transplantation, Ministry of Public Health, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. shusenzheng@zju.edu.cn. 13. Key Laboratory of Organ Transplantation, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. shusenzheng@zju.edu.cn. 14. Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis Treatment of Infectious Diseases, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang Province, China. shusenzheng@zju.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hemorrhage during the liver transection is the major hazard for laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH). We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a 915-MHz microwave device used in LH. METHODS: Data were retrospectively analyzed regarding 60 patients who underwent LH with or without 915-MHz microwave coagulation at our center from January 2016 to June 2016. 30 patients underwent the 915-MHz microwave-assisted LH (MW group), and 30 patients otherwise were considered as control group. RESULTS: No perioperative mortality was observed. Intraoperative blood loss amounts in microwave group and control group were 26.83 ml and 186.33 ml, respectively (P < 0.001). The durations of parenchyma transaction (55.17 vs. 70.83 min, P < 0.001), blood occlusion (2.17 vs. 25.33 min, P < 0.001), and operation (120.67 vs. 148.00 min, P < 0.001) were much shorter in microwave group compared with control group. Lower incidence of postoperative complications (0.0 vs. 14.3%, P = 0.038) and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (6.00 vs. 7.23 days, P = 0.027) were also noted in the microwave group, compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: 915-MHz microwave-assisted LH was found to be safe and efficient.
BACKGROUND:Hemorrhage during the liver transection is the major hazard for laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH). We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a 915-MHz microwave device used in LH. METHODS: Data were retrospectively analyzed regarding 60 patients who underwent LH with or without 915-MHz microwave coagulation at our center from January 2016 to June 2016. 30 patients underwent the 915-MHz microwave-assisted LH (MW group), and 30 patients otherwise were considered as control group. RESULTS: No perioperative mortality was observed. Intraoperative blood loss amounts in microwave group and control group were 26.83 ml and 186.33 ml, respectively (P < 0.001). The durations of parenchyma transaction (55.17 vs. 70.83 min, P < 0.001), blood occlusion (2.17 vs. 25.33 min, P < 0.001), and operation (120.67 vs. 148.00 min, P < 0.001) were much shorter in microwave group compared with control group. Lower incidence of postoperative complications (0.0 vs. 14.3%, P = 0.038) and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (6.00 vs. 7.23 days, P = 0.027) were also noted in the microwave group, compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: 915-MHz microwave-assisted LH was found to be safe and efficient.
Authors: Hadrien Tranchart; Nicholas O'Rourke; Ronald Van Dam; Martin Gaillard; Panagiotis Lainas; Atsushi Sugioka; Go Wakabayashi; Ibrahim Dagher Journal: J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 7.027
Authors: Dimitris Zacharoulis; Eleni Sioka; George Tzovaras; Long R Jiao; Nagy Habib Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2013-04-27 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: Alison L Halpern; J Gregory Fitz; Yuki Fujiwara; Jeniann Yi; Aimee L Anderson; Yuwen Zhu; Richard D Schulick; Karim C El Kasmi; Carlton C Barnett Journal: Am J Physiol Cell Physiol Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 4.249