Intermittent Pringle maneuver versus continuous hemihepatic vascular inflow occlusion using extra-glissonian approach in laparoscopic liver resection
- 506 Downloads
Despite accumulated experience and advancing techniques for laparoscopic hepatectomy, bleeding remains the major concern during parenchymal transection. The vascular inflow control technique is still important to decrease intraoperative blood loss. The objective of this study was to compare intermittent Pringle with continuous hemihepatic vascular inflow occlusion using extra-glissonian approach in laparoscopic liver resection.
Between January 2011 and January 2015, a total of 79 consecutive patients with tumors locating either in the right or in the left hemiliver were included into this retrospective study (45 in the Pringle group vs. 34 in the half-Pringle group). Preoperative clinical characteristics, intraoperative details, postoperative complications and outcomes of patients were compared.
The two groups were well matched according to clinical characteristics, tumor features, types of liver resection and histopathology (P > 0.05). The mean operative time (247.5 ± 61.3 vs. 221.4 ± 48.7 min, P = 0.0446), ischemic duration (62.8 ± 28.3 vs. 44.1 ± 20.5 min, P = 0.0017) and overall declamping time (21.2 ± 8.2 vs. 0.9 ± 1.9 min, P < 0.05) were significantly longer in the Pringle group than in the half-Pringle group. The mean amount of intraoperative blood loss (568.2 ± 325.1 vs. 420.7 ± 307.2 mL, P = 0.0444) and transfusion (266.1 ± 123.4 vs. 203.2 ± 144.6 mL, P = 0.0406) were significantly greater in the Pringle group. The overall operative morbidity rate was significantly higher in the Pringle group (40 vs. 17.6 %, P = 0.0324). The Pringle group was associated with significantly higher alanine aminotransferase and aspartate transaminase levels on postoperative day (POD) 7 and lower albumin levels on PODs 1 and 3 (P < 0.05). The C-reactive protein levels were significantly higher in the Pringle group than in the half-Pringle group on POD 1 (37.5 ± 21.4 vs. 28.2 ± 19.0 mg/L, P = 0.0484), POD 3 (114.0 ± 53.4 vs. 90.6 ± 47.9 mg/L, P = 0.0474) and POD 7 (54.9 ± 29.8 vs. 40.1 ± 26.4 mg/L, P = 0.0245).
Continuous hemihepatic vascular inflow occlusion using extra-glissonian approach offers the advantages of less operative time and blood loss, less injury and better recovery in laparoscopic liver resection.
KeywordsExtra-glissonian approach Laparoscopic liver resection Liver neoplasm Pringle maneuver Hemihepatic vascular inflow occlusion
This work was supported by Grants from Health Department of Sichuan Province, China, No. 130134, and Doctor Funding of Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences.
Drs. Yu Zhang, Hongji Yang, Xiaofan Deng, Yunfei Chen, Shikai Zhu and Chen Kai have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 7.Otsuka Y, Kaneko H, Cleary SP, Buell JF, Cai X, Wakabayashi G (2015) What is the best technique in parenchymal transection in laparoscopic liver resection? Comprehensive review for the clinical question on the 2nd international consensus conference on laparoscopic liver resection. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. doi: 10.1002/jhbp.216 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Fu SY, Lau WY, Li G-G, Tang QH, Li AJ, Pan ZY, Huang G, Yin L, Wu MC, Lai EC, Zhou WP (2011) A prospective randomized controlled trial to compare Pringle maneuver, hemihepatic vascular inflow occlusion, and main portal vein inflow occlusion in partial hepatectomy. Am J Surg 201:62–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Ni JS, Lau WY, Yang Y, Pan Z-Y, Wang Z-G, Liu H, Wu MC, Zhou WP (2013) A prospective randomized controlled trial to compare Pringle maneuver, hemihepatic vascular inflow occlusion, and main portal vein inflow occlusion in partial hepatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 17:1414–1421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Twaij A, Pucher PH, Sodergren MH, Gall T, Darzi A, Jiao LR (2014) Laparoscopic vs open approach to resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with known cirrhosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 20:8274–8281. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i25.8274 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Fuks D, Cauchy F, Ftériche S, Nomi T, Schwarz L, Dokmak S, Scatton O, Fusco G, Belghiti J, Gayet B, Soubrane O (2015) Laparoscopy decreases pulmonary complications in patients undergoing major liver resection: a propensity score analysis. Ann Surg. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001140 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Siniscalchi A, Ercolani G, Tarozzi G, Gamberini L, Cipolat L, Pinna AD, Faenza S (2014) Laparoscopic versus open liver resection: differences in intraoperative and early postoperative outcome among cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma—a retrospective observational study. HPB Surg. doi: 10.1155/2014/871251 PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Yamashita Y, Ikeda T, Kurihara T, Yoshida Y, Takeishi K, Itoh S, Harimoto N, Kawanaka H, Shirabe K, Maehara Y (2014) Long-term favorable surgical results of laparoscopic hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a single-center experience over a 10-year period. J Am Coll Surg 219(6):1117–1123. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.09.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Blumgart LH, Hann LE (2000) Surgical and radiologic anatomy of the liver and biliary tract. In: Blumgart LH, Fong Y (eds) Surgery of the liver and biliary tract, chap 1, 3rd edn. WB Saunders Co. Ltd., London, pp 21–22Google Scholar
- 34.Muscari A, Collini A, Fabbri E, Giovagnoli M, Napoli C, Rossi V, Vizioli L, Bonfiglioli A, Magalotti D, Puddu GM, Zoli M (2014) Changes of liver enzymes and bilirubin during ischemic stroke: mechanisms and possible significance. BMC Neurol 14:122. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-14-122 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar