Background: Hepatic transection by Pean-clasia is the mainstream technique that can be used with different coagulators. Monopolar floating ball (MFB) is proposed for liver transection. Whether its value for liver transection is unclear, its efficiency as a coagulator only seems high. We compared in a prospective randomized study the standard Pean-clasia with bipolar forceps (BF) versus Pean-clasia with MFB in patients undergoing hepatic resection. Methods: Seventy-six patients scheduled for hepatectomy were randomized in two groups, according to the coagulator device: group A (MFB, n = 38) and group B (BF, n = 38). The two groups were homogeneous in terms of tumor presentation and background liver features. Blood loss, blood transfusions, transection time, number of ligatures, drain discharge, drain bilirubin levels at third, fifth, and seventh postoperative day, and postoperative morbidity and mortality were prospectively evaluated. Results: No significant differences between groups A and B were seen in terms of blood transfusions (11.5% versus 16.5%; p = 0.450), blood loss/cm2 (mean 7.2 versus 7.6 ml; p = 0.450), transection time/cm2 (mean 2.1 versus 2.3; p = 0.070), number of ligatures/cm2 (mean 0.7 versus 0.7; p = 1), drain discharge (mean 55 versus 66.7 ml; p = 0.451), and drain bilirubin levels (mean 1.9 versus 2.1 mg/dl; p = 0.664). No mortality or major morbidity was recorded in both groups. Conclusions: This study showed that association of Pean-clasia with MFB was safe and minimized the blood loss during hepatic resection. However, MFB did not offer significant benefits over BF, while its cost is not negligible.

Monopolar floating ball versus bipolar forceps for hepatic resection: a prospective randomized clinical trial

G. Torzilli;M. Donadon;F. Procopio;A. Spinelli;M. Montorsi
2008

Abstract

Background: Hepatic transection by Pean-clasia is the mainstream technique that can be used with different coagulators. Monopolar floating ball (MFB) is proposed for liver transection. Whether its value for liver transection is unclear, its efficiency as a coagulator only seems high. We compared in a prospective randomized study the standard Pean-clasia with bipolar forceps (BF) versus Pean-clasia with MFB in patients undergoing hepatic resection. Methods: Seventy-six patients scheduled for hepatectomy were randomized in two groups, according to the coagulator device: group A (MFB, n = 38) and group B (BF, n = 38). The two groups were homogeneous in terms of tumor presentation and background liver features. Blood loss, blood transfusions, transection time, number of ligatures, drain discharge, drain bilirubin levels at third, fifth, and seventh postoperative day, and postoperative morbidity and mortality were prospectively evaluated. Results: No significant differences between groups A and B were seen in terms of blood transfusions (11.5% versus 16.5%; p = 0.450), blood loss/cm2 (mean 7.2 versus 7.6 ml; p = 0.450), transection time/cm2 (mean 2.1 versus 2.3; p = 0.070), number of ligatures/cm2 (mean 0.7 versus 0.7; p = 1), drain discharge (mean 55 versus 66.7 ml; p = 0.451), and drain bilirubin levels (mean 1.9 versus 2.1 mg/dl; p = 0.664). No mortality or major morbidity was recorded in both groups. Conclusions: This study showed that association of Pean-clasia with MFB was safe and minimized the blood loss during hepatic resection. However, MFB did not offer significant benefits over BF, while its cost is not negligible.
Blood transfusion; Liver dissection; Liver surgery; Liver tumors
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
26.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione 128.12 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
128.12 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11699/450
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 5
  • Scopus 7
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 8
social impact