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

Comparison of operative outcomes between monopolar and bipolar coagulation in hepatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single center

Background

Various hemostatic devices have been utilized to reduce blood loss during hepatectomy. Nonetheless, a comparison between monopolar and bipolar coagulation, particularly their usefulness or inferiority, has been poorly documented. The aim of this study is to reveal the characteristics of these hemostatic devices.

Methods

A total of 264 patients who underwent open hepatectomy at our institution from January 2009 to December 2018 were included. Monopolar and bipolar hemostatic devices were used in 160 (monopolar group) and 104 (bipolar group) cases, respectively. Operative outcomes and thermal damage to the resected specimens were compared between these groups using propensity score matching according to background factors. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for postoperative complications.

Results

After propensity score matching, 73 patients per group were enrolled. The monopolar group had significantly lower total operative time (239 vs. 275 min; P = 0.013) and intraoperative blood loss (487 vs. 790 mL; P < 0.001). However, the incidence rates of ascites (27.4% vs. 8.2%; P = 0.002) and grade ≥ 3 intra-abdominal infection (12.3% vs. 2.7%; P = 0.028) were significantly higher in the monopolar group. Thermal damage to the resected specimens was significantly longer in the monopolar group (4.6 vs. 1.2 mm; P < 0.001). Use of monopolar hemostatic device was an independent risk factor for ascites (odds ratio, 5.626, 95% confidence interval 1.881–16.827; P = 0.002) and severe intra-abdominal infection (odds ratio, 5.905, 95% confidence interval 1.096–31.825; P = 0.039).

Conclusions

Although monopolar devices have an excellent hemostatic ability, they might damage the remnant liver. The use of monopolar devices can be one of the factors that increase the frequency of complications.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-022-02231-y.

Efficiency of a radiofrequency sealer (Aquamantys) for parenchymal transection during laparoscopic hepatectomy

INTRODUCTION

The methods of liver parenchymal transection vary across institutions. In this study, we used a radiofrequency (RF) sealer (Aquamantys) as a hemostatic device during laparoscopic liver transection; we also evaluated the usefulness of RF sealers.

METHODS

From April 2016 to May 2019, 113 consecutive laparoscopic hepatectomy patients, excluding patients with combined resection of other organs, were examined. Patient characteristics, operative factors, and postoperative complications were compared between the Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) + soft coagulation system (VIO) group; (n = 32) and the CUSA + Aquamantys group; (n = 81). The former underwent liver transection by CUSA and VIO from April 2016 to March 2017, while the latter underwent liver transection using CUSA and Aquamantys from April 2017 to May 2019.

RESULTS

The median difficulty score was significantly higher in the CUSA + VIO group (5.5 points vs 5.0 points; P = .04). Blood loss per unit area and the liver parenchymal transection speed were not significantly different between the groups. After propensity score matching, blood loss per unit area was similar between the groups, but the parenchymal transection speed of the CUSA + Aquamantys group was significantly higher (0.92 cm² /min vs 0.64 cm² /min; P = .017). Postoperative complications were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSION

In laparoscopic hepatectomy, hemostasis of the transection plane with an RF sealer did not reduce blood loss during parenchymal transection. However, the liver parenchymal transection speed was increased.

Methods to decrease blood loss during liver resection: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Liver resection is a major surgery with significant mortality and morbidity. Specialists have tested various methods in attempts to limit blood loss, transfusion requirements, and morbidity during elective liver resection. These methods include different approaches (anterior versus conventional approach), use of autologous blood donation, cardiopulmonary interventions such as hypoventilation, low central venous pressure, different methods of parenchymal transection, different methods of management of the raw surface of the liver, different methods of vascular occlusion, and different pharmacological interventions. A surgeon typically uses only one of the methods from each of these seven categories. The optimal method to decrease blood loss and transfusion requirements in people undergoing liver resection is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different interventions for decreasing blood loss and blood transfusion requirements during elective liver resection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded to September 2015 to identify randomised clinical trials. We also searched trial registers and handsearched the references lists of identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing different methods of decreasing blood loss and blood transfusion requirements in people undergoing liver resection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane domains. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method in WinBUGS 1.4, following the guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance documents. We calculated the odds ratios (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) for the binary outcomes, mean differences (MD) with 95% CrI for continuous outcomes, and rate ratios with 95% CrI for count outcomes, using a fixed-effect model or random-effects model according to model-fit. We assessed the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 67 randomised clinical trials involving a total of 6197 participants. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 5771 participants from 64 trials provided data for one or more outcomes included in this review. There was no evidence of differences in most of the comparisons, and where there was, these differences were in single trials, mostly of small sample size. We summarise only the evidence that was available in more than one trial below. Of the primary outcomes, the only one with evidence of a difference from more than one trial under the pair-wise comparison was in the number of adverse events (complications), which was higher with radiofrequency dissecting sealer than with the clamp-crush method (rate ratio 1.85, 95% CrI 1.07 to 3.26; 250 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). Among the secondary outcomes, the only differences we found from more than one trial under the pair-wise comparison were the following: blood transfusion (proportion) was higher in the low central venous pressure group than in the acute normovolemic haemodilution plus low central venous pressure group (OR 3.19, 95% CrI 1.56 to 6.95; 208 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence); blood transfusion quantity (red blood cells) was lower in the fibrin sealant group than in the control (MD -0.53 units, 95% CrI -1.00 to -0.07; 122 participants; 2; very low-quality evidence); blood transfusion quantity (fresh frozen plasma) was higher in the oxidised cellulose group than in the fibrin sealant group (MD 0.53 units, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.71; 80 participants; 2 studies; very low-quality evidence); blood loss (MD -0.34 L, 95% CrI -0.46 to -0.22; 237 participants; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence), total hospital stay (MD -2.42 days, 95% CrI -3.91 to -0.94; 197 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence), and operating time (MD -15.32 minutes, 95% CrI -29.03 to -1.69; 192 participants; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence) were lower with low central venous pressure than with control. For the other comparisons, the evidence for difference was either based on single small trials or there was no evidence of differences. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life or time needed to return to work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Paucity of data meant that we could not assess transitivity assumptions and inconsistency for most analyses. When direct and indirect comparisons were available, network meta-analysis provided additional effect estimates for comparisons where there were no direct comparisons. However, the paucity of data decreases the confidence in the results of the network meta-analysis. Low-quality evidence suggests that liver resection using a radiofrequency dissecting sealer may be associated with more adverse events than with the clamp-crush method. Low-quality evidence also suggests that the proportion of people requiring a blood transfusion is higher with low central venous pressure than with acute normovolemic haemodilution plus low central venous pressure; very low-quality evidence suggests that blood transfusion quantity (red blood cells) was lower with fibrin sealant than control; blood transfusion quantity (fresh frozen plasma) was higher with oxidised cellulose than with fibrin sealant; and blood loss, total hospital stay, and operating time were lower with low central venous pressure than with control. There is no evidence to suggest that using special equipment for liver resection is of any benefit in decreasing the mortality, morbidity, or blood transfusion requirements (very low-quality evidence). Radiofrequency dissecting sealer should not be used outside the clinical trial setting since there is low-quality evidence for increased harm without any evidence of benefits. In addition, it should be noted that the sample size was small and the credible intervals were wide, and we cannot rule out considerable benefit or harm with a specific method of liver resection.

Outcomes of simple saline-coupled bipolar electrocautery for hepatic resection

AIM

To evaluate the application of bipolar coagulation (BIP) in hepatectomy by comparing the efficacy of BIP alone, cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) + BIP and conventional clamp crushing (CLAMP).

METHODS

Based on our database of patient records, a total of 380 consecutive patients who underwent hepatectomy at our hospital were retrospectively studied for the efficacy of BIP alone, CUSA + BIP and CLAMP. Of all the patients, 75 received saline-coupled BIP (Group A), 53 received CUSA + BIP (Group B), and 252 received CLAMP (Group C). The pre-, mid-, and postoperative clinical manifestations were compared, and the effects of those maneuvers were evaluated.

RESULTS

There was no obvious difference among the preoperative indexes between the different groups. The operative time was longer in Groups A and B than in Group C (P < 0.001 for both). The amount of bleeding and the rate of transfusion during the operation were significantly higher in Group C than in Groups A and B (P < 0.001 for all). The incidence of postoperative complications in Group C (46.43%) was higher than that in Groups A (30.67%, P = 0.015) and B (28.30%, P = 0.016). The patients' liver function recovery and postoperative hospital stay were not significantly different. BIP could decrease intraoperative hemorrhage and postoperative complications compared to CLAMP.

CONCLUSION

Simple saline-coupled BIP should be considered a safe and reliable technique for liver resection to decrease intraoperative hemorrhage and postoperative complications.

Bleeding in Hepatic Surgery: Sorting through Methods to Prevent It

Liver resections are demanding operations which can have life threatening complications although they are performed by experienced liver surgeons. The parameter "Blood Loss" has a central role in liver surgery, and different strategies to minimize it are a key to improve results. Moreover, recently, new technologies are applied in the field of liver surgery, having one goal: safer and easier liver operations. The aim of this paper is to review the different principal solutions to the problem of blood loss in hepatic surgery, focusing on technical aspects of new devices.

Differences between bipolar compression and ultrasonic devices for parenchymal transection during laparoscopic liver resection

OBJECTIVES

  In laparoscopic liver resection, multiple options for parenchymal transection techniques exist; however, none have emerged as superior. The aim of this study was to compare operative characteristics and outcomes between bipolar compression and ultrasonic devices used for parenchymal transection during laparoscopic liver resection.

METHODS

  A review of a prospective hepatopancreatobiliary database from December 2002 to August 2009 identified 54 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection with parenchymal division using either a bipolar compression (n= 35) or an ultrasonic (n= 19) device. Operative data, histology and 90-day complication rates were compared between the groups using analysis of variance (anova) and Pearson's chi-squared test.

RESULTS

  The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of age, body mass index, parenchymal steatosis/inflammation or number of segments resected. A shorter time of parenchymal transection was noted for the bipolar compression device (median: 35 min; range: 20-65 min) vs. the ultrasonic device (median: 55 min; range: 29-75 min) (P < 0.001). Median total operative time was also shorter using the bipolar compression device (130 min) than the ultrasonic device (180 min) (P= 0.050). No significant differences between device groups were noted for estimated blood loss, complications of any type or liver-specific complications.

CONCLUSIONS

  Bipolar compression devices may offer advantages over ultrasonic devices in terms of decreased transection time and total operative time. No differences in postoperative complications in laparoscopic liver resection emerged between patients operated using the devices.