Figueras Joan, Lopez-Ben Santiago, Lladó Laura, Rafecas Antoni, Torras Jaume, Ramos Emilio, Fabregat Joan, Jaurrieta Eduardo
Department of Surgery, Hospital de Bellvitge, Ciutat Sanitaria i Universitaria de Bellvitge, 08907 Barcelona, Spain.
Ann Surg. 2003 Jul;238(1):111-9. doi: 10.1097/01.SLA.0000074981.02000.69.
A randomized study was conducted of hilar dissection and the "glissonean" approach and stapling of the pedicle for major hepatectomies to contrast their feasibility, safety, amount of hemorrhage, postoperative complications, operative times, and costs.
The "glissonean" approach is reported as requiring a shorter portal triad closure time; furthermore, the procedure seems to expedite the transection of the liver.
Between 1998 and 2001, 80 patients were enrolled in this study. The major liver resections included 15 extended right, 7 extended left, 42 right, and 16 left hepatectomies. The patients were randomly assigned to the hilar dissection group (G1; n = 40) or to the "glissonean" approach and stapling of the portal triad group (G2; n = 40).
The groups were equally matched for age, sex, diagnosis, mean resected specimen weight, number of tumoral lesions, type of liver resection performed, and percentage of patients with margin invasion (G1: 4; 10% vs G2: 5; 12.5%). The duration of the 2 procedures was similar (G1: 247 +/- 54 min vs G2: 236 +/- 43 min; P = 0.4). However, the duration of the hilar dissection was shorter for G2 (50 +/- 17 min) versus G1 (70 +/- 26 min; P <0.001). By contrast, the duration of pedicular clamping was shorter for G1 (43 +/- 15 min) versus G2 (51 +/- 15 min; P = 0.015). No differences were observed in the amount of hemorrhage (G1: 887 +/- 510 mL vs G2: 937 +/- 636 mL; P = 0.7), and only 6 patients in G1 and 10 in G2 were transfused (P = 0.26). Morbidity rates were similar for both groups (G1: 23% vs G2: 33%; P = 0.3). Surgical injury of the contralateral biliary duct was not observed. However, 3 patients in G1 and 4 patients in G2 presented a biliary fistula that resolved spontaneously. Postoperative hospital stay was similar (G1: 8 [range, 6-24] vs G2: 9 [range, 5-31] days; P = 0.6). The postoperative levels of alanine transaminase (ALT) during the 2 first postoperative days were lower for G1 than G2. Cost of the surgical material was 1235.80 US dollars for G1 and 1301.10 US dollars for G2.
The 2 techniques are equally effective procedures for treating hilar structures. Although en bloc stapling transection is faster, hilar dissection was associated with a shorter pedicular clamping time, less cytolysis, and the materials required were less expensive.
进行一项关于肝门部解剖与“Glisson鞘”入路及肝蒂吻合器用于肝大部切除术的随机研究,以对比二者的可行性、安全性、出血量、术后并发症、手术时间及费用。
据报道,“Glisson鞘”入路所需的肝门三联关闭时间较短;此外,该手术似乎能加快肝脏横断速度。
1998年至2001年期间,80例患者纳入本研究。肝大部切除术包括15例扩大右半肝、7例扩大左半肝、42例右半肝及16例左半肝切除术。患者被随机分为肝门部解剖组(G1;n = 40)或“Glisson鞘”入路及肝门三联吻合器组(G2;n = 40)。
两组在年龄、性别、诊断、平均切除标本重量、肿瘤病灶数量、所施行的肝切除类型及切缘受侵患者百分比方面匹配情况相同(G1:4例;10% 对比 G2:5例;12.5%)。两种手术的持续时间相似(G1:247 ± 54分钟对比G2:236 ± 43分钟;P = 0.4)。然而,G2组的肝门部解剖持续时间较G1组短(50 ± 17分钟对比G1:7(0 ± 26分钟;P <0.001)。相比之下,G1组的肝蒂阻断持续时间较G2组短(43 ± 15分钟对比G2:51 ± 15分钟;P = 0.015)。两组出血量无差异(G1:887 ± 510毫升对比G2:937 ± 636毫升;P = 0.7),G1组仅6例患者、G2组仅10例患者接受输血(P = 0.26)。两组的发病率相似(G1:23%对比G2:33%;P = 0.3)。未观察到对侧胆管的手术损伤。然而,G1组3例患者、G2组4例患者出现了自发性愈合的胆瘘。术后住院时间相似(G1:8天[范围,6 - 24天]对比G2:9天[范围,5 - 31天];P = 0.6)。术后第1、2天G1组的丙氨酸转氨酶(ALT)水平低于G2组。G1组手术材料费用为1235.80美元,G2组为1301.10美元。
两种技术在处理肝门结构方面同样有效。尽管整块吻合器横断术速度更快,但肝门部解剖的肝蒂阻断时间更短、细胞溶解更少且所需材料费用更低。