Rahbari Nuh N, Koch Moritz, Schmidt Thomas, Motschall Edith, Bruckner Thomas, Weidmann Kathrin, Mehrabi Arianeb, Büchler Markus W, Weitz Jürgen
Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, Heidelberg 69120, Germany.
Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 Mar;16(3):630-9. doi: 10.1245/s10434-008-0266-7. Epub 2009 Jan 7.
After introduction of the clamp-crushing technique in the 1970s, various devices have been developed for transection of the liver with the aim of further reducing blood loss and improving the outcome of patients who undergo hepatic resection. We performed a meta-analysis to quantitatively compare the clamp-crushing technique to any subsequently introduced transection technique with respect to patients' perioperative outcome.
A systematic literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the clamp-crushing technique to any alternative method of hepatic transection. Relative risks (RR) were calculated for each outcome and reported along with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Meta-analyses were stratified for the various types of transection techniques compared with the clamp-crushing technique and were carried out by a random effects model.
Seven randomized controlled trials with a total of 554 patients were included in final analyses. Analyses of overall morbidity (RR .89; 95% CI, .63-1.25), biliary leakage (RR 1.03; 95% CI, .50-2.13), transfusion rates (RR .69; 95% CI, .31-1.51), and mortality RR (.20; 95% CI, .02-1.65) revealed no difference between the clamp-crushing and alternative transection techniques. None of the identified studies demonstrated a clinically important benefit of an alternative transection method in terms of blood loss, parenchymal injury, transection time, and hospital stay.
This meta-analysis does not indicate a benefit of any alternative transection technique on patients' perioperative outcome compared with the clamp-crushing technique. The clamp-crushing technique remains the reference technique for transection of the parenchyma in elective hepatic resection.
自20世纪70年代引入钳夹压榨技术以来,人们开发了各种肝脏横断设备,目的是进一步减少失血并改善肝切除患者的预后。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,以定量比较钳夹压榨技术与随后引入的任何横断技术对患者围手术期结局的影响。
进行系统的文献检索,以确定比较钳夹压榨技术与任何其他肝脏横断方法的随机对照试验。计算每种结局的相对风险(RR),并报告其95%置信区间(95%CI)。与钳夹压榨技术相比,对各种横断技术进行荟萃分析分层,并采用随机效应模型进行分析。
最终分析纳入了7项随机对照试验,共554例患者。对总体发病率(RR 0.89;95%CI,0.63 - 1.25)、胆漏(RR 1.03;95%CI,0.50 - 2.13)、输血率(RR 0.69;95%CI,0.31 - 1.51)和死亡率RR(0.20;95%CI,0.02 - 1.65)的分析显示,钳夹压榨技术与其他横断技术之间没有差异。在已确定的研究中,没有一项显示出在失血、实质损伤、横断时间和住院时间方面,其他横断方法具有临床上重要的益处。
这项荟萃分析表明,与钳夹压榨技术相比,任何其他横断技术对患者围手术期结局均无益处。钳夹压榨技术仍然是择期肝切除术中实质横断的参考技术。