Suppr超能文献

肝切除三种横断技术的疗效:一项随机临床试验

The efficacy of three transection techniques of the liver resection: a randomized clinical trial.

作者信息

Doklestic Krstina, Karamarkovic Aleksandar, Stefanovic Branislav, Stefanovic Branislava, Milic Nataša, Gregoric Pavle, Djukic Vladimir, Bajec Djordje

机构信息

Clinical Center of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia.

出版信息

Hepatogastroenterology. 2012 Jul-Aug;59(117):1501-6. doi: 10.5754/hge11552.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Liver resection is a demanding procedure due to the risk of massive blood loss. Different instruments for liver transection are available today. The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to analyze the efficacy of three different parenchyma transection techniques of liver resection.

METHODOLOGY

A total of 60 non-cirrhotic patients undergoing hepatectomy were randomly selected for clamp crushing technique (CRUSH), ultrasonic dissection (CUSA) or bipolar device (LigaSure), n=20 in each group. All patients had liver resection under low central venous pressure anaesthesia (CVP), with ischemic preconditioning and intermittent inflow occlusion. Primary endpoints were surgery duration, transection duration, cumulative pedicle clamping time, intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion. Secondary endpoints included the postoperative liver injury, postoperative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Overall surgery duration was 295 vs. 270 vs. 240min for LigaSure, CUSA and Clamp Crushing Technique, respectively. The transection duration was 85 vs. 52.5 vs. 40 minutes, respectively. These three different resection techniques of non-cirrhotic liver produced similar outcome in terms of intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion, postoperative complications and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The Clump Crushing Technique, CUSA and Liga Sure are equally safe for resection of non-cirrhotic liver. Liver resections can be performed safely if the entire concept is well designed and the choice of dissection device does not affect the outcome of hepatectomy.

摘要

背景/目的:由于存在大量失血风险,肝切除术是一项要求较高的手术。目前有多种用于肝实质离断的器械。本随机临床试验的目的是分析三种不同肝切除实质离断技术的疗效。

方法

总共随机选择60例接受肝切除术的非肝硬化患者,分别采用钳夹挤压技术(CRUSH)、超声刀分离(CUSA)或双极电凝设备(LigaSure),每组20例。所有患者均在低中心静脉压麻醉(CVP)下进行肝切除,并采用缺血预处理和间歇性入肝血流阻断。主要终点指标为手术时间、离断时间、累计肝门阻断时间、术中失血量和输血量。次要终点指标包括术后肝损伤、术后发病率和死亡率。

结果

LigaSure组、CUSA组和钳夹挤压技术组的总体手术时间分别为295分钟、270分钟和240分钟。离断时间分别为85分钟、52.5分钟和40分钟。这三种不同的非肝硬化肝切除技术在术中失血量、输血量、术后并发症和死亡率方面产生了相似的结果。

结论

钳夹挤压技术、CUSA和LigaSure在非肝硬化肝切除方面同样安全。如果整个方案设计合理且离断设备的选择不影响肝切除的结果,肝切除术可以安全进行。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验