Sharp liver transection versus clamp crushing technique in liver resections: a prospective study. Randomized clinical trial of radiofrequency-assisted versus clamp-crushing liver resection. How should transection of the liver be performed?: a prospective randomized study in 100 consecutive patients: comparing four different transection strategies. Randomized clinical trial of the effect of a saline-linked radiofrequency coagulator on blood loss during hepatic resection. Randomized comparison of ultrasonic vs clamp transection of the liver. Complete versus selective portal triad clamping for minor liver resections: a prospective randomized trial. Randomized clinical trial of the effects of abdominal drainage after elective hepatectomy using the crushing clamp method. Ischemic preconditioning in deceased donor liver transplantation: a prospective randomized clinical trial of safety and efficacy. Intraoperative blood salvage during liver resection: a randomized controlled trial.
Parenchymal liver transection constitutes an important phase of liver resection. Serious intraoperative bleeding, together with injuries to vital structures of the liver remnant, can occur during this stage. A method of sharp liver parenchymal transection with scalpel is compared in a prospective randomized manner with the widely used clamp crushing technique.
                Patients scheduled for hepatectomy under selective hepatic vascular exclusion (N = 82) were allocated randomly to either the sharp transection group (n = 41) or the clamp crushing group (n = 41). Warm ischemic time, blood loss and transfusions, postoperative morbidity and mortality, and tumor-free margins were recorded in both groups and analyzed.
                When the sharp transection group was compared with the clamp crushing group, the two groups were similar in warm ischemic time (median 36 vs 34 minutes), total operative time (median 205 vs 211 minutes), intraoperative blood loss (median 500 vs 460 mL), blood transfusion requirements (median value 0 in both groups), and overall complication rate (44% vs 39%). However, sharp transection yielded better tumor-free margins compared with the clamp crushing technique (12 +/- 1.4 mm vs 8 +/- 1.5 mm, mean +/- SD, P < .05).
                Sharp liver parenchymal transection with a scalpel is equally safe in terms of blood loss and mortality compared with the clamp crushing method. Although it is a technically demanding method, requiring selective hepatic vascular occlusion, it may be recommended when the tumor-free margins are anticipated to be narrow. Surgical resection remains the treatment of choice for primary and secondary liver cancer. Complications are mainly related to blood loss. Radiofrequency-assisted liver resection (RF-R) has been proposed for parenchymal division as an alternative to clamp crushing in order to reduce blood loss.
                Fifty patients (median age 62 (range 30-82) years) undergoing hepatectomy were randomized to RF-R (24 patients) or the clamp-crushing method (26). In the RF-R group the resection plane was precoagulated by multiple insertion of a planar triple-cooled radiofrequency ablation needle, and then the parenchyma was sectioned using a scalpel.
                The two groups were well matched in terms of age, sex, liver disease and type of resection. There were no deaths. Eight in the RF-R group developed complications (abscess in six, biliary fistula in three and biliary stenosis in one) compared with none of those who had resection by the crush method (P < 0.001). Two patients with cirrhosis in each group developed decompensation. Blood transfusion was required in eight of 24 patients in the RF-R group and 13 of 26 in the clamp-crushing group (P = 0.079).
                RF-R allows parenchymal resection in a clean surgical field but is associated with a higher rate of postoperative complications than the clamp-crushing technique.
                (c) 2007 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. To identify the most efficient parenchyma transection technique for liver resection using a prospective randomized protocol.
                Liver resection can be performed by different transection devices with or without inflow occlusion (Pringle maneuver). Only limited data are currently available on the best transection technique.
                A randomized controlled trial was performed in noncirrhotic and noncholestatic patients undergoing liver resection comparing the clamp crushing technique with Pringle maneuver versus CUSA versus Hydrojet versus dissecting sealer without Pringle maneuver (25 patients each group). Primary endpoints were intraoperative blood loss, resection time, and postoperative liver injury. Secondary end points included the use of inflow occlusion, postoperative complications, and costs.
                The clamp crushing technique had the highest transection velocity (3.9 +/- 0.3 cm/min) and lowest blood loss (1.5 +/- 0.3 mL/cm) compared with CUSA (2.3 +/- 0.2 cm/min and 4 +/- 0.7 mL/cm), Hydrojet (2.4 +/- 0.3 cm/min and 3.5 +/- 0.5 mL/cm), and dissecting sealer (2.5 +/- 0.3 cm/min and 3.4 +/- 0.4 mL/cm) (velocity: P = 0.001; blood loss: P = 0.003). Clamp crushing technique was associated with the lowest need for postoperative blood transfusions. The degree of postoperative reperfusion injury and complications were not significantly different among the groups. The clamp crushing technique proved to be most cost-efficient device and had a cost-saving potential of 600 to 2400 per case.
                The clamp crushing technique was the most efficient device in terms of resection time, blood loss, and blood transfusion frequency compared with CUSA, Hydrojet, and dissecting sealer, and proved to be also the most cost-efficient device. Use of a saline-linked radiofrequency coagulator (dissecting sealer) has been suggested to reduce blood loss during hepatic resection. A randomized clinical trial was conducted to assess the effects of using the device on the amount of blood loss.
                Patients scheduled to undergo hepatic resection were randomly assigned to either use of the dissecting sealer or the clamp crushing method. The primary outcome measure was blood loss during liver parenchymal division. Multivariate analysis was also performed.
                Ninety-four consecutive patients underwent hepatic resection and 40 patients were assigned to each group. There were no significant differences between the dissecting sealer and clamp crushing groups in blood loss during liver parenchymal division (median 373 versus 535 ml; P = 0.252) or total intraoperative blood loss (665 versus 733 ml; P = 0.450). Multivariate analysis revealed that use of the dissecting sealer offered no protection against blood loss compared with the clamp crushing method (odds ratio 1.17 (95 per cent confidence interval 0.39 to 3.53); P = 0.777), whereas number of resections, thoracotomy and type of resection had a significant effect.
                Use of a dissecting sealer offered no substantial benefit over the clamp crushing method in reducing blood loss during hepatic resection. Hepatic parenchymal transection is a technical priority in liver surgery. The use of an ultrasonic dissector for hepatectomy may result in less blood loss than conventional clamp crushing.
                Randomized controlled trial.
                University teaching hospital.
                The 132 patients scheduled to undergo partial hepatectomies were randomly assigned to receive hepatic transection by ultrasonic dissector or by clamp crushing (66 patients by each method).
                All resections were performed with inflow occlusion and were guided ultrasonographically. Hepatectomies were graded according to a predefined system based on 6 criteria (blood loss, transection time, technical error, surgical margin, landmark appearance, and postoperative morbidity), each with 3 scores (lower scores indicating higher quality).
                Blood loss and hepatectomy grade.
                No difference was found between the ultrasonic and clamp groups in median blood loss (515 mL [range, 15-2527 mL] vs 452 mL [range, 17-1912 mL]; P =.63), transection time (61 minutes [range, 16-177 minutes] vs 54 minutes [range, 7-205 minutes]; P =.58), or transection speed (1.1 cm(2)/min [range, 0.4-4.0 cm(2)/min] vs 1.0 cm(2)/min [range, 0.4-3.0 cm(2)/min]; P =.90). Ultrasonic dissection caused more frequent histologically proven tumor exposure at the surgical margin (9 vs 3 patients; P =.09), incomplete appearance of landmark hepatic veins on the cut surface after anatomical resection (12 vs 4 patients; P =.03), and postoperative morbidity (20 vs 14 patients; P =.32) than did clamp crushing. The hepatectomies with clamp crushing had significantly higher grades than those with ultrasonic dissection (P =.05), as indicated by the lower median sum score (4.0 [range, 0-12] vs 5.0 [range, 0-19]; 95% confidence interval for difference, -2.0 to 0; P =.03). The transection method independently influenced hepatectomy grade (adjusted odds ratio = 3.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-6.92; P =.01).
                Ultrasonic dissection offers no reduction in blood loss compared with clamp crushing for transection of the liver. Clamp crushing results in a higher quality of hepatectomy and is therefore the option of choice. To evaluate the feasibility, safety, efficacy, amount of hemorrhage, postoperative complications, and ischemic injury of selective clamping in patients undergoing minor liver resections.
                Inflow occlusion can reduce blood loss during hepatectomy. However, Pringle maneuver produces ischemic injury to the remaining liver. Selective hemihepatic vascular occlusion technique can reduce the severity of visceral congestion and total liver ischemia.
                Eighty patients undergoing minor hepatic resection were randomly assigned to complete clamping (CC) or selective clamping (SC). Hemodynamic parameters, including portal pressure and the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), were evaluated. The amount of blood loss, measurements of liver enzymes alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and postoperative evolution were also recorded.
                No differences were observed in the amount of hemorrhage (671 +/- 533 mL versus 735 +/- 397 mL; P = 0.54) or the patients that required transfusion (10% versus 15%; P = 0.55). There were no differences on postoperative morbidity between groups (38% versus 29%; P = 0.38). Cirrhotic patients with CC had significantly higher ALT (7.7 +/- 4.6 versus 4.5 +/- 2.7 mukat/L, P = 0.01) and AST (10.2 +/- 8.7 versus 4.9 +/- 2.1 mukat/L; P = 0.03) values on the first postoperative day than SC. The multivariate analysis demonstrated that high central venous pressure, HVPG >10 mm Hg, and intraoperative blood loss were independent factors related to morbidity.
                Both techniques of clamping are equally effective and feasible for patients with normal liver and undergoing minor hepatectomies. However, in cirrhotic patients selective clamping induces less ischemic injury and should be recommended. Finally, even for minor hepatic resections, central venous pressure, HVPG, and intraoperative blood loss are factors related to morbidity and should be considered. Abdominal drainage is a standard procedure after hepatectomy, but this practice has been challenged recently.
                Between September 2004 and March 2005, 120 consecutive patients who had undergone hepatic resection by the same surgical team were randomly allocated into drainage and no drainage groups (60 in each group). Patient characteristics, preoperative liver function, presence of cirrhosis, resection-related factors and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.
                The groups were comparable in terms of demographics, indications for surgery, preoperative liver function test results, presence of cirrhosis, extent of hepatectomy, intraoperative blood loss and requirement for blood transfusion. Symptomatic subphrenic collection and pleural effusion occurred in four patients (7 per cent) who had abdominal drainage and three (5 per cent) who did not. Local wound complications occurred in 17 (28 per cent) and two (3 per cent) patients respectively (P < 0.001). The postoperative hospital stay was similar in the two groups. Multivariate analysis indicated that the presence of cirrhosis and abdominal drainage were independently related to the development of postoperative wound complications.
                Routine abdominal drainage is unnecessary after elective hepatectomy using the crushing clamp method. Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) has the potential to decrease graft injury and morbidity after liver transplantation. We prospectively investigated the safety and efficacy of 5 minutes of IPC induced by hilar clamping in local deceased donor livers randomized 1:1 to standard (STD) recovery (N = 28) or IPC (N = 34). Safety was assessed by measurement of heart rate, blood pressure, and visual inspection of abdominal organs during recovery, and efficacy by recipient aminotransferases (aspartate aminotransferase [AST] and alanine aminotransferase [ALT], both measured in U/L), total bilirubin, and international normalized ratio of prothrombin time (INR) after transplantation. IPC performed soon after laparotomy did not cause hemodynamic instability or visceral congestion. Recipient median AST, median ALT, and mean INR, in STD vs. IPC were as follows: day 1 AST 696 vs. 841 U/L; day 3 AST 183 vs. 183 U/L; day 1 ALT 444 vs. 764 U/L; day 3 ALT 421 vs. 463 U/L; day 1 INR 1.7 +/- .4 vs. 2.0 +/- .8; and day 3 INR 1.3 +/- .2 vs. 1.4 +/- .3; all P > .05. No instances of nonfunction occurred. The 6-month graft and patient survival STD vs. IPC were 82 vs. 91% and median hospital stay was 10 vs. 8 days; both P > .05. In conclusion, deceased donor livers tolerated 5 minutes of hilar clamping well, but IPC did not decrease graft injury. Further trials with longer periods of preconditioning such as 10 minutes are needed. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to clarify the effectiveness of intraoperative blood salvage in reducing blood loss.
                Although reduction of central venous pressure (CVP) is thought to decrease blood loss during liver resection, no consistently effective and safe method for obtaining the desired reduction of CVP has been established.
                Living liver donors scheduled to undergo liver graft procurement were randomly assigned to a blood salvage group, in which a blood volume equal to approximately 0.7% of the patient's body weight was collected before the liver transection, or a control group. The surgeons were blinded to the randomization results. The primary outcome measure was blood loss during liver parenchymal division. A multivariate analysis was also performed.
                Seventy-nine donors were allocated intraoperatively to the blood salvage group (n = 40) or the control group (n = 39). The amount of blood loss during liver transection was significantly smaller in the blood salvage group than in the control group (median loss during transection, 140 mL vs. 230 mL, P = 0.034). The CVP at the beginning of the liver parenchymal division was significantly lower in the blood salvage group than in the control group (median, 5 cm H2O vs. 6 cm H2O, P = 0.005). The results of a multivariate analysis revealed that intraoperative blood salvage offered the advantage of reduced blood loss during liver parenchymal division (adjusted OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.85, P = 0.025).
                Modest intraoperative blood salvage significantly and safely reduced blood loss during hepatic parenchymal transection.
Clamp-crush technique is advocated as the method of choice in liver parenchymal transection because it avoids special equipment, whereas the newer methods do not seem to offer any benefit in decreasing the morbidity or transfusion requirement.