4.6 Article

Techniques of radiofrequency-assisted precoagulation in laparoscopic liver resection

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-010-1330-5

Keywords

Laparoscopic liver resection; Precoagulation; Blood loss; Operative time

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although radiofrequency-assisted (RF) precoagulation has been described for open resections, there is little data evaluating precoagulation options in laparoscopic liver resection. The purpose of this study is to provide an algorithm for the use of monopolar and bipolar RF devices in laparoscopic liver resection. Patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection utilizing precoagulation during the period 2007-2009 were identified from a prospectively maintained, institutional review board-approved database. RF-assisted precoagulation was performed using a second-generation monopolar RF ablation catheter (Starburst XL, AngioDynamics) or bipolar RF device (Habib 4X, AngioDynamics). Precoagulation was utilized in 31cases (monopolar, n = 19, and bipolar, n = 12). Procedures performed included segmentectomy/wedge resection in 19 patients and bisegmentectomy in 12 patients. The bipolar RF device was used for left lateral sectionectomies (90%) in which there was linear transaction, whereas the monopolar RF catheter was used for nonlinear segmental and wedge resections involving the right lobe (95%). Time required for precoagulation was 22.5 +/- A 7.2 min for the bipolar and 33.6 +/- A 15.9 min for the monopolar device. No patient developed postoperative bleeding, bile duct injury, or liver abscess. At follow-up, one patient in the monopolar group developed a suspected local recurrence. We have suggested an algorithm to select a given device based on tumor location and type of resection. With approximately 30 min of time spent for precoagulation, the blood loss and rate of local recurrence were favorable. There also could be an oncologic benefit due to additional functional margin obtained with the RF effect.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available