4.2 Article

Impact of Ultrasonic Scalpels for Liver Parenchymal Transection on Postoperative Bleeding and Bile Leakage

Journal

IN VIVO
Volume 32, Issue 4, Pages 883-886

Publisher

INT INST ANTICANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11323

Keywords

Liver parenchymal transection; liver resection; hepatectomy; ultrasonic scalpel; Lotus; Harmonic; bile leakage; bleeding

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aim: Novel techniques for liver parenchymal transection have emerged and they are available to the hepatobiliary surgeon. The aim of our study was to compare two types of ultrasonic scalpels (Lotus and Harmonic) and examine how they perform either alone or in combination with the SonaStar ultrasonic surgical aspiration system regarding postoperative bleeding and bile leakage. Patients and Methods: Our prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent liver resections in our Department was reviewed. One hundred and two patients with solid liver lesions underwent liver resection by a senior hepatobiliary surgeon in our department during a period of 51 months. They were divided into four groups according to the devices that were used for liver parenchymal transection. Results: Patients were divided into the following groups: group 1: Lotus, 32 patients (31.4%); group 2: Lotus+SonaStar, 27 patients (26.5%); group 3: Harmonic, 27 patients (26.5%); group 4: Harmonic+SonaStar, 16 patients (15.7%). There were 5 cases of postoperative bleeding and 9 cases of postoperative bile leakage. No significant difference was found concerning postoperative bleeding (group 1: 2/32; 6.3%, group 2: 2/27; 7.4%, group 3: 0/27; 0%, group 4: 1/16; 6.3%) (p=0.577). Furthermore, no actual difference was detected in terms of postoperative bile leakage (group 1: 2/32; 6.3%, group 2: 3/27; 11.1%, group 3: 3/27; 11.1%, group 4: 1/16; 6.3%) (p=0.866). Conclusion: Both Lotus and Harmonic ultrasonic scalpels provide adequate and similar results concerning postoperative hemorrhage and cholorrhea.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available