4.0 Article

Intraoperative Ultrasonography as a Guidance for Dividing Bile Duct During Laparoscopic Living Donor Hepatectomy

期刊

ANNALS OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 24, 期 -, 页码 115-122

出版社

INT SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION, INC
DOI: 10.12659/AOT.914013

关键词

Laparoscopy; Liver Transplantation; Living Donors; Ultrasonography; Doppler; Color

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using intraoperative ultrasonography as a guidance in dividing bile duct during laparoscopic donor hepatectomy. Material/Methods: Cases of living liver donors who underwent laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy from May 2013 to December 2017 were reviewed. Operative and postoperative data were compared between donors with intraoperative ultrasonography and donors with intraoperative cholangiography. For analyzing whether bile duct division was performed successfully, anatomical type and number of bile duct openings were reviewed. When the number of bile ducts were achieved as expected, it was considered successful. Results: Intraoperative cholangiography was used in 67 donors (62.6%) while intraoperative ultrasonography was used in 36 donors (33.6%). Mean operation time was 405.0 +/- 76.2 minutes versus 275.1 +/- 37.5 minutes, P<0.001, respectively, and was longer in donors who had a cholangiography. There was no difference in the success rate of bile duct division between donors who had a cholangiography (92.5%) and donors who had an ultrasonography (88.9%, P=0.716). The mean hospital stay after operation was longer in donors who had a cholangiography (11.6 +/- 4.3 days versus 9.0 +/- 2.7 days, P<0.001). There was no difference in biliary complication rate between donors who had a cholangiography (11.9%) and donors who had an ultrasonography (8.3%, P=0.743). Conclusions: Intraoperative ultrasonography can be used safely in dividing bile duct during laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy with similar outcomes to intraoperative cholangiography.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据