PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15062662

Hepatic vascular occlusion: which technique?

Abstract

Each vascular occlusion technique has a place in major and minor hepatic resectional surgery, based on the tumor location, presence of associated underlying liver disease, patient cardiovascular status, and experience of the operating surgeon. Understanding of the potential application of different techniques, anticipation of the expected and potential hemodynamic responses, and knowledge of the limitations of each technique are fundamental to appropriate surgical planning adapted to each patient. Experience with the various clamping methods enables an aggressive but safe approach to surgical treatment of hepatobiliary diseases, with acceptable blood loss and transfusion requirements. In all cases, surgical strategy should be defined with the anesthesiologist, particularly in regard to hemodynamic monitoring, in order to optimize perioperative patient management and to minimize the risk for complications such as bleeding and air embolism. Importantly, randomized study has shown that the added dissection, operative, and postoperative risks associated with HVE are not balanced by decreased blood loss compared with hepatic pedicle clamping, except in exceptional cases when tumors involve the major hepatic veins or vena cava. In addition, dissection in preparation for clamping may be used as safe approach techniques to tumors in difficult locations, even when eventual clamping is not performed. Similarly, the liver-hanging maneuver enables resection without mobilization, compression, and manipulation of large tumors. In the future, renewed interest in the impact of hepatic ischemia and reperfusion may reveal that some clamping methods, in particular inflow occlusion, act as a means of preconditioning before a period of prolonged hepatic ischemia, for complex hepatic resection or for graft harvest from a living donor. Finally, the addition of infrahepatic caval clamping may add a new, simple, effective technique to the armamentarium of the liver surgeon, particularly as more routine hepatic surgery moves from the specialized center to the community.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Eddie K Abdalla, Roger Noun, Jacques Belghiti. 2004. Hepatic vascular occlusion: which technique?. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0039-6109(03)00231-7

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Retropubic versus perineal radical prostatectomy in early prostate cancer: eight-year experience.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy in men and the second leading cause of cancer death. A randomized study was performed on patients with localized prostate cancer and treated with radical prostatectomy using the perineal or the retropubic approach comparing oncological outcomes, cancer control, and functional results. STUDY DESIGN: Between 1997 and 2004, in a randomized study 200 patients underwent a radical prostatectomy performed by retropubic (100 patients) or perineal (100 patients) approach. RESULTS: Differences between hospital stay, duration of catheter drainage, intraoperative blood loss, and transfusion requirements were statistically significant in favor of perineal prostatectomy. Differences between positive surgical margins and urinary continence in the two groups were not statistically significant at 6 and 24 months. Differences between erectile function at 24 months were statistically significant in favor of retropubic prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Radical perineal prostatectomy is an excellent alternative approach for radical surgery in the treatment of early prostate cancer.

Blood Loss, Surgical↗

Bipolar pulse coagulation for resection of the cirrhotic liver.

BACKGROUND: The major technical challenge of liver surgery is controlling bleeding during transection of the parenchyma. The Gyrus hand piece (GHP) is a bipolar diathermy pulsation instrument that is similar in design to a large hemostat (Péan) clamp that divides tissue while the clamp remains closed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the peri-operative data from 10 patients with early cirrhosis (stage 1-4) who underwent liver resection for hepatocellular cancer between February 2004 and July 2005. Five consecutive patients who underwent resection using the GHP were compared to five other patients who underwent resection using the traditional "crush clamp technique" (CCT). Six patients underwent minor hepatectomy (<3 segments) and four underwent major hepatectomy (>3 segments). RESULTS: When the GHP was used, the mean Pringle time was 13 +/- 5 min, mean blood loss was 520 mL +/- 118, and mean operative time was 252 +/- 15 min. When the CCT was used, the average Pringle time was 13 +/- 3 min, mean blood loss was 630 +/- 67 mL, and mean operative time was 312 +/- 29 min. There were 2 major complications in the GHP group and 3 in the CCT group. Major complications included transient hepatic failure (i.e., ascites/encephalopathy) and biloma formation. CONCLUSIONS: One patient from each group suffered a minor wound complication. The average hospital stay was 8 days (range, 6-9) for the GHP group, and 8 days (range, 7-10) for CCT group. The operative mortality rate was 0%. Our preliminary results demonstrate that GHP provides an excellent and safe alternative to CCT for dividing the liver parenchyma in cirrhotic patients.

Blood Loss, Surgical↗