Use of a collagen-sealing device in hepatic resection: a comparative analysis to standard resection technique.

T Cheang, S S Hanna, F C Wright, C H L Law
Author Information
  1. T Cheang: Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Blood transfusion has been reported as an independent risk factor for poor outcome after liver resection in spite of its well known benefits. Refinements in parenchymal dissection have been pursued to reduce blood loss and transfusion. A collagen-sealing device (CSD) has recently been touted as an alternative technique that aids in blood conservation. We report the results of our initial series of patients undergoing a CSD-assisted resection and present a historical comparison.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients who were undergoing liver resection at a single tertiary cancer centre were enrolled in this study. The Ligasure Atlas device (Valleylab Inc., Division of Tyco Healthcare) was used for parenchymal division in the CSD group. Known blood conservation techniques (i.e. low central venous pressure, ultrasonic dissection, Pringle clamp) were standardized in both groups. Clinical and outcome variables including operative time, estimated blood loss and transfusion requirements were collected. All statistical analyses were performed with SAS version 8.2e.
RESULTS: In all, 28 consecutive patients underwent CSD-assisted hepatic resection between October 2003 and September 2004. The control group included 188 patients treated between January 1991 and September 2003. In the CSD group, we observed a reduction in mean estimated blood loss (930 vs 1450 ml, p=0.002) and mean transfusion requirements (0.46 vs 1.19 units, p=0.002). There was no increase in operative time with the new instrument (326 vs 363 min, p=0.167).
DISCUSSION: Use of a CSD has the potential to further reduce blood loss and transfusion requirements without increasing operative time.

References

  1. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003 Jan;46(1):87-92 [PMID: 12544527]
  2. N Engl J Med. 2004 May 13;350(20):2050-9 [PMID: 15141043]
  3. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2003;10(3):215-7 [PMID: 14605978]
  4. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003 Oct;46(10):1380-3 [PMID: 14530679]
  5. Surg Endosc. 2004 May;18(5):857-62 [PMID: 15216869]
  6. J Gastrointest Surg. 2002 Jul-Aug;6(4):569-74 [PMID: 12127123]
  7. Am J Surg. 2001 Mar;181(3):236-7 [PMID: 11376578]
  8. Ann Surg. 2003 Jun;237(6):860-9; discussion 869-70 [PMID: 12796583]
  9. Head Neck. 2004 Oct;26(10):903-9 [PMID: 15390199]
  10. Arch Surg. 2004 Sep;139(9):997-1000 [PMID: 15381620]
  11. Br J Surg. 2002 Feb;89(2):154-7 [PMID: 11856126]
  12. Br J Surg. 2002 Apr;89(4):428-32 [PMID: 11952582]
  13. World J Surg. 2004 Feb;28(2):166-72 [PMID: 14708050]
  14. Ann Surg. 2001 Jul;234(1):21-4 [PMID: 11420479]
  15. HPB (Oxford). 2002;4(1):5-10 [PMID: 18333146]
  16. Surg Endosc. 2002 Nov;16(11):1608-11 [PMID: 11984666]
  17. Tech Coloproctol. 2002 Dec;6(3):171-5 [PMID: 12525911]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0bloodtransfusionresectionlossCSDpatientsdevicegroupoperativetimerequirementsvsp=0outcomeliverparenchymaldissectionreducecollagen-sealingtechniqueconservationundergoingCSD-assistedestimatedhepatic2003Septembermean002UseBACKGROUND:BloodreportedindependentriskfactorpoorspitewellknownbenefitsRefinementspursuedrecentlytoutedalternativeaidsreportresultsinitialseriespresenthistoricalcomparisonPATIENTSANDMETHODS:ConsecutivesingletertiarycancercentreenrolledstudyLigasureAtlasValleylabIncDivisionTycoHealthcareuseddivisionKnowntechniquesielowcentralvenouspressureultrasonicPringleclampstandardizedgroupsClinicalvariablesincludingcollectedstatisticalanalysesperformedSASversion82eRESULTS:28consecutiveunderwentOctober2004controlincluded188treatedJanuary1991observedreduction9301450ml046119unitsincreasenewinstrument326363min167DISCUSSION:potentialwithoutincreasingresection:comparativeanalysisstandard

Similar Articles

Cited By