Randomized clinical trial of the effect of a saline-linked radiofrequency coagulator on blood loss during hepatic resection. How should transection of the liver be performed?: a prospective randomized study in 100 consecutive patients: comparing four different transection strategies. Sharp liver transection versus clamp crushing technique in liver resections: a prospective study. Hepatic resection by the Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator increases the incidence and severity of venous air embolism. [Surgical techniques in hepatic resections: Ultrasonic aspirator versus Jet-Cutter. A prospective randomized clinical trial]. Randomized comparison of ultrasonic vs clamp transection of the liver. Randomized clinical trial of radiofrequency-assisted versus clamp-crushing liver resection.
Use of a saline-linked radiofrequency coagulator (dissecting sealer) has been suggested to reduce blood loss during hepatic resection. A randomized clinical trial was conducted to assess the effects of using the device on the amount of blood loss.
                Patients scheduled to undergo hepatic resection were randomly assigned to either use of the dissecting sealer or the clamp crushing method. The primary outcome measure was blood loss during liver parenchymal division. Multivariate analysis was also performed.
                Ninety-four consecutive patients underwent hepatic resection and 40 patients were assigned to each group. There were no significant differences between the dissecting sealer and clamp crushing groups in blood loss during liver parenchymal division (median 373 versus 535 ml; P = 0.252) or total intraoperative blood loss (665 versus 733 ml; P = 0.450). Multivariate analysis revealed that use of the dissecting sealer offered no protection against blood loss compared with the clamp crushing method (odds ratio 1.17 (95 per cent confidence interval 0.39 to 3.53); P = 0.777), whereas number of resections, thoracotomy and type of resection had a significant effect.
                Use of a dissecting sealer offered no substantial benefit over the clamp crushing method in reducing blood loss during hepatic resection. To identify the most efficient parenchyma transection technique for liver resection using a prospective randomized protocol.
                Liver resection can be performed by different transection devices with or without inflow occlusion (Pringle maneuver). Only limited data are currently available on the best transection technique.
                A randomized controlled trial was performed in noncirrhotic and noncholestatic patients undergoing liver resection comparing the clamp crushing technique with Pringle maneuver versus CUSA versus Hydrojet versus dissecting sealer without Pringle maneuver (25 patients each group). Primary endpoints were intraoperative blood loss, resection time, and postoperative liver injury. Secondary end points included the use of inflow occlusion, postoperative complications, and costs.
                The clamp crushing technique had the highest transection velocity (3.9 +/- 0.3 cm/min) and lowest blood loss (1.5 +/- 0.3 mL/cm) compared with CUSA (2.3 +/- 0.2 cm/min and 4 +/- 0.7 mL/cm), Hydrojet (2.4 +/- 0.3 cm/min and 3.5 +/- 0.5 mL/cm), and dissecting sealer (2.5 +/- 0.3 cm/min and 3.4 +/- 0.4 mL/cm) (velocity: P = 0.001; blood loss: P = 0.003). Clamp crushing technique was associated with the lowest need for postoperative blood transfusions. The degree of postoperative reperfusion injury and complications were not significantly different among the groups. The clamp crushing technique proved to be most cost-efficient device and had a cost-saving potential of 600 to 2400 per case.
                The clamp crushing technique was the most efficient device in terms of resection time, blood loss, and blood transfusion frequency compared with CUSA, Hydrojet, and dissecting sealer, and proved to be also the most cost-efficient device. Parenchymal liver transection constitutes an important phase of liver resection. Serious intraoperative bleeding, together with injuries to vital structures of the liver remnant, can occur during this stage. A method of sharp liver parenchymal transection with scalpel is compared in a prospective randomized manner with the widely used clamp crushing technique.
                Patients scheduled for hepatectomy under selective hepatic vascular exclusion (N = 82) were allocated randomly to either the sharp transection group (n = 41) or the clamp crushing group (n = 41). Warm ischemic time, blood loss and transfusions, postoperative morbidity and mortality, and tumor-free margins were recorded in both groups and analyzed.
                When the sharp transection group was compared with the clamp crushing group, the two groups were similar in warm ischemic time (median 36 vs 34 minutes), total operative time (median 205 vs 211 minutes), intraoperative blood loss (median 500 vs 460 mL), blood transfusion requirements (median value 0 in both groups), and overall complication rate (44% vs 39%). However, sharp transection yielded better tumor-free margins compared with the clamp crushing technique (12 +/- 1.4 mm vs 8 +/- 1.5 mm, mean +/- SD, P < .05).
                Sharp liver parenchymal transection with a scalpel is equally safe in terms of blood loss and mortality compared with the clamp crushing method. Although it is a technically demanding method, requiring selective hepatic vascular occlusion, it may be recommended when the tumor-free margins are anticipated to be narrow. The Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA) is an innovative tool for resecting hepatic parenchyma, which reduces intraoperative blood loss and perioperative morbidity. We designed this study to compare the incidence and severity of venous air embolism (VAE) detected via transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) during hepatic resection by using either the clamp-crushing method or the CUSA method. Fifty patients scheduled for hepatic resection were randomly assigned to receive hepatic resection by the clamp-crushing method (CC group) or by CUSA (CUSA group). After the induction of anesthesia, the TEE probe was inserted into the patient's esophagus. An independent anesthesiologist graded VAE shown in the 4-chamber view of TEE. All patients in the CUSA group showed VAE during hepatic resection and 44% of the patients had air embolism filling more than half the right heart diameter. In CC group, 68% of the patients showed VAE, which filled less than half the right heart diameter. There were no significant differences in hemodynamics and end-tidal CO2 partial pressure between the two groups. In conclusion, hepatic resection by CUSA increases the incidence and severity of VAE.
                This study demonstrated that venous air embolism during hepatic resection was more frequent and severe when using the Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator. Although we found no evidence of hemodynamic compromise, increased venous air embolism may increase the risk of paradoxical embolism in patients with liver cirrhosis. For all resection-techniques of liver tissue intra- and post-operative blood-loss remains an important problem. Two novel resection-techniques the ultrasound-aspirator (CUSA) and the water-jet dissector (Jet-Cutter) appear to offer significant advantages regarding this problem. Aim of the present prospective clinical study was the comparison of these dissection techniques.
                Prospective randomized study with the end points blood-loss, length of surgery, tissue trauma and long-term survival.
                Significant differences between both procedures with Jet-Cutter (n = 31) versus ultrasonic surgical aspirator CUSA (n = 30) were observed regarding length of resection and complete liver ischemia time (Pringle-time). Here significant advantages of the jet-cutter-technique were observed with 28 +/- 11 minutes length of resection versus 46 +/- 19 minutes and 29 +/- 12 minutes Pringle-time versus 39 +/- 16 minutes. Furthermore, significant fewer blood transfusions were required following jet-cutter-resection with a mean of 1.5 blood units vs. 2.5 blood units using the CUSA. No differences were observed regarding postoperative long-term survival.
                The jet-cutter-technique is a fast and safe surgical procedure for liver resections and offers an attractive therapeutic alternative for various indications in liver surgery. Hepatic parenchymal transection is a technical priority in liver surgery. The use of an ultrasonic dissector for hepatectomy may result in less blood loss than conventional clamp crushing.
                Randomized controlled trial.
                University teaching hospital.
                The 132 patients scheduled to undergo partial hepatectomies were randomly assigned to receive hepatic transection by ultrasonic dissector or by clamp crushing (66 patients by each method).
                All resections were performed with inflow occlusion and were guided ultrasonographically. Hepatectomies were graded according to a predefined system based on 6 criteria (blood loss, transection time, technical error, surgical margin, landmark appearance, and postoperative morbidity), each with 3 scores (lower scores indicating higher quality).
                Blood loss and hepatectomy grade.
                No difference was found between the ultrasonic and clamp groups in median blood loss (515 mL [range, 15-2527 mL] vs 452 mL [range, 17-1912 mL]; P =.63), transection time (61 minutes [range, 16-177 minutes] vs 54 minutes [range, 7-205 minutes]; P =.58), or transection speed (1.1 cm(2)/min [range, 0.4-4.0 cm(2)/min] vs 1.0 cm(2)/min [range, 0.4-3.0 cm(2)/min]; P =.90). Ultrasonic dissection caused more frequent histologically proven tumor exposure at the surgical margin (9 vs 3 patients; P =.09), incomplete appearance of landmark hepatic veins on the cut surface after anatomical resection (12 vs 4 patients; P =.03), and postoperative morbidity (20 vs 14 patients; P =.32) than did clamp crushing. The hepatectomies with clamp crushing had significantly higher grades than those with ultrasonic dissection (P =.05), as indicated by the lower median sum score (4.0 [range, 0-12] vs 5.0 [range, 0-19]; 95% confidence interval for difference, -2.0 to 0; P =.03). The transection method independently influenced hepatectomy grade (adjusted odds ratio = 3.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-6.92; P =.01).
                Ultrasonic dissection offers no reduction in blood loss compared with clamp crushing for transection of the liver. Clamp crushing results in a higher quality of hepatectomy and is therefore the option of choice. Surgical resection remains the treatment of choice for primary and secondary liver cancer. Complications are mainly related to blood loss. Radiofrequency-assisted liver resection (RF-R) has been proposed for parenchymal division as an alternative to clamp crushing in order to reduce blood loss.
                Fifty patients (median age 62 (range 30-82) years) undergoing hepatectomy were randomized to RF-R (24 patients) or the clamp-crushing method (26). In the RF-R group the resection plane was precoagulated by multiple insertion of a planar triple-cooled radiofrequency ablation needle, and then the parenchyma was sectioned using a scalpel.
                The two groups were well matched in terms of age, sex, liver disease and type of resection. There were no deaths. Eight in the RF-R group developed complications (abscess in six, biliary fistula in three and biliary stenosis in one) compared with none of those who had resection by the crush method (P < 0.001). Two patients with cirrhosis in each group developed decompensation. Blood transfusion was required in eight of 24 patients in the RF-R group and 13 of 26 in the clamp-crushing group (P = 0.079).
                RF-R allows parenchymal resection in a clean surgical field but is associated with a higher rate of postoperative complications than the clamp-crushing technique.
                (c) 2007 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd.
Clamp-crush technique is advocated as the method of choice in liver parenchymal transection because it avoids special equipment, whereas the newer methods do not seem to offer any benefit in decreasing the morbidity or transfusion requirement.