Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Randomized clinical trial of stapler versus clamp-crushing transection in elective liver resection.

BACKGROUND: Various devices have been developed to facilitate liver transection and reduce blood loss in liver resections. None of these has proven superiority compared with the classical clamp-crushing technique. This randomized clinical trial compared the effectiveness and safety of stapler transection with that of clamp-crushing during open liver resection.

METHODS: Patients admitted for elective open liver resection between January 2010 and October 2011 were assigned randomly to stapler transection or the clamp-crushing technique. The primary endpoint was the total amount of intraoperative blood loss. Secondary endpoints included transection time, duration of operation, complication rates and resection margins.

RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were enrolled, 65 to clamp-crushing and 65 to stapler transection. There was no difference between groups in total intraoperative blood loss: median (i.q.r.) 1050 (525-1650) versus 925 (450-1425) ml respectively (P = 0·279). The difference in total intraoperative blood loss normalized to the transection surface area was not statistically significant (P = 0·092). Blood loss during parenchymal transection was significantly lower in the stapler transection group (P = 0·002), as were the parenchymal transection time (mean(s.d.) 30(21) versus 9(7) min for clamp-crushing and stapler transection groups respectively; P < 0·001) and total duration of operation (mean(s.d.) 221(86) versus 190(85) min; P = 0·047). There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidity (P = 0·863) or mortality (P = 0·684) between groups.

CONCLUSION: Stapler transection is a safe technique but does not reduce intraoperative blood loss in elective liver resection compared with the clamp-crushing technique.

REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01049607 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app