Open Access

Efficacy of a half-grip technique using a fine tip LigaSure™, Dolphin Tip Sealer/Divider, on liver dissection in swine model

  • Yoichi Toyama1Email author,
  • Seiya Yoshida1,
  • Ryota Saito2,
  • Ryota Iwase1,
  • Koichiro Haruki1,
  • Norimitsu Okui1,
  • Jun-ichi Shimada1,
  • Hiroaki Kitamura1,
  • Michinori Matsumoto1 and
  • Katsuhiko Yanaga1
BMC Research Notes20158:362

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1316-4

Received: 30 September 2014

Accepted: 3 August 2015

Published: 20 August 2015

Abstract

Background

Recently, a lot of energy devices in the surgical field, especially in the liver surgery, have been developed, and a fine tip LigaSure™, Dolphin Tip Sealer/Divider (DT-SD) also has been used frequently to dissect liver parenchyma as well as ultrasonically activated device (USAD). However, the utility of this instrument for liver dissection (LD) is still unknown. Moreover, to reduce bleeding during LD, a half-grip technique (HGT) was contrived. We herein report an experimental study in swine model to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of HGT using DT-SD for LD.

Methods

The swine model experiment was carried out under general anesthesia by veterinarians. LD was performed repeatedly by DT-SD with the HGT (Group A, n = 6), or the conventional clamp-crush technique (CCT) (Group B, n = 6), and by variable mode USAD (Group C, n = 6). The dissection length and depth (cm) as well as bleeding volume (g) were measured carefully, and the dissection area (cm2) and speed (cm2/min) were calculated precisely. Histological examinations of the dissection surfaces were also executed. Mann–Whitney’s U test was used for Statistical analyses with variance at a significance level of 0.05.

Results

Among the three groups, the three averages of dissection lengths were unexpectedly equalized to 8.3 cm. The dissection area (cm2) was 9.9 ± 5.1 in Group A, 9.8 ± 4.7 in Group B, and 9.9 ± 4.5 in Group C. The mean blood loss during LD was 10.6 ± 14.8 g in Group A, 41.4 ± 39.2 g in Group B, and 34.3 ± 39.2 g in Group C. For Group A, the bleeding rate was the least, 0.9 ± 1.0 g/cm2, and the average depth of coagulation was the thickest, 1.47 ± 0.29 mm, among the three groups (p < 0.05). The dissection speed in Group A (1.3 ± 0.3 cm2/min) was slower, than that in Group C (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

This report indicates firstly that the HGT using DT-SD bring the least blood loss when compared with CCT or USAD. Although the HGT is feasible and useful for LD, to popularize the HGT, further clinical studies will be needed.

Keywords

Liver dissection Fine tip LigaSure Dolphin Tip Sealer/Divider Half-grip technique Less bleeding

Background

Although recent advancing technologies enable to dissect liver parenchyma safely for patients, liver dissection (LD) remains challenging due to the risk of major bleeding and of bile leakage [1, 2]. Currently, LD has been performed by using various types of energy devices, based essentially on each liver surgeon’s preference [35]. Recent devices that have been mainly used for LD consist of cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA), ultrasonically activated device (USAD), Harmonic scalpel, vessel-sealing bipolar devices, fine tip LigaSure™, Dolphin Tip Sealer/Divider (DT-SD), soft-coagulated equipment, drip infusion monopolar coagulator, linear staplers, and microwave as well as radiofrequency coagulators [316].

During LD, three maneuvers, i.e., crushing of the liver parenchyma, hemostatic procedure, and handling of the Glisson’s sheath or hepatic veins are required. As for clamp-crush maneuver for the liver parenchyma, both USAD and SD have been recognized as essential devices [612]. However, even today, it is still unknown which of the two devices is superior in reducing blood loss and improving the safety for LD [512, 1721]. It had been reported that USAD was not appropriate to dissect in the depths of liver parenchyma and in liver cirrhosis [68, 21]. On the other hand, non-negligible bleeding from the liver parenchyma has been experienced frequently with conventional clamp-crush technique (CCT) [5, 10, 15].

Thus, to avoid the bleeding with CCT, we developed a new procedure, namely half-grip technique (HGT) which is accomplished by activation of DT-SD with a half-grip before ratcheting the jaws. Hence, we compared USAD with DT-SD in swine model to evaluate the effectiveness of LD.

Methods

This study was undertaken by approval from the Animal Care Committee of the Jikei University School of Medicine. After the experimental protocol was designed, the animal was intubated on a surgical table in a supine position and maintained under general anesthesia. The swine’s pulse and blood oxygen saturation was monitored continuously and the blood pressure was recorded every 5 min for accurate evaluation and the maintenance of vital signs. Then, we performed LD in 6 animals each, with DT-SD with the HGT (Group A, n = 6), the conventional CCT (Group B, n = 6), and by USAD with variable mode (Group C, n = 6). HGT was achieved by activation of DT-SD with a half-grip, with a gentle force to the handle before ratcheting the jaws. In detail, HGT was started by gently applying pressure to the liver parenchymal surface with the opened jaws of the device. Secondarily, the jaws were slowly closed with activation by depressing a hand switch. This maneuver is the most important procedure in the HGT. The speed of compression of the liver parenchyma was regulated to maintain around a 1-mm-wide blanched area of the parenchyma around the jaws. After the jaws of the device were closed completely, as indicated by the ratcheted locking mechanism, the device was activated twice to ensure complete sealing of the vessels and/or bile ducts between the jaws. Consequently, the liver parenchyma between the jaws was crushed with sufficient coagulation by repeated activation, and divided by the inner blade without any bleeding from the liver parenchyma (Fig. 1). In contrast, conventional CCT was carried out by ratcheting the jaws without activation of the device, i.e., the raw liver parenchyma was crushed firstly with the non-activated jaws until activation of the ratcheted locking mechanism, and then coagulated by the device of once or twice activation. Subsequently, the sealed tissue was divided with the inner blade (Fig. 2). Thirdly, the variable mode USAD was also used conventionally with mild grasping (Fig. 3). The opened jaws of the USAD which sanding gently the liver parenchyma were gradually closed with the variable mode activation. The LD with each device was accomplished at different, but similar parts of the liver. The depth of the LD varied from 1 to 3 cm, depending on the thickness of the liver lobe, and the length of the LD was the range from 5 to 9 cm, depending on the shape of the lobe. Each operative time of the LD was measured precisely by using a digital stop watch. Each dissection area of the liver was calculated using elliptic equation, i.e., the length was regarded as the major axis and the depth was regarded as the minor axis. Blood loss during LD was also measured accurately by determining the weight difference between dry sponges before LD and blood stained sponges after LD. In each group, the mean bleeding rate which was expressed as blood loss per unit area was made by dividing the total bleeding volume by the total dissected area. The dissection speed of the liver was calculated by dividing the dissected area by the operative time for LD. Statistical analyses for the differences between the three groups were performed by the One-Way ANOVA (Excel 2010 Statistics, Version 1.13). P values less than 0.05 were regarded as significant. Every LD surface of the extirpated specimen was observed histologically.
Fig. 1

Liver dissection according to half-grip technique using a fine tip LigaSure, DT-SD. a Gentle attachment of the liver parenchyma, b, c continuous activation during crush, d surface of the liver after partial resection

Fig. 2

Liver dissection according to conventional technique using a fine tip LigaSure, DT-SD. a Clamp first of the liver parenchyma, b, c: oozing hemorrhage during crush, d surface of the liver after partial resection

Fig. 3

Liver dissection according to variable mode using an USAD, a Harmonic scalpel. a Delicate crush of the liver parenchyma with variable mode activation, b bleeding from deep layer of the liver, c hemostasis with a fine tip LigaSure, DT-SD

Results

All operations were performed as planned without any unexpected complications. As shown in Table 1, the average dissection length was unintentionally equal, 8.3 cm among the three groups. The average dissection area (cm2) in the three groups was similar, such as 9.9 ± 5.1 in Group A, 9.8 ± 4.7 in Group B, and 9.9 ± 4.5 in Group C. Table 2 demonstrates that the total amount of blood loss in Group A was 80.0 g, which decreased than the other two groups with a p value less than 0.05. The average blood loss during LD in Group A (13.3 ± 12.9 g) was also fewer than the other two groups. Figure 4 shows bleeding rates which consist of blood loss and dissection area. Particularly, the bleeding rate in Group A decreased in contrast to the other two groups. The average bleeding rate in Group A was 1.0 ± 0.86 g/cm2, which was the lowest among the three groups with statistical significance (Fig. 5, p < 0.05). The dissection speed in Group A was significantly slower than Group C (Fig. 6, p < 0.05) although there was no difference of the dissection speed between Group A and B.
Table 1

Average length and area of dissection in half-grip, conventional technique, or ultrasonically activated device groups

 

Length (cm)

Area (cm2)

A

8.3 ± 1.97

9.9 ± 5.1

B

8.3 ± 2.07

9.8 ± 4.7

C

8.3 ± 1.63

9.9 ± 4.5

A half-grip technique group, B conventional technique group, C ultrasonically activated device group

Table 2

Factors of bleeding in half-grip (A), conventional technique (B), and ultrasonically activated device (C) groups

 

A

B

C

p

Total amount (g)

80.0

227.6

303.6

<0.05

Average (g)

13.3 ± 12.9

37.9 ± 32.8

50.6 ± 39.3

<0.05

Rate (g/cm2)

1.0 ± 0.87

3.25 ± 1.87

4.3 ± 2.30

<0.05

Less than 0.05 p value is regarded as statistically significant. The p value showed the statistical difference between Group A and Group B or C in each factor

Fig. 4

Bleeding volume in half-drip (A), conventional (B) technique using DT-SD, and USAD (C)

Fig. 5

Bleeding rate by half-grip (A), conventional (B) technique using DT-SD, or USAD (C)

Fig. 6

Dissection speed by half-grip (A), conventional (B) technique using DT-SD, or USAD (C)

Macroscopic comparison of the liver surfaces between half-grip and conventional technique using DT-SD revealed that there was obvious difference in the degree of coagulation (Fig. 7). Histological findings show the depth of the coagulation layer from the surfaces of LD (Fig. 8). Each depth of coagulation layer was recognized as a whitish degeneration layer. The coagulated layers from the LD surfaces in Group A were thicker than those of the other two groups (Table 3, p < 0.05), and the average maximum depth of those in Group A was approximately 1.47 ± 0.294 mm. In Group C, the distinction in color between the coagulated and the raw layers was distinctly different, while its difference in Group A was not clear.
Fig. 7

Comparison of the liver surface between half-grip and conventional technique. a Surfaces of liver dissection in the same lobe by half-grip (H) and conventional (C) technique, b a surface of the dissected liver parenchyma with half-grip (H) or conventional (C) technique

Fig. 8

Histological findings of the surface layers of liver dissection in each group. a Half-grip technique, and b conventional technique using DT-SD, or c USAD. Parentheses show the depth of coagulation layer from the liver dissection surface in each group (Masson trichrome stain ×2)

Table 3

Thickness of coagulated layer in surface in half-grip, conventional technique, and ultrasonically activated device groups

Thickness (mm)

A

B

C

p

Maximum

1.47 ± 0.294

0.92 ± 0.264

0.95 ± 0.493

<0.05

Medium

0.48 ± 0.407

0.26 ± 0.111

0.29 ± 0.156

<0.05

Minimum

0.30 ± 0.435

0.04 ± 0.027

0.10 ± 0.059

<0.05

A half-grip technique group, B conventional technique group, C ultrasonically activated device group

Discussion

LD is a critical step during liver surgery. It has been known that intraoperative blood loss during LD closely correlates with morbidity and mortality after liver surgery, which is probably the most important factor to predict long-term survival [13, 2225]. To reduce the bleeding during LD, maintenance of low central venous pressure (less than of 5 cm H2O) and Pringle’s maneuver of clamping the hepatoduodenal ligament, have been used [2529]. Moreover, to minimize the LD bleeding, and to diminish postoperative morbidity, various ways of energy devices have been developed recently [621]. Therefore, contemporary liver surgeons must be competent in the choice and use of appropriate energy devices depending on the circumstances of each individual patient and operative approach [25].

Among the devices that have advanced in the manner described above, a sealer/divider (S/D), LigaSure™ has attracted attention lately. Particularly, the device was designed to seal and divide vessels using a unique principle. Mechanically, LigaSure™ is activated by radiofrequency energy delivered through a complex, computer-controlled algorithm which constantly measures resistance and alters output energy to yield a modulated currency that denatures protein and elastin in vessel walls [19, 30, 31]. The mighty fusion of collagen and elastin in the vessel walls is made from a combination of the RF energy and compression pressure, and the effectiveness in sealing vessels is at least up to 7 mm in diameter has been demonstrated [12, 19, 30]. The usefulness of the device has been reported in several literatures, especially for alimentary tract surgery [3032], and recently for liver surgery [5, 6, 912, 19, 3335].

However, even if LigaSure™ was used for LD, non-negligible bleeding with mechanical destruction of hepatic vessels and liver parenchyma by closing the un-activated jaws of the device until working on the ratchet has been seen frequently [19, 36]. In this experimental study, as for bleeding during LD, which device was feasible between a fine tipped LigaSure™, DT-SD and conventional USAD, and also which procedure was effective between HGT and CCT by using DT-SD, were examined by experimental data under precise measurement situation. Results from this study suggested that HGT was significantly excelled than variable mode USAD or CCT by using DT-SD for decreasing of bleeding volume and bleeding rate during LD.

Meanwhile, the dissection speed of DT-SD with the HGT was slower than that of USAD with variable mode, although there was no difference of dissection speeds between different combination groups. From our experimental data, only a demerit of HGT would be the slow dissection speed.

Moreover, clinically, with the exception of bleeding, bile leak still remains a chief complication after liver surgery. The majority of LD series using SD have indicated a very low or no incidence of bile leakage [911, 19, 34]. An initial clinical pilot study by using the SD for LD which described by an Italian group suggested no evidence of postoperative bile leakage [34]. Similar to USAD [8, 17, 21, 37], there are also some concerns as to its capability to maintain seal integrity in the bile ducts [9, 10, 19], whereas few reports indicated increased incidence of postoperative bile leakage [35, 38]. The SD produces minimal adjacent tissue damage due to few spread of a lower mean temperature when compared with USAD [41, 42]. For example, the mean temperature in the liver parenchyma was reported as 121.3 ± 9.7 °C for USAD, and 76 ± 2.9 °C for SD [42]. Our pathological results also suggest that the difference in color between coagulated and raw layers in Group B (SD) was more unclearly than that in Group C (USAD), suggesting the temperature of the surface layer following LD in Group B was lower than that of Group C. Less liver parenchymal damage by the lower temperature with SD or DT-SD probably leads to less bile leakage after liver surgery. An experimental study using the animals showed the efficacy of SD for the major Glisson’s pedicles and major bile ducts [43]. A randomized study comparing SD to USAD has recently suggested that LigaSure™ group was associated with less bleeding during LD, less bile leakage after liver surgery, and shorter hospital stay [39]. The dominancy of LigaSure™ was also pointed out by a review article which was concluded as the effective device for both open and laparoscopic LD [40].

Conclusions

Accordingly, for LD, HGT appears to be safe and feasible as compared to CCT or USAD from the viewpoint of less bleeding bringing less morbidity. To confirm the simultaneous advantages of less bleeding and less bile leakage with HGT for liver surgery, further clinical studies will be required.

Abbreviations

DT-SD: 

Dolphin Tip Sealer/Divider

USAD: 

ultrasonically activated device

LD: 

liver dissection

HGT: 

half-grip technique

CCT: 

conventional clamp-crush technique

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

This experimental study was conceived and designed by YT, and the surgical procedure performed by YT, SY, and RS. The data was collected by RI, KH and HK, and NO provided statistical analysis. Interpretation of the data was MM, and JS reviewed all histopathological specimens and performed morphometric measurements. The article was written by YT. Critical revision of the article was executed by KY. All authors participated in the revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

Corresponding author, YT is a certificated surgeon of laparoscopic hepatobiliary pancreatic surgery which authorized by Japan Society of Endoscopic Surgery, and always participated in laparoscopic liver resection as an attending surgeon in a high volume centre. YT routinely has investigated to reduce blood loss when liver is resected.

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Surgery, The Jikei University School of Medicine
(2)
Department of Surgery, The Jikei University Kashiwa Hospital

References

  1. Tien-Yu L (1974) A simplified technique for hepatic resection: the crush method. Ann Surg 180:285–290View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Lorenzo CSF, Limm WM, Lurie F, Wong LL (2005) Factors affecting outcome in liver resection. HPB 7:226–230. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13651820510028864 PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Kaneko H, Otsuka Y, Tsuchiya M, Tamura A, Katagiri T, Yamazaki K (2008) Application of devices for safe laparoscopic hepatectomy. HPB 10:219–224. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13651820802166831 PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Gurusamy KS, Pamecha V, Sharma D, Davidson BR (2009) Techniques for liver parenchymal transection in liver resection (review). Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp 1–82. http://www.thecochranelibrary.com
  5. Robert JA, Naveenraj LS (2012) Techniques of hepatic resection. J Gastrointest Oncol 3:28–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2012.006 Google Scholar
  6. Wrightson WR, Edwards MJ, McMasters KM (2000) The role of the ultrasonically activated shears and vascular cutting stapler in hepatic resection. Am Surg 66:1037–1040PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Toyama Y, Miyake R, Son K, Yoshida S, Usuba T, Nojiri T et al (2006) Three-port laparoscopic partial hepatectomy using an ultrasonically activated device (USAD). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 13:317–322. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-005-1071-3 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gotohda N, Konishi M, Takahashi S, Kinoshita T, Kato Y, Kinoshita T (2012) Surgical outcome of liver transection by the crush-clamping technique combined with harmonic FOCUS™. World J Surg 36:2156–2160. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1624-y View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Douglas LC, Douglas PS, Richard JC, Dunne JB (2005) Laparoscopic nonanatomic hepatic resection employing the LigaSure device. JSLS 9:35–38Google Scholar
  10. Saiura A, Yamamoto J, Koga R, Sakamoto Y, Kokudo N, Seki M et al (2006) Usefulness of LigaSure for liver resection: analysis by randomized clinical trial. Am J Surg 192:41–45. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.01.025 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Saiura A, Yamamoto R, Koga R, Seki M, Yamaguchi T (2008) Liver transection using the LigaSure sealing system. HPB 10:239–243. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13651820802167714 PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Chiappa A, Zbar AP, Bertani E, Pace U, Viale G, Pruneri G et al (2007) The Ligasure vessel sealer in liver resection: a pilot study. Hepatogastroenterology 54:2353–2357PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Geller DA, Tsung A, Maheshwari V, Rutstein LA, Fung JJ, Marsh JW (2005) Hepatic resection in 170 patients using saline-cooled radiofrequency coagulation. HPB 7:208–213. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13651820510028945 PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Xia F, Wang S, Ma K, Feng X, Su Y, Dong J (2008) The use of saline-linked radiofrequency dissecting sealer for liver transection in patients with cirrhosis. J Surg Res 149:110–114. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2008.01.002 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Corvera CU, Dada SA, Kirkland JG, Garrett RD, Way LW, Stewart L (2006) Association for academic surgery, 2006 bipolar pulse coagulation for resection of the cirrhotic liver. J Surg Res 136:182–186. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.05.012 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Haghighi KS, Steinke K, Hazratwala K, Kam PCA, Daniel S, Morris DL (2005) Controlled study of inline radiofrequency ablation (ILRFA) assisted transection of ovine liver. J Surg Res 123:139–143. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2004.07.021 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Jagannath P, Chhabra DG, Sutariya KR, Shah RC (2010) Fusion technique for liver transection with Kelly-clysis and Harmonic technology. World J Surg 34:101–105. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0282-1 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lester BR, Miller K, Boers A, Harris DC, Gamble WG (2010) Comparison of in vivo clinical performance and shaft temperature and in vitro tissue temperature and transection times between new and reprocessed Harmonic scalpels. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2010, 20:e150–e159. http://www.surgical-laparoscopy.com
  19. Romano F, Garancini M, Caprotti R, Bovo G, Conti M, Perego E et al (2007) Hepatic resection using a bipolar vessel sealing device: technical and histological analysis. HPB 9:339–344. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13651820701504181 PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Doklestic K, Karamarkovic A, Stefanovic B, Stefanovic B, Milic N, Gregoric P et al (2012) The efficacy of three transection techniques of the liver resection: a randomized clinical trial. Hepatogastroenterology 59:1501–1506PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Belli G, Limongelli P, Belli A, Fantini C, D’agostino A, Cioffi L et al (2008) Ultrasonically activated device for parenchymal division during open hepatectomy. HPB 10:234–238. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13651820802166906 PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Iwatsuki S, Starzl TE (1988) Personal experience with 411 hepatic resections. Ann Surg 208:421–432PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Jarnagin WR, Gonen M, Fong Y, DeMatteo RP, Ben-Porat L, Little S et al (2002) Improvement in perioperative outcome after hepatic resection: analysis of 1,803 consecutive cases over the past decade. Ann Surg 236:397–407. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.SLA.0000029003.66466.B3 PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang CC, Iyer SG, Low JK, Lin C-Y, Wang S-H, Lu S-N et al (2009) Perioperative factors affecting long-term outcomes of 473 consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 16:1832–1842. doi:https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0448-y View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Melendez JA, Arslan V, Fischer ME, Wuest D, Jarnagin WR, Fong Y et al (1998) Perioperative outcomes of major hepatic resections under low central venous pressure anesthesia: blood loss, blood transfusion, and the risk of postoperative renal dysfunction. J Am Coll Surg 187:620–625View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Belghiti J, Noun R, Malafosse R, Jagot P, Sauvanet A, Pierangeli F et al (1999) Continuous versus intermittent portal triad clamping for liver resection: a controlled study. Ann Surg 229:369–375PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Benzoni E, Lorenzin D, Baccarani U, Adani GL, Favero A, Cojutti A et al (2006) Resective surgery for liver tumor: a multivariate analysis of causes and risk factors linked to postoperative complications. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 5:526–533. http://www.hbpdint.com
  28. Van der Bilt JDW, Livestro DP, Borren A, van Hillegersberg R (2007) European survey on the application of vascular clamping in liver surgery. Dig Surg 24:423–435. doi:https://doi.org/10.1159/000108325 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Van den Broek MAJ, Bloemen JG, Dello SAWG, van de Poll MCG, Olde Damink SWM, Dejong CHC (2011) Randomized controlled trial analyzing the effect of 15 or 30 min intermittent Pringle maneuver on hepatocellular damage during liver surgery. J Hepatol 55:337–345View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Targarona EM, Balague C, Marin J, Neto RB, Martinez C, Garriga J et al (2005) Energy sources for laparoscopic colectomy: a prospective randomized comparison of conventional electrosurgery, bipolar computer-controlled electrosurgery and ultrasonic dissection. Operative outcome and costs analysis. Surg Innov 12:339–344. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/155335060501200409
  31. Hűbner M, Hahnloser D, Hetzer F, Műller MK, Clavien PA, Demartines N (2007) A prospective randomized comparison of two instruments for dissection and vessel sealing in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 21:592–594. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-006-9034-6 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Takiguchi N, Nagata M, Soda H, Nomura Y, Takayama W, Yasutomi J et al (2010) Multicenter randomized comparison of LigaSure versus conventional surgery for gastrointestinal carcinoma. Surg Today 40:1050–1054. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-009-4234-z View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Nanashima A, Tobinaga S, Abo T, Nonaka T, Sawai T, Nagayasu T (2010) Usefulness of the combination procedure of crash clamping and vessel sealing for hepatic resection. J Surg Oncol 102:179–183. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21575 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Romano F, Franciosi C, Caprotti R, Uggeri F, Uggeri F (2005) Hepatic surgery using the Ligasure vessel sealing system. World J Surg 29:110–112. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-004-7541-y View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Matthews BD, Pratt BL, Backus CL, Kercher KW, Mostafa G, Lentzner A et al (2001) Effectiveness of the ultrasonic coagulating shears, LigaSure vessel sealer, and surgical clip application in biliary surgery: a comparative analysis. Am Surg 67:901–906PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Ikeda M, Hasegawa K, Sano K, Imamura H, Beck Y, Sugawara Y et al (2009) The vessel sealing system (LigaSure) in hepatic resection: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 250:199–203. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181a334f9 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Sugo H, Mikami Y, Matsumoto F, Tsumura H, Watanabe Y, Kojima K et al (2000) Hepatic resection using the Harmonic scalpel. Surg Today 30:959–962View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Kim J, Ahmad SA, Lowy AM, Buell JF, Pennington LJ, Soldano DA et al (2003) Increased biliary fistulas after liver resection with the harmonic scalpel. Am Surg 69:815–819PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Campagnacci R, Sanctis AD, Baldarelli M, Emiddio MD, Organetti L, Nisi M et al (2007) Hepatic resections by means of electrothermal bipolar vessel device (EBVS) LigaSure V: early experience. Surg Endosc 21:2280–2284. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9384-8 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Slakey DP (2008) Laparoscopic liver resection using a bipolar vessel-sealing device: LigaSure®. HPB 10:253–255. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13651820802166880 PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Campbell PA, Cresswell AB, Frank TG, Cuschieri A (2003) Real-time thermography during energized vessel sealing and dissection. Surg Endosc 17:1640–1645. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-8781-2 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Kim FJ, Chammas MF Jr, Gewehr E, Morihisa M, Caldas F, Hayacibara E et al (2008) Temperature safety profile of laparoscopic devices: harmonic ACE (ACE), Ligasure V (LV), and plasma trisector (PT). Surg Endosc 22:1464–1469. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9650-9 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Nii A, Shimada M, Ikegami T, Mori H, Imura S, Arakawa Y et al (2008) Efficacy of vessel sealing system for major Glisson bundles and major bile ducts. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 15:522–527. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-007-1292-8 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Toyama et al. 2015

Advertisement