...
首页> 外文期刊>The British Journal of Surgery >Randomized clinical trial of stapler versus clamp-crushing transection in elective liver resection
【24h】

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

机译:选举肝切除术中订书机与夹紧碾压的随机临床试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

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.
机译:背景:已经开发了各种装置以促进肝横衰,降低肝切除液中的失血。与经典的夹具碎解技术相比,这些都不是经过验证的优势。该随机临床试验比较了订书机横划线的效果和安全性与开放性肝切除过程中的夹钳破碎。方法:2010年1月至2011年1月间选修肝切除患者随机分配给订书机横截面或夹具破碎技术。主要终点是术中失血的总量。次要终点包括转化时间,操作持续时间,并发症率和切除边距。结果:共注册130名患者,65名夹击压碎,65例为订书机横截面。总术中失血的群体之间没有差异:中位数(I.Q.)1050(525-1650)分别与925(450-1425)mL(P = 0·279)。归一化到转化表面积的总术失血的差异在统计学上没有统计学意义(P = 0·092)。在订书机横截面(P = 0·002)中,实质衰老期间的血液损失显着较低,如实质转化时间(平均值(SD)30(21)与9(7)分钟用于夹住和订书机转育基团分别; P <0·001)和操作总持续时间(平均值(SD)221(86)与190(85)分钟; P = 0·047)。术后发病率没有显着差异(p = 0·863)或组之间的死亡率(p = 0·684)。结论:订书机转育是一种安全技术,但与夹紧破碎技术相比,不降低供电肝切除术中的术中失血。

著录项

  • 来源
    《The British Journal of Surgery》 |2014年第3期|共8页
  • 作者单位

    Department of General Visceral and Transplant Surgery Heidelberg Germany;

    Department of General Visceral and Transplant Surgery Heidelberg Germany;

    Department of General Visceral and Transplant Surgery Heidelberg Germany;

    Department of General Visceral and Transplant Surgery Heidelberg Germany;

    Department of General Visceral and Transplant Surgery Heidelberg Germany;

    Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics University of Heidelberg Heidelberg Germany;

    Department of General Visceral and Transplant Surgery Heidelberg Germany;

    Department of General Visceral and Transplant Surgery Heidelberg Germany;

    Department of General Visceral and Transplant Surgery Heidelberg Germany;

    Department of General Visceral and Transplant Surgery Heidelberg Germany;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 外科学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号