Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Radiofrequency-assisted versus clamp-crush liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Xiao, Wei-Kai; Chen, Dong; Hu, An-Bin; Peng, Bao-Gang; Guo, Yi-Zhan; Fu, Shun-Jun; Liang, Li-Jian; Li, Shao-Qiang.
Afiliação
  • Xiao WK; Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  • Chen D; Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  • Hu AB; Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  • Peng BG; Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  • Guo YZ; Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  • Fu SJ; Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  • Liang LJ; Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  • Li SQ; Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address: lisq@medmail.com.cn.
J Surg Res ; 187(2): 471-83, 2014 Apr.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24290429
BACKGROUND: Conflicting results were found between radiofrequency-assisted liver resection (RF-LR) and clamp-crush liver resection (CC-LR) during liver surgery. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs to compare the effectiveness and safety of RF-LR versus CC-LR during liver surgery. METHODS: Articles comparing RF-LR and CC-LR that were published before December 2012 were retrieved and subjected to a systematic review and meta-analysis. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out by Review Manager Version 5.2 software. RESULTS: In all, four RCTs and five nonrandomized studies evaluating 728 patients were included. Compared with CC-LR, the RF-LR group had significantly reduced total intraoperative blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -187 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -312, -62; data on 628 patients), and blood loss during liver transection (WMD = -143.7 mL; 95% CI = -200, -87; data on 190 patients). However, RF-LR is associated with a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess than the clamp-crushing method (odds ratio = 3.61; 95% CI = 1.26, 10.32; data on 366 patients). No significant difference was observed between both the groups for the incidence of both blood transfusion and bile leak. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently not sufficient evidence to support or refute the use of RF-LR in liver surgery. RF-LR has advantages in terms of reducing blood loss. However, RF-LR may increase the rates of both bile leak and abdominal abscess. So, the safety of RF-LR has not been established. Future well-designed RCTs are awaited to further investigate the efficacy and safety of RF devices in liver resection.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ablação por Cateter / Hemostasia Cirúrgica / Hepatectomia / Hepatopatias / Neoplasias Hepáticas Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2014 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ablação por Cateter / Hemostasia Cirúrgica / Hepatectomia / Hepatopatias / Neoplasias Hepáticas Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2014 Tipo de documento: Article