Randomized clinical trial of stapler hepatectomy versus LigaSure™ transection in elective hepatic resection. BJS 2018; 105: 1119-1127.
Published: 11th July 2018
Authors: J. Fritzmann, J. Kirchberg, D. Sturm, A. B. Ulrich, P. Knebel, A. Mehrabi et al.
Previous studies have demonstrated stapler hepatectomy and use of various energy devices to be safe alternatives to the clamp‐crushing technique in elective hepatic resection. In this randomized trial, the effectiveness and safety of stapler hepatectomy were compared with those of parenchymal transection with the LigaSure™ vessel sealing system.
A total of 138 patients were analysed, 69 in the LigaSure™ and 69 in the stapler hepatectomy group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups. Mean intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the LigaSure™ group than the stapler hepatectomy group: 1101 (95 per cent c.i. 915 to 1287) versus 961 (752 to 1170) ml (P = 0·028). The parenchymal transection time was significantly shorter in the stapler group (P = 0·005), as was the total duration of operation (P = 0·027). Surgical morbidity did not differ between the groups, nor did the grade of complications.
Stapler hepatectomy was associated with reduced blood loss and a shorter duration of operation than the LigaSure™ device for parenchymal transection in elective partial hepatectomy. Registration number: NCT01858987 (
You may also be interested in
Clinical value of additional resection of a margin‐positive distal bile duct in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. BJS 2019; 106: 774-782.
Authors: S. Otsuka, T. Ebata, Y. Yokoyama, T. Mizuno, T. Tsukahara, Y. Shimoyama et al.
Authors: W. S. Tummers, J. V. Groen, B. G. Sibinga Mulder, A. Farina‐Sarasqueta, J. Morreau, H. Putter et al.
Multicentre study of multidisciplinary team assessment of pancreatic cancer resectability and treatment allocation. BJS 2019; 106: 756-764.
Authors: J. Kirkegård, E. K. Aahlin, M. Al‐Saiddi, S. O. Bratlie, M. Coolsen, R. J. de Haas et al.
Outcomes following pancreatic surgery using three different thromboprophylaxis regimens. BJS 2019; 106: 765-773.
Authors: R. G. Hanna‐Sawires, J. V. Groen, F. A. Klok, R. A. E. M. Tollenaar, W. E. Mesker, R. J. Swijnenburg et al.
Major hepatectomy with or without pancreatoduodenectomy for advanced gallbladder cancer. BJS 2019; 106: 626-635.
Authors: T. Mizuno, T. Ebata, Y. Yokoyama, T. Igami, J. Yamaguchi, S. Onoe et al.
Systematic review of clinical prediction models for survival after surgery for resectable pancreatic cancer. BJS 2019; 106: 342-354.
Authors: M. Strijker, J. W. Chen, T. H. Mungroop, N. B. Jamieson, C. H. van Eijck, E. W. Steyerberg et al.
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized trial of oral versus enteral feeding for patients with postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. BJS 2019; 106: 190-198.
Authors: J.‐M. Wu, T.‐C. Kuo, H.‐A. Chen, C.‐H. Wu, S.‐R. Lai, C.‐Y. Yang et al.
Clinical and experimental studies of intraperitoneal lipolysis and the development of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after pancreatic surgery. BJS 2019; 106: 616-625.
Authors: Y. Uchida, T. Masui, K. Nakano, A. Yogo, A. Sato, K. Nagai et al.
Multicentre propensity score‐matched study of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for colorectal liver metastases. BJS 2019; 106: 783-789.
Authors: M. J. van der Poel, L. Barkhatov, D. Fuks, G. Berardi, F. Cipriani, A. Aljaiuossi et al.
Authors: T. M. Mackay, U. F. Wellner, L. B. van Rijssen, T. F. Stoop, O. R. Busch, B. Groot Koerkamp et al.
Proposal for a new classification for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma based on tumour depth. BJS 2019; 106: 427-435.
Authors: K. Shinohara, T. Ebata, Y. Shimoyama, M. Nakaguro, T. Mizuno, K. Matsuo et al.
Systematic review of management of incidental gallbladder cancer after cholecystectomy. BJS 2019; 106: 32-45.
Authors: K. Søreide, R. V. Guest, E. M. Harrison, T. J. Kendall, O. J. Garden, S. J. Wigmore et al.