A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Differences between bipolar compression and ultrasonic devices for parenchymal transection during laparoscopic liver resection. | LitMetric

Objectives:   In laparoscopic liver resection, multiple options for parenchymal transection techniques exist; however, none have emerged as superior. The aim of this study was to compare operative characteristics and outcomes between bipolar compression and ultrasonic devices used for parenchymal transection during laparoscopic liver resection.

Methods:   A review of a prospective hepatopancreatobiliary database from December 2002 to August 2009 identified 54 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection with parenchymal division using either a bipolar compression (n= 35) or an ultrasonic (n= 19) device. Operative data, histology and 90-day complication rates were compared between the groups using analysis of variance (anova) and Pearson's chi-squared test.

Results:   The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of age, body mass index, parenchymal steatosis/inflammation or number of segments resected. A shorter time of parenchymal transection was noted for the bipolar compression device (median: 35 min; range: 20-65 min) vs. the ultrasonic device (median: 55 min; range: 29-75 min) (P < 0.001). Median total operative time was also shorter using the bipolar compression device (130 min) than the ultrasonic device (180 min) (P= 0.050). No significant differences between device groups were noted for estimated blood loss, complications of any type or liver-specific complications.

Conclusions:   Bipolar compression devices may offer advantages over ultrasonic devices in terms of decreased transection time and total operative time. No differences in postoperative complications in laparoscopic liver resection emerged between patients operated using the devices.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3277055PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-2574.2011.00414.xDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bipolar compression
24
laparoscopic liver
20
parenchymal transection
16
liver resection
16
compression ultrasonic
12
ultrasonic devices
12
ultrasonic device
12
devices parenchymal
8
transection laparoscopic
8
compression device
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!