Cargando…

Tissue damage with different surgical techniques in a porcine model of liver resection: implications for living-donor liver transplantation?

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: For living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) it is of paramount importance to preserve as much viable liver tissue as possible to avoid postoperative complications in the donor and recipient. The depth of tissue damage caused by common surgical techniques for liver resection has...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Goralczyk, Armin Dietmar, Obed, Aiman, große Beilage, Angelika, Sattler, Burckhardt, Füzesi, Laszlo, Lorf, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Japan 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291831/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21127914
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00534-010-0347-4
_version_ 1782225181301800960
author Goralczyk, Armin Dietmar
Obed, Aiman
große Beilage, Angelika
Sattler, Burckhardt
Füzesi, Laszlo
Lorf, Thomas
author_facet Goralczyk, Armin Dietmar
Obed, Aiman
große Beilage, Angelika
Sattler, Burckhardt
Füzesi, Laszlo
Lorf, Thomas
author_sort Goralczyk, Armin Dietmar
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: For living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) it is of paramount importance to preserve as much viable liver tissue as possible to avoid postoperative complications in the donor and recipient. The depth of tissue damage caused by common surgical techniques for liver resection has not been studied so far. METHODS: Here we compared the depth of tissue damage and the immunohistochemical expression of heat shock protein (HSP) 70, a marker for tissue damage, in a porcine model of liver resection, to assess the effect of different surgical techniques, i.e., blunt dissection (BD), and dissection with an ultrasound aspirator (UA), an ultrasound scalpel (US), or a water-jet (WJ). RESULTS: Analysis with linear mixed effects models (LME) showed significantly less tissue damage with BD and UA than with US and WJ (joint p value <0.001). Damage also increased within 6 h after surgery (p value = 0.004). Semiquantitative evaluation of HSP 70 showed increased expression after resection with US compared to all other resection methods (p value <0.001), indicating increased tissue damage with this method. CONCLUSION: We suggest that in cases of liver resection for LDLT surgeons should reevaluate using US and WJ because of possible excessive tissue damage compared to BD and UA. Overall we advocate the use of BD as it requires no special equipment and, hence, has considerably higher cost-effectiveness without compromising tissue preservation and clinical outcome and is readily available even in low-tech environments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3291831
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Springer Japan
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32918312012-03-21 Tissue damage with different surgical techniques in a porcine model of liver resection: implications for living-donor liver transplantation? Goralczyk, Armin Dietmar Obed, Aiman große Beilage, Angelika Sattler, Burckhardt Füzesi, Laszlo Lorf, Thomas J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci Original Article BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: For living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) it is of paramount importance to preserve as much viable liver tissue as possible to avoid postoperative complications in the donor and recipient. The depth of tissue damage caused by common surgical techniques for liver resection has not been studied so far. METHODS: Here we compared the depth of tissue damage and the immunohistochemical expression of heat shock protein (HSP) 70, a marker for tissue damage, in a porcine model of liver resection, to assess the effect of different surgical techniques, i.e., blunt dissection (BD), and dissection with an ultrasound aspirator (UA), an ultrasound scalpel (US), or a water-jet (WJ). RESULTS: Analysis with linear mixed effects models (LME) showed significantly less tissue damage with BD and UA than with US and WJ (joint p value <0.001). Damage also increased within 6 h after surgery (p value = 0.004). Semiquantitative evaluation of HSP 70 showed increased expression after resection with US compared to all other resection methods (p value <0.001), indicating increased tissue damage with this method. CONCLUSION: We suggest that in cases of liver resection for LDLT surgeons should reevaluate using US and WJ because of possible excessive tissue damage compared to BD and UA. Overall we advocate the use of BD as it requires no special equipment and, hence, has considerably higher cost-effectiveness without compromising tissue preservation and clinical outcome and is readily available even in low-tech environments. Springer Japan 2010-12-03 2011-05 /pmc/articles/PMC3291831/ /pubmed/21127914 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00534-010-0347-4 Text en © Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Springer 2010
spellingShingle Original Article
Goralczyk, Armin Dietmar
Obed, Aiman
große Beilage, Angelika
Sattler, Burckhardt
Füzesi, Laszlo
Lorf, Thomas
Tissue damage with different surgical techniques in a porcine model of liver resection: implications for living-donor liver transplantation?
title Tissue damage with different surgical techniques in a porcine model of liver resection: implications for living-donor liver transplantation?
title_full Tissue damage with different surgical techniques in a porcine model of liver resection: implications for living-donor liver transplantation?
title_fullStr Tissue damage with different surgical techniques in a porcine model of liver resection: implications for living-donor liver transplantation?
title_full_unstemmed Tissue damage with different surgical techniques in a porcine model of liver resection: implications for living-donor liver transplantation?
title_short Tissue damage with different surgical techniques in a porcine model of liver resection: implications for living-donor liver transplantation?
title_sort tissue damage with different surgical techniques in a porcine model of liver resection: implications for living-donor liver transplantation?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291831/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21127914
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00534-010-0347-4
work_keys_str_mv AT goralczykarmindietmar tissuedamagewithdifferentsurgicaltechniquesinaporcinemodelofliverresectionimplicationsforlivingdonorlivertransplantation
AT obedaiman tissuedamagewithdifferentsurgicaltechniquesinaporcinemodelofliverresectionimplicationsforlivingdonorlivertransplantation
AT großebeilageangelika tissuedamagewithdifferentsurgicaltechniquesinaporcinemodelofliverresectionimplicationsforlivingdonorlivertransplantation
AT sattlerburckhardt tissuedamagewithdifferentsurgicaltechniquesinaporcinemodelofliverresectionimplicationsforlivingdonorlivertransplantation
AT fuzesilaszlo tissuedamagewithdifferentsurgicaltechniquesinaporcinemodelofliverresectionimplicationsforlivingdonorlivertransplantation
AT lorfthomas tissuedamagewithdifferentsurgicaltechniquesinaporcinemodelofliverresectionimplicationsforlivingdonorlivertransplantation