Continuous versus intermittent portal triad clamping for liver resection: a controlled study

Abstract

Objective: The authors compared the intra- and postoperative course of patients undergoing liver resections under continuous pedicular clamping (CPC) or intermittent pedicular clamping (IPC).

Summary background data: Reduced blood loss during liver resection is achieved by pedicular clamping. There is controversy about the benefits of IPC over CPC in humans in terms of hepatocellular injury and blood loss control in normal and abnormal liver parenchyma.

Methods: Eighty-six patients undergoing liver resections were included in a prospective randomized study comparing the intra- and postoperative course under CPC (n = 42) or IPC (n = 44) with periods of 15 minutes of clamping and 5 minutes of unclamping. The data were further analyzed according to the presence (steatosis >20% and chronic liver disease) or absence of abnormal liver parenchyma.

Results: The two groups of patients were similar in terms of age, sex, nature of the liver tumors, results of preoperative assessment, proportion of patients undergoing major or minor hepatectomy, and nature of nontumorous liver parenchyma. Intraoperative blood loss during liver transsection was significantly higher in the IPC group. In the CPC group, postoperative liver enzymes and serum bilirubin levels were significantly higher in the subgroup of patients with abnormal liver parenchyma. Major postoperative deterioration of liver function occurred in four patients with abnormal liver parenchyma, with two postoperative deaths. All of them were in the CPC group.

Conclusions: This clinical controlled study clearly demonstrated the better parenchymal tolerance to IPC over CPC, especially in patients with abnormal liver parenchyma.