Comparison of operative outcomes between monopolar and bipolar coagulation in hepatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single center

Various hemostatic devices have been utilized to reduce blood loss during hepatectomy. Nonetheless, a comparison between monopolar and bipolar coagulation, particularly their usefulness or inferiority, has been poorly documented. The aim of this study is to reveal the characteristics of these hemost...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMC gastroenterology 2022-03, Vol.22 (1), p.154-154, Article 154
Hauptverfasser: Muraki, Ryuta, Morita, Yoshifumi, Ida, Shinya, Kitajima, Ryo, Furuhashi, Satoru, Takeda, Makoto, Kikuchi, Hirotoshi, Hiramatsu, Yoshihiro, Fukazawa, Atsuko, Sakaguchi, Takanori, Fukushima, Mayu, Okada, Eisaku, Takeuchi, Hiroya
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Various hemostatic devices have been utilized to reduce blood loss during hepatectomy. Nonetheless, a comparison between monopolar and bipolar coagulation, particularly their usefulness or inferiority, has been poorly documented. The aim of this study is to reveal the characteristics of these hemostatic devices. A total of 264 patients who underwent open hepatectomy at our institution from January 2009 to December 2018 were included. Monopolar and bipolar hemostatic devices were used in 160 (monopolar group) and 104 (bipolar group) cases, respectively. Operative outcomes and thermal damage to the resected specimens were compared between these groups using propensity score matching according to background factors. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for postoperative complications. After propensity score matching, 73 patients per group were enrolled. The monopolar group had significantly lower total operative time (239 vs. 275 min; P = 0.013) and intraoperative blood loss (487 vs. 790 mL; P 
ISSN:1471-230X
1471-230X
DOI:10.1186/s12876-022-02231-y