20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of postoperative liver function between different dissection techniques during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aim: In this study, we investigated and compared the effect of different types of dissector (Maryland vs Hook) on changes in liver function tests (LFTs) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients & methods: The enrolled patients were divided into two groups. Group A patients underwent dissection by Maryland dissecting forceps, group B by Hook dissecting instrument. LFTs were measured preoperatively and at 1 day and 1 week, postoperatively. Results: For both Maryland and Hook dissection, the 1-day postoperative values for total bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase were significantly higher than the preoperative values. Also, there were no statistical differences between Hook and Maryland. Conclusion: The elevation of LFTs seems to be attributed to other factors.

          Lay abstract

          Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is an alternative to laparotomy and has become the standard treatment of benign gallbladder diseases. However, it has been noted that (following LC) the serum level of certain liver function tests (LFT) raises markedly in patients who had preoperatively normal LFT. Pneumoperitoneum is the main contributing factor. This is the first study to evaluate the effect of different dissectors on alteration of LFTs after LC. As there were no statistical differences in the variation of LFTs between the Maryland and Hook, it seems that the dissector type has no effect on the alteration of LFTs.

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Mechanism and role of intrinsic regulation of hepatic arterial blood flow: hepatic arterial buffer response.

          Hepatic parenchymal cell metabolic status does not control the hepatic arterial blood flow. Portal blood flow is a major intrinsic regulator of hepatic arterial tone. Hepatic arterial blood flow changes so as to buffer the impact of portal flow alterations on total hepatic blood flow, thus tending to regulate total hepatic flow at a constant level. This response is called the "hepatic arterial buffer response." The mechanism of the arterial buffer response seems to depend on portal blood flow washing away local concentrations of adenosine (production may be constant) from the area of the arterial resistance site. If portal flow decreases, less adenosine is washed away and the local concentration rises resulting in arterial dilation. Putative roles. Hepatic clearance of many hormones and endogenous compounds is blood flow limited. Constancy of total hepatic blood flow is crucial to homeostasis, and severe changes in the magnitude of flow can rapidly alter plasma concentrations of such compounds. The buffer may also prevent portal flow changes from severely altering intrahepatic blood pressures and liver blood volume. Pathological implications. If the O2 supply-to-demand ratio becomes too low, as in the case of a hypermetabolic liver (chronic alcohol exposure), a state of tissue hypoxia can exist without producing hepatic arterial dilation. Therapeutic implications. Livers show protection and improved recovery from several toxic agents, including alcohol, if the O2 supply-to-demand ratio can be increased. Arterial dilation by means of intra-arterial or intra-portal adenosine may prove useful.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Changes in the level of serum liver enzymes after laparoscopic surgery.

            The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of laparoscopic surgery on liver function in humans and the possible mechanisms behind such effect. Blood samples from 286 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and 40 patients who underwent open cholecystectomy (OC) were tested for liver function by measuring the level of serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) before and after the operations. The same tests were also applied to 18 laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection (LCR) patients and 23 open colorectal cancer resection (OCR) patients to determine whether CO(2) pneumoperitoneum could alter the serum liver enzymes. The level of serum ALT and AST increased significantly during the first 48 hours post operations in both LC and LCR patients. However, no significant change of the serum liver enzymes was detected in both OC and OCR patients. As a result, there was statistically significant difference in change of both ALT and AST levels between LC and OC patients and LCR and OCR patients, respectively. By the 7(th) day post operation, the level of both enzymes returned to normal values in LC, OC and OCR patients except LCR patients whose enzymes remained at a higher level. Transient elevation of hepatic transaminases occurred after laparoscopic surgery. The major causative factor seemed to be the CO(2) pneumoperitoneum. In most of the laparoscopic surgery patients, the transient elevation of serum liver enzymes showed no apparent clinical implications. However, if preoperative liver function was very poor, laparoscopic surgery may not be the best choice for the treatment of patients with certain abdominal diseases.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Randomized clinical trial of ultrasonic versus electrocautery dissection of the gallbladder in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

              Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is frequently complicated by gallbladder perforation and loss of bile or stones into the peritoneal cavity. The aim of this study was to compare the use of ultrasonic dissection and electrocautery with respect to the incidence of gallbladder perforation and intraoperative consequences. Between January 1998 and January 2000, 200 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to electrocautery or ultrasonic dissection of the gallbladder. The main outcome measures were gallbladder perforation, operating time and the number of times the lens was cleaned. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. The perforation rate differed significantly: 16 per cent for ultrasonic dissection (n = 96) and 50 per cent for electrocautery (n = 103) (P < 0.001). The operating time of the least experienced surgeons, who had performed fewer than ten laparoscopic cholecystectomies, was significantly shorter when ultrasonic dissection was used, compared with electrocautery. The number of times the lens needed to be cleaned was significantly lower when ultrasonic dissection was used in complicated gallbladders (P < 0.035). At logistic regression analysis, the risk of perforation in the electrocautery group was about four times higher (odds ratio 0.26, P < 0.001) than that in the ultrasonic group. When the groups were matched for prognostic factors, including body mass index and surgical experience, the results were similar to those obtained with univariate and multivariate analysis. The use of ultrasonic dissection in laparoscopic cholecystectomy reduces the incidence of gallbladder perforation and helps the operation to progress. Less experienced surgeons benefit most from ultrasonic dissection, particularly in complicated intraoperative circumstances. Copyright 2003 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                FSOA
                Future Science:Open Access
                Future Science Ltd (London, UK )
                2056-5623
                07 February 2020
                January 2020
                : 0
                : 0
                : FSO462
                Affiliations
                1Department of General Surgery & Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science & Technology, Irbid 22110, Jordan
                2King Abdullah University Hospital, Jordan University of Science & Technology, Irbid 22110, Jordan
                Author notes
                [* ]Author for correspondence: Tel.: +962 7977 43009; Fax: +962 2720 1064; drtaglebmazahreh@ 123456yahoo.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7396-5725
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-61209-475X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2328-9383
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1261-4320
                Article
                10.2144/fsoa-2019-0160
                84fda1cc-f275-4e45-89be-7c92c5f03b9e
                © 2020 Mazahreh, Tagleb

                This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License

                History
                : 13 December 2019
                : 17 January 2020
                : 07 February 2020
                Page count
                Pages: 6
                Categories
                Research Article

                laparoscopic cholecystectomy,liver function tests,Maryland dissector,Hook dissector,bilirubin

                Comments

                Comment on this article