+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      Read this article at

          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.



          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.


          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.


          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 34

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

            Laparoscopic insufflation of the abdomen reduces portal venous flow.

            The adverse effects of sustained elevated intraperitoneal pressure (IPP) on cardiovascular, pulmonary and renal systems have been well documented by several reported experimental and clinical studies. Alteration in the splanchnic circulation has also been reported in animal experiments, but details of the exact hemodynamic changes in the flow to solid intraabdominal organs brought on by a raised intraperitoneal pressure in the human are not available. The aim of the present study was to estimate effect of increased IPP on the portal venous flow, using duplex Doppler ultrasonography in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The studies were performed using the SSD 2000 Multiview Ultrasound Scanner and the UST 5536 7.0-MHz laparoscopic transducer probe. Details of the measurements were standardized in according to preset protocol. Statistical evaluation of the data was conducted by the two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The flow measurement data have demonstrated a significant (p < 0.001) decrease in the portal flow with increase in the intraperitoneal pressure. The mean portal flow fell from 990 +/- 100 ml/min to 568 +/- 81 ml/min (-37%) at an IPP of 7.0 mmHg and to 440 +/- 56 mmHg (-53%) when the IPP reached 14 mmHg. The increased intraperitoneal pressure necessary to perform laparoscopic operations reduces substantially the portal venous flow. The extent of the volume flow reduction is related to the level of intraperitoneal pressure. This reduction of flow may depress the hepatic reticular endothelial function (possibly enhancing tumor cell spread). In contrast, the reduced portal flow may enhance cryoablative effect during laparoscopic cryosurgery for metastatic liver disease by diminishing the heat sink effect. These findings suggest the need for a selective policy, low pressure or gas-less techniques to positive-pressure interventions, during laparoscopic surgery in accordance with the disease and the therapeutic intent.
              • 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.

                Author and article information

                Future Sci OA
                Future Sci OA
                Future Science OA
                Future Science Ltd (London, UK )
                07 February 2020
                April 2020
                07 February 2020
                : 6
                : 4
                [1 ]Department of General Surgery & Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science & Technology, Irbid 22110, Jordan
                [2 ]King 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@
                © 2020 Tagleb Mazahreh

                This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License

                Pages: 6
                Research Article


                Comment on this article