RESUMO
Blood loss and bile leak remain major issues during liver resection. We aimed to compare the efficacy of two commonly used transaction techniques; the ultrasonic-dissector [UD] and ultrasonic-coagulation-shears [UCS]. 143 consecutive patients were enrolled into a prospective, observational, non-randomized, comparative study, performed from the March 2008 till end of May 2009, in Liver Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Birmingham, UK. Outcomes looked at are blood-loos, speed of transaction and morbidity. Study groups are comparable except that there are more major resections in the UD than in the UCS, [86.9 and 42.4% respectively, p=0.04]. There is no statistically significant difference [SSD] in the mean surface areas of resected liver specimens between the two groups [114 [ +/- 11] versus 94 [ +/- 9] cm[2] [p=0.06]. there is no SSD in the amount of lost blood, amount of blood loss per square centimeters of resection surface area, amount of blood transfused or the percentages of patients, who required blood transfusion, intra- or post-operatively, between the groups. There are no SSD in the mean transaction time, haemostatsis times, mean transaction and haemostasis speeds. The overall "identification of landmarks" score is 4/5 for UD and 3/4 for UCS which is not SSD. The Pringle manoeuvre was resorted to in significantly more patients in the UD than in the UCS [17 [20.2%] and 5 [8.5%] respectively, p=0.03], with mean ischaemic time significantly more in the UD [17 +/- 3] versus 4 [ +/- 4] minutes respectively, p=0.02]. There is no SSD in the magnitude of post-operative liver cell injury reflected by the mean of ALT, AST, bilirubin and INR peak values. There is also no SSD among the two groups regarding postoperative minor [grade 1 and 2] or major [grade 3, 4, and 5] complications, median ICU and hospital stays. This study confirms that both instruments of transaction can be used safely in elective liver resection and it is not possible to recommend any of these two instruments over the other