Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 207–213 | Cite as

Hepatic Pedicle Occlusion with the Pringle Maneuver During Difficult Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Reduces the Conversion Rate

  • Rongce Zhao
  • Fei Liu
  • Chenyang Jia
  • Kefei Chen
  • Yonggang WeiEmail author
  • Junhua Chen
  • Bo LiEmail author
Original Scientific Report with Video
  • 172 Downloads

Abstract

Background

In the presence of cholecystitis or portal hypertension, hemorrhage is common during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) because the vessels of Calot’s triangle are fragile and tortuous. Bleeding can obstruct surgical field visibility and increase conversion rates and risk of common bile duct injury. The Pringle maneuver is a simple occlusion approach that could limit blood flow from the hepatic pedicle, thus controlling bleeding to provide a clear surgical field to reduce conversion rate. In this study, we aimed to investigate the feasibility, effectiveness and safety of hepatic pedicle occlusion with the Pringle maneuver during difficult LC.

Methods

From 2011 to 2015, LC with hepatic pedicle occlusion by the Pringle maneuver was performed in 67 patients (Pringle group). Another group of 67 cases with matched clinical parameters where LC was performed without the Pringle maneuver (non-Pringle group) was retrieved from a database to serve as the control group.

Results

The Pringle group had a significantly lower conversion rate (1.49% vs. 11.9%; P = 0.038), less blood loss (37.5 ± 24.1 mL vs. 94.5 ± 67.8 mL; P = 0.002), shorter postoperative hospitalization (2.5 ± 1.4 days vs. 3.5 ± 2.5 days; P = 0.005), and lower cost ($1343 ± $751 USD vs. $1674 ± $609 USD; P = 0.024) than non-Pringle group. There was one case each of bile duct injury and readmission within 30 days because of bile leakage in the non-Pringle group, but none in the Pringle group.

Conclusions

Hepatic pedicle occlusion could provide a clear surgical field and enable the recognition of structures during LC. The Pringle maneuver offers a feasible and safe approach to lower conversion rates in difficult LC.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81602910) and the Fundamental Research Fund for the Central Universities (No. 2017SCU11045).

Authors’ contribution

YGW, BL, and RCZ contributed to the design of this study; RCZ, KFC, and CYJ contributed to the data collection; FL, KFC, JHC, and RCZ contributed to the data analysis; FL and RCZ contributed to writing the text; BL and YGW contributed to the revision of this article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

268_2018_4770_MOESM1_ESM.avi (84.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (AVI 86474 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Jatzko GR, Lisborg PH, Pertl AM, Stettner HM (1995) Multivariate comparison of complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 221(4):381–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vander Velpen GC, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A (1993) Outcome after cholecystectomy for symptomatic gall stone disease and effect of surgical access: laparoscopic v open approach. Gut 34(10):1448–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hamad MA, Nada AA, Abdel-Atty MY, Kawashti AS (2011) Major biliary complications in 2,714 cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy without intraoperative cholangiography: a multicenter retrospective study. Surg Endosc 25(12):3747–3751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Suter M, Meyer A (2001) A 10-year experience with the use of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: is it safe? Surg Endosc 15(10):1187–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giger U, Michel JM, Vonlanthen R, Becker K, Kocher T, Krahenbuhl L (2005) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis: indication, technique, risk and outcome. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg/Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Chirurgie 390(5):373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Laurence JM, Tran PD, Richardson AJ, Pleass HC, Lam VW (2012) Laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy in cirrhosis: a systematic review of outcomes and meta-analysis of randomized trials. HPB Off J Int Hepato Pancreato Biliary Assoc 14(3):153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bingener-Casey J, Richards ML, Strodel WE, Schwesinger WH, Sirinek KR (2002) Reasons for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy: a 10-year review. J Gastrointest Surg Off J Soc Surg Aliment Tract 6(6):800–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pringle JH (1908) V. Notes on the arrest of hepatic hemorrhage due to trauma. Ann Surg 48(4):541–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cherqui D, Husson E, Hammoud R, Malassagne B, Stephan F, Bensaid S et al (2000) Laparoscopic liver resections: a feasibility study in 30 patients. Ann Surg 232(6):753–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gigot JF, Glineur D, Santiago Azagra J, Goergen M, Ceuterick M, Morino M et al (2002) Laparoscopic liver resection for malignant liver tumors: preliminary results of a multicenter European study. Ann Surg 236(1):90–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Go PM, Dirksen CD (1995) Five years of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in The Netherlands. Int Surg 80(4):304–306Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rotellar F, Pardo F, Bueno A, Marti-Cruchaga P, Zozaya G (2012) Extracorporeal tourniquet method for intermittent hepatic pedicle clamping during laparoscopic liver surgery: an easy, cheap, and effective technique. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg/Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Chirurgie 397(3):481–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wiebke EA, Pruitt AL, Howard TJ, Jacobson LE, Broadie TA, Goulet RJ Jr et al (1996) Conversion of laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. An analysis of risk factors. Surg Endosc 10(7):742–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosen M, Brody F, Ponsky J (2002) Predictive factors for conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 184(3):254–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giger UF, Michel JM, Opitz I, Th Inderbitzin D, Kocher T, Krahenbuhl L et al (2006) Risk factors for perioperative complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: analysis of 22,953 consecutive cases from the Swiss Association of Laparoscopic and Thoracoscopic Surgery database. J Am Coll Surg 203(5):723–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horiuchi A, Watanabe Y, Doi T, Sato K, Yukumi S, Yoshida M et al (2008) Delayed laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis with severe fibrotic adhesions. Surg Endosc 22(12):2720–2723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Palanivelu C, Rajan PS, Jani K, Shetty AR, Sendhilkumar K, Senthilnathan P et al (2006) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in cirrhotic patients: the role of subtotal cholecystectomy and its variants. J Am Coll Surg 203(2):145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Henneman D, da Costa DW, Vrouenraets BC, van Wagensveld BA, Lagarde SM (2013) Laparoscopic partial cholecystectomy for the difficult gallbladder: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 27(2):351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ghahreman A, McCall JL, Windsor JA (1999) Cholecystostomy: a review of recent experience. Aust N Z J Surg 69(12):837–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Delva E, Camus Y, Nordlinger B, Hannoun L, Parc R, Deriaz H et al (1989) Vascular occlusions for liver resections. Operative management and tolerance to hepatic ischemia: 142 cases. Ann Surg 209(2):211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Abu Hilal M, Underwood T, Taylor MG, Hamdan K, Elberm H, Pearce NW (2010) Bleeding and hemostasis in laparoscopic liver surgery. Surg Endosc 24(3):572–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Center, West China HospitalSichuan UniversityChengduChina
  2. 2.Department of General SurgeryChengdu First People’s HospitalChengduChina

Personalised recommendations