Hepatic Pedicle Occlusion with the Pringle Maneuver During Difficult Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Reduces the Conversion Rate
- 130 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
- 11.Go PM, Dirksen CD (1995) Five years of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in The Netherlands. Int Surg 80(4):304–306Google Scholar
- 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
- 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