Differential advantage of liver retraction methods in laparoscopic fundoplication for neurologically impaired patients: a comparison of three kinds of procedures.
Children
Crural suture
Laparoscopic surgery
Liver retraction methods
Needle grasper
Journal
Pediatric surgery international
ISSN: 1437-9813
Titre abrégé: Pediatr Surg Int
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8609169
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2020
May 2020
Historique:
accepted:
05
03
2020
pubmed:
22
3
2020
medline:
6
10
2020
entrez:
22
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Liver retraction during laparoscopic fundoplication is important for obtaining an optimal space. Several methods have been developed, but the risks and benefits are unclear. We compared three different approaches and evaluated their safety and utility. Forty-three neurologically impaired patients who underwent laparoscopic fundoplication between 2005 and 2018 were classified into three groups: A, snake retractor method, n = 18; B, crural suture method, n = 13; C, needle grasper method, n = 12. Patients' characteristics and outcomes were reviewed. The liver retraction time was significantly shorter in group C than in A or B (p < 0.05). The operative times were shorter in groups B and C than in A. There were no significant differences in the liver enzyme levels. The liver enzyme levels increased temporarily but improved within a week. The C-reactive protein levels were significantly lower in group B than in A or C (p < 0.05). The most convenient method was the needle grasper method, as the other two approaches create conflict with the operator's forceps. The crural suture method damages the liver less, but requires higher surgical skill levels. It is important to select the appropriate method according to the operator's skill and the patient's size and deformity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32198620
doi: 10.1007/s00383-020-04646-8
pii: 10.1007/s00383-020-04646-8
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
591-596Références
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996 Mar;166(3):599-602
pubmed: 8623634
Curr Urol. 2014 Oct;7(4):199-203
pubmed: 26195951
J Minim Access Surg. 2015 Jul-Sep;11(3):198-202
pubmed: 26195879
Surg Endosc. 2019 Jun;33(6):1828-1836
pubmed: 30284022
Radiat Med. 1995 Jul-Aug;13(4):163-5
pubmed: 8539441
Surg Endosc. 2011 Dec;25(12):3939-45
pubmed: 21656069
J Gastrointest Surg. 2011 Jun;15(6):1043-8
pubmed: 20824387
Surg Endosc. 2011 Aug;25(8):2733-7
pubmed: 21512886
Asian J Endosc Surg. 2015 Nov;8(4):413-8
pubmed: 26042554
Surg Endosc. 1998 Jul;12(7):968-72
pubmed: 9632872
World J Surg. 2008 Dec;32(12):2650-4
pubmed: 18825455
Clin Chem. 1975 Jul;21(8):1077-87
pubmed: 1137913
JSLS. 2011 Jan-Mar;15(1):117-21
pubmed: 21902957
World J Surg. 2015 Sep;39(9):2362-6
pubmed: 25896901