Search

Introduction: Patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are at high risk of acquiring perioperative infections. Herein, we investigate the peri-operative impact of diabetes on hepatectomy. Material and methods: The surgical outcomes in 363 patients who underwent laparoscopic and open hepatic resection for HCC, with or without diabetes mellitus, were reviewed retrospectively. The association of diabetes mellitus with surgical outcomes and remnant liver regeneration was analyzed. The Student's t and X² tests, Mann-Whitney's U test, Wilcoxon's signed-rank test, or Fisher's exact test were used in the statistical analysis. Results: Of the 363 patients, 136 (37.5%) had diabetes, while 227 (62.5%) did not. After propensity score matching, there were no significant differences between the groups in surgical outcomes such as surgery duration, bleeding amount, and postoperative complication rate. No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of incidence rates of not only infectious complications, including surgical site infection and remote site infection, but also postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo grade > IIIA), post-hepatectomy liver failure, and massive ascites. There were no differences in the remnant liver regeneration at 7 days and 1, 2, 5, and 12 months following the surgery between the groups (p = 0.076, 0.368, 0.864, 0.288, and 0.063, respectively). No significant differences between the groups in the overall and recurrence-free survival were observed (p = 0.613 and 0.937). Conclusions: Remnant liver regeneration in diabetic patients was not morphologically and functionally delayed compared to that in non-diabetic patients. Moreover, diabetes has no effect on the short- and long-term prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Pringle manoeuvre is used in most hospitals to counteract intraoperative haemorrhage in laparoscopic hepatectomy by occluding the flow of blood to the liver. However, in laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH), outcomes of previous surgery and the influence of other factors frequently make it difficult to occlude the inflow of blood. Aim: To discuss the value of inflow occlusion during LRH and provide tips for its performance. Material and methods: Sixty-three patients who underwent LRH with or without the Pringle manoeuvre were analysed retrospectively. We investigated the efficacy and safety of the Pringle manoeuvre in LRH. Student's t and X2 tests, Mann-Whitney's U test, Wilcoxon's signed-rank test, and Fisher's exact test were used in the statistical analysis. Results: Nineteen patients underwent LRH with the Pringle manoeuvre, and 44 patients underwent LHR without the Pringle manoeuvre. After propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in terms of operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative complication rate (p = 0.973, 0.120, and not applicable, respectively). However, the rate of conversion to open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) was significantly lower in the Pringle manoeuvre group (p = 0.034). In many cases, the cause of conversion to ORH was the non-use of inflow occlusion and the resulting inability to control intraoperative haemorrhage. Laboratory data collected after surgery showed no significant difference between the 2 groups regardless of whether blood flow was occluded or not. Conclusions: LRH with the Pringle manoeuvre can be performed safely using various surgical devices. However, it is often challenging to perform the Pringle manoeuvre in patients with a history of cholecystectomy or segment 5 resection of the liver, and caution is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]