Perioperative outcomes of utilizing infrahepatic inferior vena cava clamping and Pringle maneuver during hepatectomy: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Intraoperative bleeding during hepatectomy is primarily controlled through anaesthesiological interventions or surgical techniques such as Pringle maneuver (PM). Infrahepatic IVC clamping (IIVCC) is an alternative surgical technique to reduce central venous pressure and prevent retrograde hepatic venous bleeding. The aim of the meta-analysis was to compare IIVCC+PM with PM alone in terms of intraoperative outcomes and perioperative complications. METHODS: Medline, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched for comparative studies till 16.04.2024, resulting in 679 articles, of which eight studies met inclusion criteria. Data on patient demographics, surgical technique, and perioperative outcomes was assessed. Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2.0) Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used for risk of bias assessment. RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials, one prospective, and five retrospective cohort studies with 358 patients in IIVCC+PM and 397 patients in PM alone group were included. IIVCC+PM resulted in significantly greater CVP reduction, less intraoperative blood loss (MD (95% CI) = - 233.03 (- 360.48 to - 105.58), P < 0.001), and less intraoperative blood transfusion (OR (95% CI) = 0.38 (0.25 to 0.57), P < 0.001) compared to PM alone. The two groups had comparable total operative time, transection time and total intraoperative fluid infusion. Patients undergoing IIVCC+PM had significantly shorter length of stay (MD (95% CI) = - 0.63 days (- 1.21 to - 0.05 days), P = 0.03) and overall complication rates (OR (95% CI) = 0.63 (0.43-0.92), P = 0.02) compared to PM alone group. CONCLUSION: The utilization of IIVCC along with PM during liver resection may be beneficial in reducing intraoperative bleeding and blood transfusion without adversely influencing operative times or perioperative outcomes compared to PM alone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".