Pancreatic Injury Response is Different Depending on the Method of Resecting the Parenchyma

Journal of Surgical Research

Volumn 154, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 203-211

  Lämsä, Teemu ^a   Jin, Hai Tao ^a   Nordback, Panu H ^a   Sand, Juhani ^a   Luukkaala, Tiina ^b   Nordback, Isto ^a  

^a TAMPERE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TAMPERE   (Finland)

Author keywords

electrosurgery; injury; pancreas; resection; transection; ultrasonics

Indexed keywords

AMYLASE; FIBRIN GLUE; OXIDIZED REGENERATED CELLULOSE; POLYDIOXANONE; SUTURE MATERIAL;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; BLOOD SAMPLING; CAUTERIZATION; CELL VACUOLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYSTIC FIBROSIS; ENZYME ACTIVITY; HEMOSTASIS; MALE; NEUTROPHIL CHEMOTAXIS; NONHUMAN; PANCREAS HEMORRHAGE; PANCREAS INJURY; PANCREAS NECROSIS; PANCREAS RESECTION; POSTOPERATIVE EDEMA; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RAT; SCALPEL; SURGICAL INSTRUMENT; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; ULTRASOUND;

AMYLASES; ANIMALS; BLOOD LOSS, SURGICAL; EDEMA; ELECTROSURGERY; FIBROSIS; INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; MALE; NECROSIS; PANCREAS; PANCREATECTOMY; RATS; RATS, SPRAGUE-DAWLEY; ULTRASONICS;

EID: 67349270584     PISSN: 00224804     EISSN: 10958673     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2008.08.018     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Cameron J.L., and Corinne S. Atlas of Gastrointestinal Surgery. In: Cameron J.L., and Corinne S. (Eds). Atlas of Gastrointestinal Surgery. 2nd ed. (2006), BC Decker, Hamilton (Ontario) 286-305
2. Lamsa T., Jin H., Mikkonen J., et al. Biocompatibility of a new bioabsorbable radiopaque stent material (BaSO4 containing poly-L,D-lactide) in the rat pancreas. Pancreatology 6 (2006) 301
3. Lamsa T., Jin H.-T., Nordback P.H., et al. The effects of diameter, number, and the tightness of sutures on the pancreatic injury response. Dig Surg 25 (2008) 269
4. Lamsa T., Jin H.T., Sand J., et al. Tissue adhesives and the pancreas: biocompatibility and adhesive properties of 6 preparations. Pancreas 36 (2008) 261
5. Sato M., Watanabe Y., Kikkawa H., et al. Duodenum-preserving resection of the pancreatic head with the ultrasonic coagulating shears. Hepatogastroenterology 50 (2003) 867
6. Kuroda Y., Tanioka Y., Matsumoto S., et al. A new technique for pancreatico-gastrointestinal anastomosis without suturing the pancreatic parenchyma. J Am Coll Surg 181 (1995) 311
7. Matsumoto T., Ishio T., Sasaki A., et al. Pancreatic resection with ultrasonically activated scalpel: Preliminary observations. Hepatogastroenterology 49 (2002) 635
8. Sugo H., Mikami Y., Matsumoto F., et al. Comparison of ultrasonically activated scalpel versus conventional division for the pancreas in distal pancreatectomy. J Hepatobil Pancreat Surg 8 (2001) 349
9. Takao S., Shinchi H., Maemura K., et al. Ultrasonically activated scalpel is an effective tool for cutting the pancreas in biliary-pancreatic surgery: Experimental and clinical studies. J Hepatobil Pancreat Surg 7 (2000) 58
10. Sugiyama M., Abe N., Izumisato Y., et al. Pancreatic transection using ultrasonic dissector in pancreatoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 182 (2001) 257
11. Kadesky K.M., Schopf B., Magee J.F., et al. Proximity injury by the ultrasonically activated scalpel during dissection. J Pediatr Surg 32 (1997) 878
12. Emam T.A., and Cuschieri A. How safe is high-power ultrasonic dissection?. Ann Surg 237 (2003) 186
13. Suzuki Y., Fujino Y., Tanioka Y., et al. Randomized clinical trial of ultrasonic dissector or conventional division in distal pancreatectomy for non-fibrotic pancreas. Br J Surg 86 (1999) 608
14. Niederau C., Liddle R.A., Ferrell L.D., et al. Beneficial effects of cholecystokinin-receptor blockade and inhibition of proteolytic enzyme activity in experimental acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis in mice. Evidence for cholecystokinin as a major factor in the development of acute pancreatitis. J Clin Invest 78 (1986) 1056
15. Schmidt J., Rattner D.W., Lewandrowski K., et al. A better model of acute pancreatitis for evaluating therapy. Ann Surg 215 (1992) 44
16. Alan S., Lowe J.S., and Young B. Wheater's Basic Histopathology: A Color Atlas and Text (2002), Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh
17. Lorentz K. Approved recommendation on IFCC methods for the measurement of catalytic concentration of enzymes. Part 9. IFCC method for α-amylase (1,4-α-D-glucan 4-glucanohydrolase, EC 3.2.1.1). International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). Committee on Enzymes. Clin Chem Lab Med 36 (1998) 185
18. Raty S., Sand J., and Nordback I. Detection of postoperative pancreatitis after pancreatic surgery by urine trypsinogen strip test. Br J Surg 94 (2007) 64
19. Raty S., Sand J., Lantto E., et al. Postoperative acute pancreatitis as a major determinant of postoperative delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 10 (2006) 1131
20. Odell R.C. Electrosurgery: Principles and safety issues. Clin Obstet Gynecol 38 (1995) 610
21. Lee S.J., and Park K.H. Ultrasonic energy in endoscopic surgery. Yonsei Med J 40 (1999) 545
22. Meltzer R.C., Hoenig D.M., Chrostek C.A., et al. Porcine seromyotomies using an ultrasonically activated scalpel. Surg Endosc 8 (1994) 253
23. Carlander J., Johansson K., Lindstrom S., et al. Comparison of experimental nerve injury caused by ultrasonically activated scalpel and electrosurgery. Br J Surg 92 (2005) 772
24. Georghiou G.P., Stamler A., Berman M., et al. Advantages of the ultrasonic harmonic scalpel for radial artery harvesting. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 13 (2005) 58
25. Sugo H., Matsumoto K., Kojima K., et al. Role of ultrasonically activated scalpel in hepatic resection: A comparison with conventional blunt dissection. Hepatogastroenterology 52 (2005) 173
26. Harold K.L., Pollinger H., Matthews B.D., et al. Comparison of ultrasonic energy, bipolar thermal energy, and vascular clips for the hemostasis of small-, medium-, and large-sized arteries. Surg Endosc 17 (2003) 1228
27. Brose S., Fabricius A.M., Falk V., et al. Comparison of ultrasonic scalpel versus argon-beam and conventional electrocautery for internal thoracic artery dissection. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 50 (2002) 71
28. Holub Z., Jabor A., Kliment L., et al. Laparoscopic lymph node dissection using ultrasonically activated shears: Comparison with electrosurgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 12 (2002) 175
29. Kwok A., Nevell D., Ferrier A., et al. Comparison of tissue injury between laparosonic coagulating shears and electrosurgical scissors in the sheep model. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 8 (2001) 378
30. Meurisse M., Defechereux T., Maweja S., et al. Evaluation of the UltraCision ultrasonic dissector in thyroid surgery. Prospective randomized study. Ann Chir 125 (2000) 468
31. Ronan J.W., Perry L.A., Barner H.B., et al. Radial artery harvest: Comparison of ultrasonic dissection with standard technique. Ann Thorac Surg 69 (2000) 113
32. Bhatia M. Inflammatory response on the pancreatic acinar cell injury. Scand J Surg 94 (2005) 97
33. Case R.M. Is the rat pancreas an appropriate model of the human pancreas?. Pancreatology 6 (2006) 180
34. Bentrem D.J., and Joehl R.J. Pancreas: Healing response in critical illness. Crit Care Med 31 (2003) S582