A prospective randomized controlled trial to compare Pringle maneuver, hemihepatic vascular inflow occlusion, and main portal vein inflow occlusion in partial hepatectomy

Abstract Background Blood loss during liver resection and the need for perioperative blood transfusions have negative impact on perioperative morbidity, mortality, and long-term outcomes. Methods A randomized controlled trial was performed on patients undergoing liver resection comparing hemihepatic vascular inflow occlusion, main portal vein inflow occlusion, and Pringle maneuver. The primary endpoints were intraoperative blood loss and postoperative liver injury. The secondary outcomes were operating time, morbidity, and mortality. Results A total of 180 patients were randomized into 3 groups according to the technique used for inflow occlusion during hepatectomy: the hemihepatic vascular inflow occlusion group (n = 60), the main portal vein inflow occlusion group (n = 60), and the Pringle maneuver group (n = 60). Only 1 patient in the hemihepatic vascular occlusion group required conversion to the Pringle maneuver because of technical difficulty. The Pringle maneuver group showed a significantly shorter operating time. There were no significant differences between the 3 groups in intraoperative blood loss and perioperative mortality. The degree of postoperative liver injury and complication rates were significantly higher in the Pringle maneuver group, resulting in a significantly longer hospital stay. Conclusions All 3 vascular inflow occlusion techniques were safe and efficacious in reducing blood loss. Patients subjected to hemihepatic vascular inflow occlusion, or main portal vein inflow occlusion responded better than those with Pringle maneuver in terms of earlier recovery of postoperative liver function. As hemihepatic vascular inflow occlusion was technically easier than main portal vein inflow occlusion, it is recommended.