Effects of different pressure levels of CO2 pneumoperitoneumon liver regeneration after liver resection in a rat model

Yoko Komori • Yukio Iwashita • Masayuki Ohta •

Yuichiro Kawano • Masafumi Inomata •

Seigo Kitano

Received: 30 October 2013 / Accepted: 17 February 2014

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract

Background A recent study demonstrated that high

pressure of carbon dioxide (CO2) pneumoperitoneum

before liver resection impairs postoperative liver regener-

ation. This study was aimed to investigate effects of

varying insufflation pressures of CO2 pneumoperitoneum

on liver regeneration using a rat model.

Methods 180 male Wistar rats were randomly divided

into three groups: control group (without preoperative

pneumoperitoneum), low-pressure group (with preopera-

tive pneumoperitoneum at 5 mmHg), and high-pressure

group (with preoperative pneumoperitoneum at

10 mmHg). After pneumoperitoneum, all rats were sub-

jected to 70 % partial hepatic resection and then euthanized

at 0 min, 12 h, and on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 2, 4,

and 7. Following outcome parameters were used: liver

regeneration (liver regeneration rate, mitotic count, Ki-67

labeling index), hepatocellular damage (serum amino-

transferases), oxidative stress [serum malondialdehyde

(MDA)], interleukin-6 (IL-6), and hepatocyte growth factor

(HGF) expression in the liver tissue.

Results No significant differences were observed for all

parameters between control and low-pressure groups. The

liver regeneration rate and mitotic count were significantly

decreased in the high-pressure group than in control and

low-pressure groups on PODs 2 and 4. Postoperative

hepatocellular damage was significantly greater in the

high-pressure group on PODs 1, 2, 4, and 7 compared with

control and/or low-pressure groups. Serum MDA levels

were significantly higher in the high-pressure group on

PODs 1 and 2, and serum IL-6 levels were significantly

higher in the high-pressure group at 12 h and on POD 1,

compared with control and/or low-pressure groups. The

HGF tissue expression was significantly lower in the high-

pressure group at 12 h and on PODs 1 and 4, compared

with that in control and/or low-pressure groups.

Conclusions High-pressure pneumoperitoneum before

70 % liver resection impairs postoperative liver regenera-

tion, but low-pressure pneumoperitoneum has no adverse

effects. This study suggests that following laparoscopic

liver resection using appropriate pneumoperitoneum pres-

sure, no impairment of liver regeneration occurs.

Keywords Liver regeneration � Laparoscopic liver

resection � Pneumoperitoneum

Since introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in

1987 [1], a laparoscopic approach has been applied to the

full spectra of abdominal procedures. Since the first lapa-

roscopic liver wedge resection was reported in 1992 [2],

laparoscopic hepatectomy has been increasingly used in the

field of hepatic surgery, and its use has exponentially

increased worldwide in recent years [3, 4]. Current evi-

dence from large series and reviews indicates that laparo-

scopic hepatectomy conveys benefits of minimally invasive

surgery such as less analgesia requirement, shorter hospital

stay, decreasing blood loss, delivering less operative mor-

bidity, and better cosmesis [3, 5–8]. Furthermore, with

improved development of laparoscopic instruments (such

as dissection and coagulation devices), implementation of

Y. Komori (&) � Y. Iwashita � M. Ohta � Y. Kawano �M. Inomata

Department of Gastroenterological and Pediatric Surgery, Oita

University Faculty of Medicine, 1-1 Idaigaoka, Hasama-machi,

Yufu, Oita 879-5593, Japan

e-mail: komorin@oita-u.ac.jp

S. Kitano

Oita University, Oita, Japan

123

Surg Endosc

DOI 10.1007/s00464-014-3498-6

and Other Interventional Techniques

hand-assisted techniques, and improvement of surgeons’

laparoscopic skills, the trend in laparoscopic liver resection

has now moved from limited resections toward performing

major hepatectomies [9, 10].

However, it has been reported that laparoscopic sur-

geries can have numerous adverse effects, including oxi-

dative stress in lung tissues [11], ischemia of various

splanchnic organs [12], oxygen-free radical production

[13], bacterial translocation [14], and carbon dioxide (CO2)

embolism [15]. A recent study of laparoscopic liver

resection revealed that high intra-abdominal pressure

decreases the amount of bleeding but increases the risk of

CO2 embolism [16]. Furthermore, experimental studies

have demonstrated a reciprocal correlation between an

increase in intra-abdominal pressure and portal vein flow

reduction [17–20].

Moreover, a recent study using a rat model revealed that

when rats were subjected to a 70 % hepatectomy, along

with preoperative pneumoperitoneum of 9 mmHg for

60 min, the extended liver resection impaired postoperative

liver regeneration [21]. However, another study demon-

strated that pneumoperitoneal pressures of C8 mmHg in

rats do not correspond to the routine working pressure

employed in humans [22]. To create pneumoperitoneum in

humans, laparoscopic surgeries involve insufflation of CO2

into the peritoneal cavity at a rate of 4–6 l min-1 to a

pressure of 10–15 mmHg [23]. Avital et al. [22] reported

that pressures of C8 mmHg in rats correspond to pressures

of C14–20 mmHg in humans, and a pressure of 5 mmHg is

optimal in a rat model for simulating laparoscopy in

humans. Therefore, we consider that the relationship

between CO2 pneumoperitoneum before liver resection and

liver regeneration is not completely understood, and we

designed our study to investigate how different pressure

levels of CO2 pneumoperitoneum affect liver regeneration

following major hepatectomy.

Methods

Animals

In this study, all animal experiments used a total of 180

male Wistar rats weighing between 200 and 250 g (Kyudo

Co., Ltd., Saga, Japan). All rats were provided unlimited

access to food and water before and after treatment. All

surgeries were performed under 3 % sevoflurane (Maruishi

Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan) anesthesia. This

study was approved by the Animal Studies Committee of

Oita University, Japan, and was performed according to the

National Institutes of Health Standards of Animal Care.

Animal experiment protocol

Animals were divided into three groups of 60 rats each: 60

to undergo 60 min of anesthesia without CO2 pneumo-

peritoneum followed by 70 % hepatectomy (control

group), 60 to undergo 60 min of 5 mmHg pressure CO2

pneumoperitoneum, followed by 70 % hepatectomy (low-

pressure group), and 60 to undergo 60 min of 10 mmHg

pressure CO2 pneumoperitoneum, followed by 70 % hep-

atectomy (high-pressure group). The pneumoperitoneum

was created using electronic insufflator (Surgiflator 9100,

UHI-3, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) through a 22-gauge extra

tube (Surflo� I.V. catheter, Terumo�, Japan) and main-

tained with a continuous intra-abdominal pressure of 5 or

10 mmHg, as previously described [24].

After the pneumoperitoneum was created, the abdomen

was desufflated through a median laparotomy for liver

resection, and a 70 % partial hepatectomy was performed

as previously described [25]. Middle and left lateral hepatic

lobes were removed, and these lobes were ligated and

resected using scissors. The total procedural time, includ-

ing creating the pneumoperitoneum, was approximately

70 min for each group. After surgery, all rats received 5 ml

of sterile isotonic saline subcutaneously to prevent dehy-

dration. To analyze blood and liver tissue samples, 10

animals were euthanized at 0 min and 12 h after surgery

and on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 2, 4, and 7, respec-

tively, in each group. Blood samples were obtained using

cardiac puncture aspiration. The liver was excised and

weighed, and tissue samples were frozen in -80 �C or

fixed in formaldehyde.

Liver regeneration rate

The liver regeneration rate was calculated as previously

described [21, 26]. Briefly, the estimated whole liver

weight was calculated, and the excised liver weight was

calculated at 70 % of the whole liver weight. Therefore, the

liver regeneration rate was calculated as follows: liver

regeneration rate (%) = 100 9 [C - (A - B)]/A, where

A represents the estimated whole liver weight, B represents

the weight of the excised liver, and C represents the weight

of the remnant liver at the time when the animal was

euthanized.

Mitotic count and Ki-67 labeling index

Paraffin-embedded liver tissue samples were cut into 4-lm

sections and stained with hematoxylin–eosin stain. The

number of mitoses was counted using 10 high-power fields

that were randomly selected under a light microscope.

Surg Endosc

123

In addition, deparaffinized hepatic sections (3-lm thick)

were immunostained for Ki-67 using a mouse anti-rat Ki-

67 antibody (MIB-5; Dako, Glostrup, Denmark). Positive

hepatocytes were counted in 20 randomly selected high-

power fields. In addition, the Ki-67 index was calculated

per 1,000 hepatocytes.

Blood analyses of serum aminotransferases,

malondialdehyde, and interleukin-6

Blood samples were immediately centrifuged. Serum

aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotrans-

ferase (ALT) levels were determined using routine enzy-

matic methods as indicators of degrees of hepatocellular

damage. Serum malondialdehyde (MDA) levels were

measured as an indicator of oxidative stress, using a

NWLSS kit from Northwest (Northwest Life Sciences

Specialties, Vancouver, Canada), following the company

protocol. Serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels were measured

using commercially available rat enzyme-linked immuno-

sorbent assay (ELISA) kits (Invitrogen, Inc., IL-6 Rat

ELISA kit, Camarillo, CA).

Liver tissue expression of hepatocyte growth factor

(HGF)

Tissue expression levels of HGF were measured from

homogenized liver samples. Frozen liver tissue samples

were homogenized using a tissue homogenizer (Dremel,

Racine, WI, USA) and were subsequently centrifuged at

10,0009g for 10 min at 4 �C. HGF levels were measured

using an assay kit following manufacturer’s instructions

(Institute of Immunology Co., Ltd., Rat HGF EIA, Tokyo,

Japan). Absorbance at 586 nm was determined using an

ELISA reader (Bio-Rad Laboratories).

Statistical analysis

All data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. All

data were evaluated using one-way analysis of variance

with the Bonferroni test for multiple comparisons. A value

of p \ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS II (version

11.01 J; SPSS Japan, Inc., Tokyo, Japan).

Results

Effects of pneumoperitoneum pressures on liver

regeneration

Results indicated that preoperative high-pressure pneu-

moperitoneum inhibited liver regeneration following

hepatectomy. Gravimetric analysis revealed that liver

regeneration rate was significantly lower in the high-

pressure group on PODs 2 and 4 compared with that in

control (p = 0.003, 0.004, respectively, Fig. 1) and low-

pressure groups (p = 0.000, 0.005, respectively). The

mitotic count was significantly lower in the high-pressure

group on PODs 2 and 4 compared with that in control

group (p = 0.006, 0.048, respectively) and on POD 2 than

in the low-pressure group (p = 0.0032). Moreover, Ki-67

expression levels were significantly lower in the high-

pressure group on PODs 1 and 2 compared with control

(p = 0.000, 0.018, respectively) and low-pressure groups

(p = 0.0015, 0.0016, respectively).

Fig. 1 Effects of carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum following 70 %

hepatectomy on liver regeneration in control, low-pressure, and high-

pressure groups. Represented by the liver regeneration rate, mitotic

count, and Ki-67 labeling index at different postoperative time points.

Each point consists of 10 rats. *p \ 0.01, **p \ 0.05

Surg Endosc

123

Effects of pneumoperitoneum pressures on liver

damage, changes of oxidative stress, and cytokine

levels

Greater liver damage was recognized in the high-pressure

group. These animals revealed significantly higher AST

levels on PODs 1, 2, 4, and 7 compared with those in

control group (p = 0.022, 0.009, 0.009, 0.001, respec-

tively, Fig. 2) and on PODs 2, 4, and 7 compared with

those in the low-pressure group (p = 0.003, 0.001, 0.001,

respectively). Animals in the high-pressure group revealed

significantly higher ALT levels on PODs 2, 4, and 7

compared with those in control group (p = 0.004, 0.010,

0.041, respectively) and on PODs 4 and 7 compared with

those in the low-pressure group (p = 0.003, 0.020,

respectively).

The group with a high-pressure CO2 pneumoperitoneum

revealed a significantly increased oxidative stress reaction.

These animals revealed significantly higher serum MDA

levels on PODs 1 and 2 compared with those in control

(p = 0.019, 0.002, respectively, Fig. 3) and low-pressure

groups (p = 0.021, 0.031, respectively). Serum IL-6 levels

were significantly higher in the high-pressure group at 12 h

compared with those in the control group (p = 0.028,

Fig. 4), and on POD 1 compared with those in control

(p = 0.000) and low-pressure groups (p = 0.000).

Effects of pneumoperitoneum pressures on the tissue

expression of HGF

Tissue expression levels of HGF were significantly lower

in the high-pressure group at 12 h and on PODs 1 and 4

compared with those in the control group (p = 0.049,

0.028, 0.034, respectively, Fig. 5) and at 12 h and on POD

4 compared with those in the low-pressure group

(p = 0.044, 0.006, respectively).

Discussion

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is being increasingly used in the

field of hepatic surgery. Recent studies demonstrate that

minimally invasive hepatic resection for benign and

malignant tumors is safe and feasible with definite short-

Fig. 2 Hepatocellular damage after 70 % hepatectomy in control,

low-pressure, and high-pressure groups. Represented by serum levels

of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase

(ALT) at different postoperative time points. Each point consists of 10

rats. *p \ 0.01, **p \ 0.05

Fig. 3 Oxidative stress following 70 % hepatectomy in control, low-

pressure, and high-pressure groups. Represented by serum malondi-

aldehyde (MDA) levels at different postoperative time points. Each

point consists of 10 rats. *p \ 0.01, **p \ 0.05

Fig. 4 Postoperative data of interleukin-6 (IL-6) following 70 %

hepatectomy in control, low-pressure, and high-pressure groups at

different postoperative time points. Each point consists of 10 rats.

*p \ 0.01, **p \ 0.05

Surg Endosc

123

term benefits, no economic disadvantage, and no compro-

mise of oncological principles [3, 7, 27]. Literature con-

tains reports of 2,804 laparoscopic hepatic resections for

both benign and malignant tumors with a perioperative

mortality of 0.3 % and morbidity of 10.5 % [5].

However, apart from technical and oncological consid-

erations, there have been several reports related to potential

adverse effects of CO2 pneumoperitoneum on liver func-

tion following laparoscopic surgery [27–30]. Clinical and

experimental studies have reported that increased intra-

abdominal pressure generated by pneumoperitoneum cau-

ses a marked decrease in cardiovascular hemodynamics

and splanchnic and portal blood flow [12, 17–20, 30, 31].

Splanchnic ischemia may result in the conversion of oxy-

gen into free radicals in tissues undergoing reperfusion [32,

33]. Some authors suggest that adverse effects of pneu-

moperitoneum are possibly a result of an ischemia–reper-

fusion phenomenon induced by the inflation and deflation

of the pneumoperitoneum [13, 14, 29]. Laparoscopic cho-

lecystectomy with 14 mmHg CO2 pneumoperitoneum

significantly increased AST and ALT levels [28]. In

another clinical study, laparoscopic cholecystectomy with

14 mmHg pneumoperitoneum significantly increased cyto-

lytic enzyme levels compared with those with 10 mmHg

pneumoperitoneum [30, 31]. Furthermore, it is well known

that ischemia–reperfusion injury of the liver impairs liver

regeneration after partial hepatectomy in experiments with

animals [34–36].

Regarding another mechanism of liver injury under CO2

pneumoperitoneum, blood levels of pH, CO2, and HCO3

might be related to the injury. Hazebroek et al. [37] inves-

tigated effects of pneumoperitoneum at 6 or 12 mmHg on

arterial pH, PCO2 and HCO3 in a rat model. CO2 insuf-

flation caused a significant decrease in arterial pH at both 6

and 12 mmHg, a significant increase in PaCO2 at 6 mmHg

pressure, and a significant decrease in arterial HCO3 at

12 mmHg. However, recently, Nickkholgh et al. [38]

performed the similar study. While arterial pH was sig-

nificantly decreased under CO2 pneumoperitoneum at 8

and 12 mmHg pressures, arterial levels of CO2 and HCO3

were not significantly changed compared with the control

without pneumoperitoneum. Therefore, the authors con-

cluded that the cause of liver damage induced by CO2

pneumoperitoneum was ischemia–reperfusion injury.

Some literature has reported that pneumoperitoneum in

association with partial hepatectomy or extended hepatec-

tomy leads to a reduction in postoperative liver regenera-

tion [21, 39, 40]. Kaya et al. [39] observed a significant

reduction in liver regeneration on PODs 1 and 4 after

partial hepatectomy followed by pneumoperitoneum of

12–14 mmHg for 24 h. In addition, Yagmurdur et al. [40]

revealed an impairment of liver regeneration on POD 5 in

rats subjected to a 15 mmHg pneumoperitoneum for

60 min followed by partial hepatectomy. In a most recent

research, Schmidt et al. [21] subjected rats to a 70 %

hepatectomy with preoperative pneumoperitoneum of

9 mmHg for 60 min and demonstrated that pneumoperi-

toneum before extended liver resection impaired postop-

erative liver regeneration.

However, Avital et al. [22] demonstrated that a pressure

of C8 mmHg in a rat model corresponds to a human

pressure of C14–20 mmHg, causing maximal ventilator

pressure and supraphysiologic ETCO2 they concluded that

a pressure of 5 mmHg is optimal in a rat model to simulate

laparoscopy in humans. Further, Gagner [41] cited this

paper, emphasizing that the pressure chosen for pneumo-

peritoneum in rats is important and that pressures of

C8 mmHg do not correspond to pressures used in humans

because of the much smaller abdominal cavity and lesser

compliance of the abdominal wall, thereby causing

hemodynamic effects that are only seen in humans when

pressures are used at supraphysiological levels. Therefore,

in our experimental setting, we used a low-pressure pneu-

moperitoneum of 5 mmHg (low-pressure group) and high-

pressure pneumoperitoneum of 10 mmHg (high-pressure

group) and investigated liver damage and regeneration at

different time points.

In the present study, we received logical results in serum

liver enzymes, oxidative stress, cytokine, and liver regen-

eration. A comparison of three groups (control, low-pres-

sure, and high-pressure groups) revealed that any

significantly different results for parameters appeared only

in the high-pressure group when it was compared to the

control group. For the liver regeneration rate, a positive

impact was observed in control and low-pressure groups

compared with the high-pressure group on PODs 2 and 4.

In addition, we found a marked proliferative activity

(evident from an increased mitotic count) in control and

low-pressure groups on PODs 2 and 4 compared with the

high-pressure group. Similarly, the Ki-67 labeling index

Fig. 5 Tissue expression of hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) follow-

ing 70 % hepatectomy in control, low-pressure, and high-pressure

groups at different postoperative time points. Each point consists of

10 rats. *p \ 0.01, **p \ 0.05

Surg Endosc

123

was significantly higher in control and low-pressure groups

on PODs 1 and 2 compared with that in the high-pressure

group. Corresponding to the outcome of liver regeneration

and mitotic activity, tissue expression levels of HGF were

significantly higher in control and low-pressure groups at

12 h and on PODs 1 and 4, respectively, compared with

those in the high-pressure group. These results suggest that

appropriate pressure levels of pneumoperitoneum do not

influence liver regeneration following major hepatectomy,

and to our knowledge, this is probably the first report on

different effects from varying CO2 pressure levels on liver

regeneration.

CO2 pneumoperitoneum causes a reduction in splanch-

nic blood flow, resulting in biochemical evidence of oxi-

dative stress in a pressure- and time-dependent manner

[42]. MDA is the end product of lipid peroxidation, and

MDA levels in liver homogenate or serum are a direct

marker of levels of oxygen radicals [43]. In this study, we

found that serum MDA levels were significantly increased

in the high-pressure group on PODs 1 and 2 compared with

those in control and low-pressure groups, indicating that

oxygen radicals are increased after exposure to high-pres-

sure pneumoperitoneum. In addition, it is well known that

organ ischemia activates inflammatory cytokines. IL-6 is

an integral cytokine mediator of the acute phase of

response to injury and infection [44]. IL-6 is often induced

along with inflammatory cytokines TNFa and IL-1 in

several critical conditions, and circulating IL-6 plays an

important role in the induction of acute phase reactions

[45]. The IL-6 response to injury is consistent and is related

to the magnitude of the insult [44]. In this study, higher

levels of serum IL-6 in the high-pressure group at 12 h and

on POD 1 were recognized, and these data demonstrate that

the high-pressure group received greater injury to the liver

compared with other groups.

At several high-volume centers, laparoscopic hepatec-

tomy is clinically performed at a CO2 pneumoperitoneal

pressure of \12 mmHg [46]. However, several clinical

studies on laparoscopic hepatectomy suggest that a high-

pneumoperitoneal pressure is effective in controlling

bleeding during liver parenchymal transection [47, 48]. In

fact, Cannon et al. [49] used pressures of 12–15 mmHg to

control the bleeding from veins on the surface of the

transected liver. In this study, no significant differences

were observed in control and low-pressure groups, and the

high-pressure group only revealed adverse effects in liver

regeneration with significant differences. Most previous

studies revealing the adverse effects of CO2 pneumoperi-

toneum have used pneumoperitoneal pressures of

C14 mmHg in human studies and C8 mmHg in rat models

[13, 14, 21, 28, 39, 43]. We believe that the different

effects noted between low- and high-pressure pneumoper-

itoneum could be related to the alteration of hepatic blood

flow and ischemia–reperfusion injury, causing production

of oxygen-derived free radicals and inflammatory cyto-

kines that contributed to organ dysfunction. Some

researchers have demonstrated that the creation of a CO2

pneumoperitoneum with an increase in intra-abdominal

pressure leads to a linear decrease in portal venous flow in

rats [17, 18, 20]. Leister et al. [50] investigated differences

between a 4 and 8 mmHg pneumoperitoneum on hepa-

tobiliary excretion (as a sensitive indicator of liver func-

tion) in a rat model; although no significant alteration was

observed in the bile flow under the 4 mmHg pneumoperi-

toneum, biliary excretion was considerably reduced under

the 8-mmHg pneumoperitoneum.

To prevent liver injury under CO2 pneumoperitoneum, it

has been thought to be beneficial to use another gas and/or

perform ischemic preconditioning. Some animal studies

have compared CO2 gas insufflation with helium gas

insufflation. The helium gas is superior to CO2 gas in the

terms of changes in arterial levels of pH, CO2, and HCO3,

and in portal blood flow [18, 37]. However, helium has

some disadvantages. Helium is not only expensive com-

pared with CO2 but also has lower solubility in blood than

CO2 [51]. Some animal studies also demonstrated that the

ischemic preconditioning conducted by short time CO2

deflation after short time CO2 insufflation can prevent

ischemia–reperfusion injury afterward [52–54]. Therefore,

the further clinical study of ischemic preconditioning is

thought to be necessary.

In conclusion, this study demonstrates that pressure

levels of the pneumoperitoneum are related to postopera-

tive alteration in liver regeneration following hepatectomy.

An appropriate pressure does not impair liver regeneration

following laparoscopic liver resection. However, further

experimental and clinical trials are necessary to ascertain

an appropriate pneumoperitoneal pressure when perform-

ing laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Acknowledgments We are grateful to Ms. Mayumi Takeda for her

technical assistance.

Disclosures The authors declare no conflicts of interest. No finan-

cial support was received for this study.

References

1. Polychronidis A, Laftsidis P, Bounovas A, Simopoulos C (2008)

Twenty years of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Philippe Mo-

uret—March 17, 1987. JSLS 12(1):109–111

2. Gagner M, Rheault M, Dubuc J (1992) Laparoscopic partial

hepatectomy for liver tumor. Surg Endosc 6:97–98

3. Lee KF, Chong CN, Wong J, Cheung YS, Wong J, Lai P (2011)

Long-term results of laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open

hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a case-matched ana-

lysis. World J Surg 35(10):2268–2274

Surg Endosc

123

4. Abu HM, Di FF, Syed S, Wiltshire R, Dimovska E, Turner D,

Primrose JN, Pearce NW (2013) Assessment of the financial

implications for laparoscopic liver surgery: a single-centre UK

cost analysis for minor and major hepatectomy. Surg Endosc

27(7):2542–2550

5. Nguyen KT, Gamblin TC, Geller DA (2009) World review of

laparoscopic liver resection: 2,804 patients. Ann Surg 250(5):

831–841

6. Vigano L, Tayar C, Laurent A, Cherqui D (2009) Laparoscopic

liver resection: a systematic review. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat

Surg 16(4):410–421

7. Nguyen KT, Marsh JW, Tsung A, Steel JJ, Gamblin TC, Geller

DA (2011) Comparative benefits of laparoscopic vs open hepatic

resection: a critical appraisal. Arch Surg 146(3):348–356

8. Nitta H, Sasaki A, Fujita T, Itabashi H, Hoshikawa K, Takahara

T, Takahashi M, Nishizuka S, Wakabayashi G (2010) Laparos-

copy-assisted major liver resections employing a hanging tech-

nique: the original procedure. Ann Surg 251(3):450–453

9. Lin NC, Nitta H, Wakabayashi G (2013) Laparoscopic major

hepatectomy: a systematic literature review and comparison of 3

techniques. Ann Surg 257:205–213

10. Dagher I, O’Rourke N, Geller DA, Cherqui D, Belli G, Gamblin

TC, Lainas P, Laurent A, Nguyen KT, Marvin MR, Thomas M,

Ravindra K, Fielding G, Franco D, Buell JF (2009) Laparoscopic

major hepatectomy: an evolution in standard of care. Ann Surg

250(5):856–860

11. Pross M, Schulz HU, Flechsig A, Manger T, Halangk W, Au-

gustin W, Lippert H, Reinheckel T (2000) Oxidative stress in

lung tissue induced by CO2 pneumoperitoneum in the rat. Surg

Endosc 14(12):1180–1184

12. Schafer M, Sagesser H, Reichen J, Krahenbuhl L (2001) Alter-

ations in hemodynamics and hepatic and splanchnic circulation

during laparoscopy in rats. Surg Endosc 15:1197–1201

13. Eleftheriadis E, Kotzampassi K, Papanotas K, Heliadis N, Sarris

K (1996) Gut ischemia, oxidative stress, and bacterial translo-

cation in elevated abdominal pressure in rats. World J Surg 20:

11–16

14. Polat C, Aktepe OC, Akbulut G, Yilmaz S, Arikan Y, Dilek ON,

Gokce O (2003) The effects of increased intra-abdominal pres-

sure on bacterial translocation. Yonsei Med J 44(2):259–264

15. Smith HS (2011) Carbon dioxide embolism during pneumoperi-

toneum for laparoscopic surgery: a case report. AANA J 79:

371–373

16. Eiriksson K, Fors D, Rubertsson S, Arvidsson D (2011) High

intra-abdominal pressure during experimental laparoscopic liver

resection reduces bleeding but increases the risk of gas embolism.

Br J Surg 98(6):845–852

17. Gutt CN, Schmandra TC (1999) Portal venous flow during CO2

pneumoperitoneum in the rat. Surg Endosc 13:902–905

18. Schmandra TC, Kim ZG, Gutt CN (2001) Effect of insufflation

gas and intraabdominal pressure on portal venous flow during

pneumoperitoneum in the rat. Surg Endosc 15:405–408

19. Jakimowicz J, Stultiens G, Smulders F (1998) Laparoscopic

insufflation of the abdomen reduces portal venous flow. Surg

Endosc 12(2):129–132

20. Richter S, Olinger A, Hildebrandt U, Menger MD, Vollmar B

(2001) Loss of physiologic hepatic blood flow control (‘‘hepatic

arterial buffer response’’) during CO2 pneumoperitoneum in the

rat. Anesth Analg 93:872–877

21. Schmidt SC, Schumacher G, Klage N, Chopra S, Neuhaus P,

Neumann U (2010) The impact of carbon dioxide pneumoperi-

toneum on liver regeneration after liver resection in a rat model.

Surg Endosc 24:1–8

22. Avital S, Itash R, Szomstein S, Rosenthal R, Inbar R, Sckornik Y,

Weinbroum A (2009) Correlation of CO2 pneumoperitoneal

pressures between rodents and humans. Surg Endosc 23(1):50–54

23. Perrin M, Fletcher A (2004) Laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain 4(4):107–110

24. Matsumoto T, Tsuboi S, Dolgor B, Bandoh T, Yoshida T, Kitano

S (2001) The effect of gases in the intraperitoneal space on

cytokine response and bacterial translocation in a rat model. Surg

Endosc 15:80–84

25. Martins PNA, Theruvath TP, Neuhaus P (2007) Rodent models of

partial hepatectomies. Liver Int 28:3–11

26. Okano T, Ohwada S, Nakasone Y, Sato Y, Ogawa T, Tago K,

Morishita Y (2001) Blood transfusion causes deterioration in

liver regeneration after partial hepatectomy in rats. J Surg Res

101(2):157–165

27. Endo Y, Ohta M, Sasaki A et al (2007) A comparative study of

the long-term outcomes after laparoscopy-assisted and open left

lateral hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Surg Laparosc

Endosc Percutan Tech 19:171–174

28. Guven HE, Oral S (2007) Liver enzyme alterations after lapa-

roscopic cholecystectomy. J Gastrointest Liver Dis 16:391–394

29. Glantzounis GK, Tselepis AD, Tambaki AP, Trikalinos TA,

Manataki AD, Galaris DA, Tsimoyiannis EC, Kappas AM (2001)

Laparoscopic surgery-induced changes in oxidative stress mark-

ers in human plasma. Surg Endosc 15:1315–1319

30. Eryılmaz HB, Memis D, Sezer A, Inal MT (2012) The effects of

different insufflation pressures on liver functions assessed with

LiMON on patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Sci World J. doi:10.1100/2012/172575 (Epub 24 April 2012)

31. Morino M, Giraudo G, Festa V (1998) Alterations in hepatic

function during laparoscopic surgery: an experimental clinical

study. Surg Endosc 12:968–972

32. Ferrari R (1994) Oxygen-Free radicals at myocardial level:

effects of ischemia and reperfusion. Adv Exp Med Biol 366:

99–111

33. Kloner RA, Przyklenk K, Whittaker P (1989) Deleterious effects

of oxygen radicals in ischemia/reperfusion. Resolved and unre-

solved issues. Circulation 80:1115–1127

34. Foschi D, Castoldi L, Lesma A, Musazzi M, Benevento A, Tra-

bucchi E (1993) Effects of ischaemia and reperfusion on liver

regeneration in rats. Eur J Surg 59:393–398

35. Camargo CA Jr, Madden JF, Gao W, Selvan RS, Clavien PA

(1997) Interleukin-6 protects liver against warm ischemia/reper-

fusion injury and promotes hepatocyte proliferation in the rodent.

Hepatology 26(6):1513–1520

36. Usami M, Furuchi K, Shiroiwa H, Saitoh Y (1994) Effect of

repeated portal-triad cross-clamping during partial hepatectomy

on hepatic regeneration in normal and cirrhotic rats. J Surg Res

57(5):541–548

37. Hazebroek EJ, Haitsma JJ, Lachmann B, Steyerberg EW, de

Bruin RW, Bouvy ND, Bonjer HJ (2002) Impact of carbon

dioxide and helium insufflation on cardiorespiratory function

during prolonged pneumoperitoneum in an experimental rat

model. Surg Endosc 16:1073–1078

38. Nickkholgh A, Barro-Bejarano M, Liang R, Zorn M, Mehrabi A,

Gebhard MM, Buchler MW, Gutt CN, Schemmer P (2008) Signs

of reperfusion injury following CO2 pneumoperitoneum: an

in vivo microscopy study. Surg Endosc 22:122–128

39. Kaya Y, Aral W, Coskun T, Erkasap N, Var A (2002) Increased

intraabdominal pressure impairs liver regeneration after partial

hepatectomy in rats. J Surg Res 108:250–257

40. Yagmurdur MC, Basaran O, Ozdemir H, Gur G, Turan M, Ka-

rakayali H, Haberal M (2004) The impact of transient elevation of

intraabdominal pressure on liver regeneration in the rat. J Investig

Surg 17:315–322

41. Gagner M (2010) High-pressure carbon dioxide pneumoperito-

neum before major liver resection in a rat model is not realistic

and cannot be transposed to humans when studying liver regen-

eration. Surg Endosc 25:988–989

Surg Endosc

123

42. Sammour T, Mittal A, Loveday BP, Kahokehr A, Phillips AR,

Windsor JA, Hill AG (2009) Systematic review of oxidative

stress associated with pneumoperitoneum. Br J Surg 96:836–850

43. Xu GS, Liu HN, Li J, Wu XL, Dai XM, Liu YH (2009) Hepatic

injury induced by carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum in experi-

mental rats. World J Gastroenterol 15(24):3060–3064

44. Biffl WL, Moore EE, Moore FA, Peterson VM (1996) Interleu-

kin-6 in the injured patient marker of injury or mediator of

inflammation? Ann Surg 224:647–664

45. Xing Z, Gauldie J, Cox G, Baumann H, Jordana M, Lei XF, Achong

MK (1998) IL-6 is an antiinflammatory cytokine required for con-

trolling local or systemic acute inflammatory responses. J Clin In-

vestig 101:311–320

46. Otsuka Y, Katagiri T, Ishii J, Maeda T, Kubota Y, Tamura A,

Tsuchiya M, Kaneko H (2013) Gas embolism in laparoscopic

hepatectomy: what is the optimal pneumoperitoneal pressure for

laparoscopic major hepatectomy? J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci

20:137–140

47. Are C, Fong Y, Geller DA (2005) Laparoscopic liver resection.

Adv Surg 39:57–75

48. Buell JF, Koffron AJ, Thomas MJ, Rudich S, Abecassis M,

Woodle ES (2005) Laparoscopic liver resection. J Am Coll Surg

200:472–480

49. Cannon RM, Brock GN, Marvin MR, Buell JF (2011) Laparo-

scopic liver resection: an examination of our first 300 patients.

J Am Coll Surg 213:501–507

50. Leister I, Schuler P, Vollmar B, Fuzesi L, Kahler E, Becker H,

Markus PM (2004) Microcirculation and excretory function of

the liver under conditions of carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum.

Surg Endosc 18:1358–1363

51. Junghans T, Bohm B, Meyer E (2000) Influence of nitrous oxide

anesthesia on venous gas embolism with carbon dioxide and

helium during pneumoperitoneum. Surg Endosc 14:1167–1170

52. Nesek-Adam V, Rasic Z, Vnuk D, Schwarz D, Rasic D, Crvenkovic

D (2010) Ischemic preconditioning decreases laparoscopy induced

oxidative stress in the liver. Coll Antropol 34:571–576

53. Cevrioglu AS, Yilmaz S, Koken T, Tokyol C, Yilmazer M,

Fenkci IV (2004) Comparison of the effects of low intra-

abdominal pressure and ischaemic preconditioning on the gen-

eration of oxidative stress markers and inflammatory cytokines

during laparoscopy in rats. Hum Reprod 19:2144–2151

54. Avraamidou A, Marinis A, Asonitis S, Perrea D, Polymeneas G,

Voros D, Argyra E (2012) The impact of ischemic preconditioning

on hemodynamic, biochemical and inflammatory alterations induced

by intra-abdominal hypertension: an experimental study in a porcine

model. Langenbecks Arch Surg 397:1333–1341

Surg Endosc

123