Background:The Glissonean approach has been widely validated for both open and minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (MIALR). However, the possible advantages compared to the conventional hilar approach are still under debate. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the application of the Glissonean approach in MIALR. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted on PubMed and Ichushi databases. Articles written in English or Japanese were included. From 2,390 English manuscripts evaluated by title and abstract, 43 were included. Additionally, 23 out of 463 Japanese manuscripts were selected. Duplicates were removed, including the most recent manuscript. Results: The Glissonean approach is reported for both major and minor MIALR. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd order divisions of both right and left portal pedicles can be reached How to cite this article: Morimoto M, Tomassini F, Berardi G, et al. Glissonean approach for hepatic inflow control in minimally invasive anatomic liver resection: A systematic review.

Introduction Noninvasive ventilation is a safe and eff ective method to treat acute respiratory failure, minimizing the respiratory workload and oxygenation. Few studies compare the effi cacy of diff erent types of noninvasive ventilation interfaces and their adaptation. Objective To identify the most frequently noninvasive ventilation interfaces used and eventual problems related to their adaptation in critically ill patients. Methods We conducted an observational study, with patients older than 18 years old admitted to the intensive care and step-down units of the Albert Einstein Jewish Hospital that used noninvasive ventilation. We collected data such as reason to use noninvasive ventilation, interface used, scheme of noninvasive ventilation used (continuously, periods or nocturnal use), adaptation, and reasons for nonadaptation. Results We evaluated 245 patients with a median age of 82 years (range of 20 to 107 years). Acute respiratory failure was the most frequent cause of noninvasive ventilation used (71.3%), followed by pulmonary expansion (10.24%), after mechanical ventilation weaning (6.14%) and sleep obstructive apnea (8.6%). The most frequently used interface was total face masks (74.7%), followed by facial masks in 24.5% of the patients, and 0.8% used performax masks. The use of noninvasive ventilation for periods (82.4%) was the most common scheme of use, with 10.6% using it continuously and 6.9% during the nocturnal period only. Interface adaptation occurred in 76% of the patients; the 24% that did not adapt had their interface changed to improve adaptation afterwards. The total face mask had 75.5% of interface adaptation, the facial mask had 80% and no adaptation occurred in patients that used the performax mask. The face format was the most frequent cause of nonadaptation in 30.5% of the patients, followed by patient's related discomfort (28.8%), air leaking (27.7%), claustrophobia (18.6%), noncollaborative patient (10.1%), patient agitation (6.7%), facial trauma or lesion (1.7%), type of mask fi xation (1.7%), and 1.7% patients with other causes. Conclusion Acute respiratory failure was the most frequent reason for noninvasive ventilation use, with the total face mask being the most frequent interface used. The most common causes of interface nonadaptation were face format, patient-related discomfort and air leaking, showing improvement of adaptation after changing the interface used. P2 Exercise training reduces oxidative damage in skeletal muscle of septic rats

Introduction Noninvasive ventilation is a safe and eff ective method to treat acute respiratory failure, minimizing the respiratory workload and oxygenation. Few studies compare the effi cacy of diff erent types of noninvasive ventilation interfaces and their adaptation. Objective To identify the most frequently noninvasive ventilation interfaces used and eventual problems related to their adaptation in critically ill patients. Methods We conducted an observational study, with patients older than 18 years old admitted to the intensive care and step-down units of the Albert Einstein Jewish Hospital that used noninvasive ventilation. We collected data such as reason to use noninvasive ventilation, interface used, scheme of noninvasive ventilation used (continuously, periods or nocturnal use), adaptation, and reasons for nonadaptation. Results We evaluated 245 patients with a median age of 82 years (range of 20 to 107 years). Acute respiratory failure was the most frequent cause of noninvasive ventilation used (71.3%), followed by pulmonary expansion (10.24%), after mechanical ventilation weaning (6.14%) and sleep obstructive apnea (8.6%). The most frequently used interface was total face masks (74.7%), followed by facial masks in 24.5% of the patients, and 0.8% used performax masks. The use of noninvasive ventilation for periods (82.4%) was the most common scheme of use, with 10.6% using it continuously and 6.9% during the nocturnal period only. Interface adaptation occurred in 76% of the patients; the 24% that did not adapt had their interface changed to improve adaptation afterwards. The total face mask had 75.5% of interface adaptation, the facial mask had 80% and no adaptation occurred in patients that used the performax mask. The face format was the most frequent cause of nonadaptation in 30.5% of the patients, followed by patient's related discomfort (28.8%), air leaking (27.7%), claustrophobia (18.6%), noncollaborative patient (10.1%), patient agitation (6.7%), facial trauma or lesion (1.7%), type of mask fi xation (1.7%), and 1.7% patients with other causes. Conclusion Acute respiratory failure was the most frequent reason for noninvasive ventilation use, with the total face mask being the most frequent interface used. The most common causes of interface nonadaptation were face format, patient-related discomfort and air leaking, showing improvement of adaptation after changing the interface used. P2 Exercise training reduces oxidative damage in skeletal muscle of septic rats

No abstract

No abstract