Cargando…

Laparoscopic Intracorporeal Bowel Resection with Ultrasound versus Electrosurgical Dissection

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We assessed resection time and collateral thermal tissue damage of ultrasonically activated surgery (UAS) and high-frequency blade-enhanced bipolar electrosurgery (BE) in laparoscopic bowel surgery. METHODS: We compared UAS laparoscopic intracorporeal small bowel mesentery...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bergamaschi, Roberto, Marvik, Ronald
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2001
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3015418/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11303990
_version_ 1782195508961345536
author Bergamaschi, Roberto
Marvik, Ronald
author_facet Bergamaschi, Roberto
Marvik, Ronald
author_sort Bergamaschi, Roberto
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We assessed resection time and collateral thermal tissue damage of ultrasonically activated surgery (UAS) and high-frequency blade-enhanced bipolar electrosurgery (BE) in laparoscopic bowel surgery. METHODS: We compared UAS laparoscopic intracorporeal small bowel mesentery re-section with an equivalent procedure performed with BE in a porcine model. Resection was defined as 12 end-arcade arteries supplying the intended bowel segment. Vessels were divided one cm off the bowel wall. Aside from shaft diameter, jaws gaping pattern, and cutting blade length, UAS and BE devices were well matched for handle ergonomics, jaws gaping extent, power setting, type of use, working shaft axial rotation, and length. A pathologist blind to the method used assessed the collateral thermal damage. Resections were allocated to either method by computer-generated block randomization. The study design was sequential triangular with a 5% significance level and 90% power. RESULTS: No significant differences occurred in intraoperative blood pressure and heart rate variations in pigs undergoing UAS or BE. Median operating time (measured after 10, 20, and 30 resections in each study arm) was significantly shorter in UAS than in BS (0.57 vs. 2.01 min P < 0.001). Histology of small bowel wall specimens revealed no collateral thermal damage. CONCLUSIONS: UAS laparoscopic bowel surgery offers reduced resection time as com-pared with its BE counterpart in a porcine model.
format Text
id pubmed-3015418
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2001
publisher Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30154182011-02-17 Laparoscopic Intracorporeal Bowel Resection with Ultrasound versus Electrosurgical Dissection Bergamaschi, Roberto Marvik, Ronald JSLS Scientific Papers BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We assessed resection time and collateral thermal tissue damage of ultrasonically activated surgery (UAS) and high-frequency blade-enhanced bipolar electrosurgery (BE) in laparoscopic bowel surgery. METHODS: We compared UAS laparoscopic intracorporeal small bowel mesentery re-section with an equivalent procedure performed with BE in a porcine model. Resection was defined as 12 end-arcade arteries supplying the intended bowel segment. Vessels were divided one cm off the bowel wall. Aside from shaft diameter, jaws gaping pattern, and cutting blade length, UAS and BE devices were well matched for handle ergonomics, jaws gaping extent, power setting, type of use, working shaft axial rotation, and length. A pathologist blind to the method used assessed the collateral thermal damage. Resections were allocated to either method by computer-generated block randomization. The study design was sequential triangular with a 5% significance level and 90% power. RESULTS: No significant differences occurred in intraoperative blood pressure and heart rate variations in pigs undergoing UAS or BE. Median operating time (measured after 10, 20, and 30 resections in each study arm) was significantly shorter in UAS than in BS (0.57 vs. 2.01 min P < 0.001). Histology of small bowel wall specimens revealed no collateral thermal damage. CONCLUSIONS: UAS laparoscopic bowel surgery offers reduced resection time as com-pared with its BE counterpart in a porcine model. Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2001 /pmc/articles/PMC3015418/ /pubmed/11303990 Text en © 2001 by JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits for noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not altered in any way.
spellingShingle Scientific Papers
Bergamaschi, Roberto
Marvik, Ronald
Laparoscopic Intracorporeal Bowel Resection with Ultrasound versus Electrosurgical Dissection
title Laparoscopic Intracorporeal Bowel Resection with Ultrasound versus Electrosurgical Dissection
title_full Laparoscopic Intracorporeal Bowel Resection with Ultrasound versus Electrosurgical Dissection
title_fullStr Laparoscopic Intracorporeal Bowel Resection with Ultrasound versus Electrosurgical Dissection
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic Intracorporeal Bowel Resection with Ultrasound versus Electrosurgical Dissection
title_short Laparoscopic Intracorporeal Bowel Resection with Ultrasound versus Electrosurgical Dissection
title_sort laparoscopic intracorporeal bowel resection with ultrasound versus electrosurgical dissection
topic Scientific Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3015418/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11303990
work_keys_str_mv AT bergamaschiroberto laparoscopicintracorporealbowelresectionwithultrasoundversuselectrosurgicaldissection
AT marvikronald laparoscopicintracorporealbowelresectionwithultrasoundversuselectrosurgicaldissection