Cargando…
Laparoscopic Bowel Resection: A Comparison of Three Ultrasonically Activated Devices
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare resection time and collateral thermal damage of 3 currently available ultrasonically activated devices in laparoscopic small bowel surgery. METHODS: AutoSonix®, SonoSurg®, and UltraCision® were compared in laparoscopic small bowel mesentery resection in a porcin...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
2003
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3015463/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12722994 |
_version_ | 1782195519858147328 |
---|---|
author | Bergamaschi, Roberto Yavuz, Yunus Marvik, Ronald |
author_facet | Bergamaschi, Roberto Yavuz, Yunus Marvik, Ronald |
author_sort | Bergamaschi, Roberto |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare resection time and collateral thermal damage of 3 currently available ultrasonically activated devices in laparoscopic small bowel surgery. METHODS: AutoSonix®, SonoSurg®, and UltraCision® were compared in laparoscopic small bowel mesentery resection in a porcine model. A resection was defined as 12 endarcade arteries supplying the intended bowel segment. Vessels were divided 1 cm off the bowel wall. AutoSonix®, SonoSurg®, and UltraCision® were comparable for blade length and type, cutting mechanism, handle ergonomics, and vibration amplitude, but not well matched for vibration frequency (55.5;23.5;55.5 kHz), working shaft diameter (5;11;10mm) and length (29;33;34cm), respectively. A sample size of 114 was calculated to detect a 25% difference with 90% power at a 5% significance level. Resections were allocated to devices by block randomization. Analysis of variance and pairwise Scheffe tests were used for multiple comparisons, and a Kaplan-Meier plot was drawn to confirm differences in resection time with each device. A pathologist blind to the devices evaluated bowel wall biopsies for thermal damage. RESULTS: Procedures as allocated comprised 114 resections (38 with each device). UltraCision® median resection time of 5160 (range 2340-7860) seconds was significantly longer (P=0.0001). The difference in resection time between AutoSonix® (median 3420, range 1860-8760 s) and SonoSurg® (median 3660, range 1800-6900 s) did not reach statistical significance. A microscopy revealed no thermal damage. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection time for porcine bowel mesentery was shorter with AutoSonix® or SonoSurg® than with UltraCision®, and no thermal damage to the bowel wall was found. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-3015463 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2003 |
publisher | Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-30154632011-02-17 Laparoscopic Bowel Resection: A Comparison of Three Ultrasonically Activated Devices Bergamaschi, Roberto Yavuz, Yunus Marvik, Ronald JSLS Scientific Papers BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare resection time and collateral thermal damage of 3 currently available ultrasonically activated devices in laparoscopic small bowel surgery. METHODS: AutoSonix®, SonoSurg®, and UltraCision® were compared in laparoscopic small bowel mesentery resection in a porcine model. A resection was defined as 12 endarcade arteries supplying the intended bowel segment. Vessels were divided 1 cm off the bowel wall. AutoSonix®, SonoSurg®, and UltraCision® were comparable for blade length and type, cutting mechanism, handle ergonomics, and vibration amplitude, but not well matched for vibration frequency (55.5;23.5;55.5 kHz), working shaft diameter (5;11;10mm) and length (29;33;34cm), respectively. A sample size of 114 was calculated to detect a 25% difference with 90% power at a 5% significance level. Resections were allocated to devices by block randomization. Analysis of variance and pairwise Scheffe tests were used for multiple comparisons, and a Kaplan-Meier plot was drawn to confirm differences in resection time with each device. A pathologist blind to the devices evaluated bowel wall biopsies for thermal damage. RESULTS: Procedures as allocated comprised 114 resections (38 with each device). UltraCision® median resection time of 5160 (range 2340-7860) seconds was significantly longer (P=0.0001). The difference in resection time between AutoSonix® (median 3420, range 1860-8760 s) and SonoSurg® (median 3660, range 1800-6900 s) did not reach statistical significance. A microscopy revealed no thermal damage. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection time for porcine bowel mesentery was shorter with AutoSonix® or SonoSurg® than with UltraCision®, and no thermal damage to the bowel wall was found. Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2003 /pmc/articles/PMC3015463/ /pubmed/12722994 Text en © 2003 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 Yavuz, Yunus Marvik, Ronald Laparoscopic Bowel Resection: A Comparison of Three Ultrasonically Activated Devices |
title | Laparoscopic Bowel Resection: A Comparison of Three Ultrasonically Activated Devices |
title_full | Laparoscopic Bowel Resection: A Comparison of Three Ultrasonically Activated Devices |
title_fullStr | Laparoscopic Bowel Resection: A Comparison of Three Ultrasonically Activated Devices |
title_full_unstemmed | Laparoscopic Bowel Resection: A Comparison of Three Ultrasonically Activated Devices |
title_short | Laparoscopic Bowel Resection: A Comparison of Three Ultrasonically Activated Devices |
title_sort | laparoscopic bowel resection: a comparison of three ultrasonically activated devices |
topic | Scientific Papers |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3015463/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12722994 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bergamaschiroberto laparoscopicbowelresectionacomparisonofthreeultrasonicallyactivateddevices AT yavuzyunus laparoscopicbowelresectionacomparisonofthreeultrasonicallyactivateddevices AT marvikronald laparoscopicbowelresectionacomparisonofthreeultrasonicallyactivateddevices |