Evaluation and Comparison of Contemporary Energy-Based Surgical Vessel Sealing Devices

Introduction: We evaluated and compared five currently available energy-based vessel sealing devices to assess typical surgical metrics. Methods: We tested Caiman 5 (C5), Harmonic Scalpel Ace Plus (HA), Harmonic Ace +7 (HA7), LigaSure (LS), and Enseal G2 (ES) on small (2–5 mm), medium (5.1–7 mm), and large (7.1–9 mm) vessels obtained from 15 Yorkshire pigs. Vessels were randomly sealed and transected. We recorded sealing and transection time, charring and carbonization, thermal spread, and bursting pressure (BP). Specimens were sent for histopathologic evaluation of seal quality and thermal spread. Results: A total of 246 vessels were evaluated: 125 were arteries and 121 were veins. There was no difference in BPs for small size arteries. For medium arteries, C5 provided the highest BP (proximal and distal jaw), followed by HA7, ES, LS, and HA [1740, 1600, 1165, 1165, 981, and 571 mm Hg, respectively, HA<C5-D(<0.001); HA<C5-P(<0.001); HA<ES(0.002); HA<HA7(0.002); HA7<C5-P(0.026); ES<C5-P(0.026); LS<C5-P(0.001); LS<C5-D(0.014)]. For large arteries, C5 and LS provided highest BP followed by HA7, ES, and HA [1676, 530, 467, 467, and 254 mm Hg, respectively, C5<HA(<0.001); C5<HA7(0.006); C5<ES(0.006); C5<LS(0.012)]. There were no bursting pressure failures for C5, HA7, and LS up to 9 mm vessels. For medium and large size arteries, HA had bursting failure of 20% and 40%, respectively. The ES was significantly less efficient with small, medium, and large arteries with bursting failure rates of 10%, 40%, and 80%, respectively. Conclusions: In this study, C5 outperformed all other devices. However, all of the devices provide a seal that was superphysiologic in that all burst pressures were >250 mm Hg.