Contemporary use of ultrasonic versus standard electrosurgical dissection in laparoscopic nephrectomy: Safety, efficacy and cost

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ultrasonic dissection (USD) compared with standard monopolar electrosurgery (ES) in laparoscopic nephrectomy (LN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients’ records who underwent elective LN was performed. Patients were divided in to two groups: USD and ES groups depending on the energy source used during LN. The preoperative (demographics, indication for surgery), intraoperative (conversion to open surgery, operative time, estimated blood loss [EBL], complications), and postoperative (morbidity/mortality, volume of drainage, hospital stay, cost) data were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Between February 2004 and February 2008, 136 patients were included. The indications for nephrectomy were: inflammatory (51 patients), non-inflammatory (64), and tumours (21). The two groups were similar for preoperative data. The conversion rate to open surgery (12.5%) and mean operative time did not differ significantly between the groups. However, intraoperative mean EBL was significantly less with USD, at 140.8 mL vs 182.6 mL for ES. There were no differences in postoperative parameters and morbidity. USD was significantly more expensive than ES (59 000 vs 26 000 Indian Rupees). CONCLUSIONS: ES is a safe and feasible tool like USD in LN when used with caution. USD facilitates completion of difficult cases and reduces intraoperative blood loss. However, the majority of LNs can be completed safely with ES. ES is sturdy and cheap; therefore, selective use of USD appears to be the most cost-effective policy in the developing world.