Cargando…

Laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors: technology update by a review of literature

The evolution of minimally invasive surgery has brought forward the appearance of new advances in the course of the most recent couple of years and has introduced energy-based devices. The newest among them today are the ultrasonically activated devices, which are utilized with a great deal of compo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Devassy, Rajesh, Hanif, Sadaf, Krentel, Harald, Verhoeven, Hugo C, la Roche, Luz Angela Torres-de, De Wilde, Rudy Leon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6311332/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30643470
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S113262
_version_ 1783383597785284608
author Devassy, Rajesh
Hanif, Sadaf
Krentel, Harald
Verhoeven, Hugo C
la Roche, Luz Angela Torres-de
De Wilde, Rudy Leon
author_facet Devassy, Rajesh
Hanif, Sadaf
Krentel, Harald
Verhoeven, Hugo C
la Roche, Luz Angela Torres-de
De Wilde, Rudy Leon
author_sort Devassy, Rajesh
collection PubMed
description The evolution of minimally invasive surgery has brought forward the appearance of new advances in the course of the most recent couple of years and has introduced energy-based devices. The newest among them today are the ultrasonically activated devices, which are utilized with a great deal of components in-play, including ergonomics and financial aspects amid surgery. The methodology embraced was finding significant investigations through studies from PubMed, Medline and Google Scholar on current ultrasonic dissectors, which are Ethicon’s Harmonic Scalpel (ACE(®)), Covidien’s Sonicision™ (SNC), Conmed’s SonoSurg(®) (SS) and Olympus’s Thunderbeat(®), to describe their efficacy in terms of vessel sealing speed, vessel burst pressure, visibility, operation time and thermal speed. We found postmarketing evidence to determine which device exhibits the better performance. Animal studies showed that emissivity values and maximum temperatures for coagulation are similar among devices but maximum cutting temperatures are significantly different: ACE = 191.1°C, SNC = 227.1°C, SS = 184.8°C (p < 0.001). Cooling times are significantly different among devices: 35.7 s for ACE, 38.7 s for SNC and 27.4 s for SS (p < 0.001). Cooling times of passive jaws to reach 60°C after activation were also significantly different: 25.4 s for ACE, 5.7 s for SNC, and 15.4 s for SS (p < 0.001). The perfect device would unify brilliant hemostatic outcomes with visual sharpness while permitting none or insignificant thermal damage at the place of use.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6311332
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63113322019-01-14 Laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors: technology update by a review of literature Devassy, Rajesh Hanif, Sadaf Krentel, Harald Verhoeven, Hugo C la Roche, Luz Angela Torres-de De Wilde, Rudy Leon Med Devices (Auckl) Review The evolution of minimally invasive surgery has brought forward the appearance of new advances in the course of the most recent couple of years and has introduced energy-based devices. The newest among them today are the ultrasonically activated devices, which are utilized with a great deal of components in-play, including ergonomics and financial aspects amid surgery. The methodology embraced was finding significant investigations through studies from PubMed, Medline and Google Scholar on current ultrasonic dissectors, which are Ethicon’s Harmonic Scalpel (ACE(®)), Covidien’s Sonicision™ (SNC), Conmed’s SonoSurg(®) (SS) and Olympus’s Thunderbeat(®), to describe their efficacy in terms of vessel sealing speed, vessel burst pressure, visibility, operation time and thermal speed. We found postmarketing evidence to determine which device exhibits the better performance. Animal studies showed that emissivity values and maximum temperatures for coagulation are similar among devices but maximum cutting temperatures are significantly different: ACE = 191.1°C, SNC = 227.1°C, SS = 184.8°C (p < 0.001). Cooling times are significantly different among devices: 35.7 s for ACE, 38.7 s for SNC and 27.4 s for SS (p < 0.001). Cooling times of passive jaws to reach 60°C after activation were also significantly different: 25.4 s for ACE, 5.7 s for SNC, and 15.4 s for SS (p < 0.001). The perfect device would unify brilliant hemostatic outcomes with visual sharpness while permitting none or insignificant thermal damage at the place of use. Dove Medical Press 2018-12-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6311332/ /pubmed/30643470 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S113262 Text en © 2019 Devassy et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Review
Devassy, Rajesh
Hanif, Sadaf
Krentel, Harald
Verhoeven, Hugo C
la Roche, Luz Angela Torres-de
De Wilde, Rudy Leon
Laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors: technology update by a review of literature
title Laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors: technology update by a review of literature
title_full Laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors: technology update by a review of literature
title_fullStr Laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors: technology update by a review of literature
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors: technology update by a review of literature
title_short Laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors: technology update by a review of literature
title_sort laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors: technology update by a review of literature
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6311332/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30643470
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S113262
work_keys_str_mv AT devassyrajesh laparoscopicultrasonicdissectorstechnologyupdatebyareviewofliterature
AT hanifsadaf laparoscopicultrasonicdissectorstechnologyupdatebyareviewofliterature
AT krentelharald laparoscopicultrasonicdissectorstechnologyupdatebyareviewofliterature
AT verhoevenhugoc laparoscopicultrasonicdissectorstechnologyupdatebyareviewofliterature
AT larocheluzangelatorresde laparoscopicultrasonicdissectorstechnologyupdatebyareviewofliterature
AT dewilderudyleon laparoscopicultrasonicdissectorstechnologyupdatebyareviewofliterature