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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |