Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 27, Issue 8, pp 2980–2987 | Cite as

Automatic smoke evacuation in laparoscopic surgery: a simplified method for objective evaluation

  • Hidekazu Takahashi
  • Makoto Yamasaki
  • Masashi Hirota
  • Yasuaki Miyazaki
  • Jeong Ho Moon
  • Yoshihito Souma
  • Masaki Mori
  • Yuichiro Doki
  • Kiyokazu NakajimaEmail author
Dynamic Manuscript

Abstract

Background

Although its theoretical usefulness has been reported, the true value of automatic smoke evacuation system in laparoscopic surgery remains unknown. This is mainly due to the lack of objective evaluation. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of the automatic smoke evacuator in laparoscopic surgery, by real-time objective evaluation system using an industrial smoke-detection device.

Methods

Six pigs were used in this study. Three surgical ports were placed and electrosurgical smoke was generated in a standard fashion, using either a high-frequency electrosurgical unit (HF-ESU) or laparosonic coagulating shears (LCS). The smoke was evacuated immediately in the evacuation group but not in the control nonevacuation group. The laparoscopic field-of-view was subjectively evaluated by ten independent surgeons. The composition of the surgical smoke was analyzed by mass spectrometry. The residual smoke in the abdominal cavity was aspirated manually into a smoke tester, and stains on a filter paper were image captured, digitized, and semiquantified.

Results

Subjective evaluation indicated superior field-of-view in the evacuation group, compared with the control, at 15 s after activation of the HF-ESU (P < 0.05). The smoke comprised various chemical compounds, including known carcinogens. The estimated volume of intra-abdominal residual smoke after activation of HF-ESU was significantly lower in the evacuation group (47.4 ± 16.6) than the control (76.7 ± 2.4, P = 0.0018). Only marginal amount of surgical smoke was detected in both groups after LCS when the tissue pad was free from burnt tissue deposits. However, the amount was significantly lower in the evacuation group (21.3 ± 10.7) than the control (75 ± 39.9, P = 0.044) when the tissue pad contained tissue sludge.

Conclusions

Automatic smoke evacuation provides better field-of-view and reduces the risk of exposure to harmful compounds.

Keywords

Automatic smoke evacuator Laparoscopic surgery High-frequency electrosurgical unit Laparosonic coagulating shears Smoke tester 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge AMCO Incorporated, Tokyo, Japan and Simadzu Incorporated, Kyoto, Japan for their technical supports.

Disclosures

Drs. Takahashi, Yamasaki, Hirota, Miyazaki, Moon, Souma, Mori, Doki, and Nakajima report no conflict of interest or financial ties with any of the firms mentioned in this report.

Funding

None.

Supplementary material

Movie 1 Representative laparoscopic field of view in the two groups (left: group E; evacuator group, right: group N; control group). (MPG 3592 kb)

Movie 2 The industrial use smoke tester equipped with filter paper was connected to the working port. The residual surgical smoke stained the filter paper after ten pulls of the cylinder. (MPG 4490 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Mattes D, Silajdzic E, Mayer M, Horn M, Scheidbach D, Wackernagel W, Langmann G, Wedrich A (2010) Surgical smoke management for minimally invasive (micro) endoscopy: an experimental study. Surg Endosc 24:2492–2501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thiebaud H, Knize M, Kuzmicky P, Hsieh D, Felton J (1995) Airborne mutagens produced by frying beef, pork and a soy-based food. Food Chem Toxicol 33:821–828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al Sahaf O, Vega-Carrascal I, Cunningham F, McGrath J, Bloomfield J (2007) Chemical composition of smoke produced by high-frequency electrosurgery. Ir J Med Sci 176:229–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barrett W, Garber S (2003) Surgical smoke: a review of the literature. Surg Endosc 17:979–987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ott D (1998) Carboxyhemoglobinemia due to peritoneal smoke absorption from laser tissue combustion at laparoscopy. J Clin Laser Med Surg 16:309–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krones C, Conze J, Hoelzl F, Stumpf M, Klinge U, Moeller M, Dott W, Schumpelick V, Hollernder J (2007) Chemical composition of surgical smoke produced by electrocautery, harmonic scalpel and argon beaming-a short study. Eur Surg 39:118–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tomita Y, Mihashi S, Nagata K, Ueda S, Fujiki M, Hirano M, Hirahata T (1981) Mutagenicity of smoke condensates induced by CO2-laser irradiation and electrocauterization. Mutat Res 89:145–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DesCoteaux J, Picard P, Poulin E, Baril M (1996) Preliminary study of electrocautery smoke particles produced in vitro and during laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc 10:152–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bigony L (2007) Risks associated with exposure to surgical smoke plume: a review of the literature. AORN J 86:1013–1024PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ott D (1993) Smoke production and smoke reduction in endoscopic surgery: preliminary report. Endosc Surg Allied Technol 1:230–232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sagar P, Meagher A, Sobczak S, Wolff B (1996) Chemical composition and potential hazards of electrocautery smoke. Br J Surg 83:1792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kokosa J, Eugene J (1989) Chemical composition of laser-tissue interaction smoke plume. J Laser Appl 1:59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hensman C, Baty D, Willis R, Cuschieri A (1998) Chemical composition of smoke produced by high-frequency electrosurgery in a closed gaseous environment. Surg Endosc 12:1017–1019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hidekazu Takahashi
    • 1
  • Makoto Yamasaki
    • 1
  • Masashi Hirota
    • 1
  • Yasuaki Miyazaki
    • 1
  • Jeong Ho Moon
    • 1
  • Yoshihito Souma
    • 1
  • Masaki Mori
    • 1
  • Yuichiro Doki
    • 1
  • Kiyokazu Nakajima
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterological SurgeryOsaka University Graduate School of MedicineSuitaJapan
  2. 2.Division of Collaborative Research for Next Generation Endoscopic Intervention (Project ENGINE)The Center for Advanced Medical Engineering and Informatics, Osaka UniversitySuitaJapan

Personalised recommendations