Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 27, Issue 10, pp 3852–3859 | Cite as

A prospective, randomized clinical comparison between UltraCision and the novel sealing and cutting device BiCision in patients with laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy

  • Ralf Rothmund
  • Mara Szyrach
  • Ali Reda
  • Markus D. Enderle
  • Alexander Neugebauer
  • Florin-Andrei TaranEmail author
  • Sara Brucker
  • Andrea Hausch
  • Christian Wallwiener
  • Bernhard Kraemer
Article

Abstract

Background

Various surgical procedures for hysterectomy exist; with laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) becoming an established option in recent years. Therefore, energy-based technologies for rapid tissue sealing and cutting are in the focus of surgeons. The aim of this trial was to prove or disprove investigated noninferiority of the novel device BiCision in comparison to the widely used UltraCision in a routine procedure (www.clinicaltrials.gov; study identifier NCT01806012).

Methods

Thirty LASH procedures were performed with UltraCision and BiCision after randomization of the preparation sides. The primary end point was the resection time per side and instrument. The instruments were also compared concerning blood loss and coagulation and cutting qualities as well as postoperative complications. The patients were followed for 3 months.

Results

Mean preparation time per side was 8.8 ± 1.8 min for BiCision and 8.3 ± 1.9 min for UltraCision (p = 0.31), which was not significantly different. Both instruments achieved complete transection without the need of additional cutting attempts. BiCision was significantly superior regarding the number of coagulations for complete hemostasis before and after the removal of the uterine corpus (before: 6.9 ± 4.8 for BiCision and 8.6 ± 4.1 for UltraCision, p = 0.047; after: 5.4 ± 1.2 for BiCision and 8.6 ± 3.2 for UltraCision, p < 0.0001) and intraoperative blood loss (score 1.07 ± 0.25 for BiCision vs. 1.63 ± 0.49 for UltraCision, p < 0.0001). Tissue sticking to the instrument occurred less often on the BiCision side (score 0.14 ± 0.35 for BiCision vs. 0.60 ± 0.81 for UltraCision, p = 0.015). BiCision showed a significantly better fixation of the tissue (grip score 0.23 ± 0.43 for BiCision vs. 1.00 ± 0.74 for UltraCision, p < 0.0001). No intraoperative or postoperative complications were seen for both instruments.

Conclusions

The efficacy and quality of vessel sealing and cutting with BiCision is not inferior to the UltraCision device. Resection time was comparable, and complete hemostasis could be achieved faster in a clinical setting. Therefore, BiCision is at least as reliable as UltraCision for laparoscopic indications.

Keywords

Bipolar electrocoagulation Supracervical hysterectomy Vessel sealing 

Notes

Disclosures

R. Rothmund, M. Szyrach, A. Reda, M. D. Enderle, A. Neugebauer, F.-A. Taran, S. Brucker, A. Hausch, C. Wallwiener, and B. Kraemer have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdelmonem A, Wilson H, Pasic R (2006) Observational comparison of abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy as performed at a university teaching hospital. J Reprod Med 51:945–954PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hobson DT, Imudia AN, Al-Safi ZA, Shade G, Kruger M, Diamond MP, Awonuga AO (2012) Comparative analysis of different laparoscopic hysterectomy procedures. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285:1353–1361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harrell AG, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2004) Energy sources in laparoscopy. Semin Laparosc Surg 11:201–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Richter S, Kollmar O, Schilling MK, Pistorius GA, Menger MD (2006) Efficacy and quality of vessel sealing: comparison of a reusable with a disposable device and effects of a clmap surface geometry and structure. Surg Endosc 20:890–894PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wallwiener CW, Rajab TK, Zubke W, Isaacson KB, Enderle MD, Schäller D, Wallwiener M (2008) Thermal conduction, compression, and electrical current—an ecaluation of major parameters of electrosurgical vessel sealing in a porcine in vitro model. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15:605–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rimonda R, Arezzo A, Garrone C, Allaix ME, Giraudo G, Morino M (2009) Electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing system vs harmonic scalpel in colorectal laparoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized study. Dis Colon Rectum 52:657–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kunde D, Welch C (2003) UltraCision in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol 23:347–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmidbauer S, Hallfeldt KK, Sitzmann G, Kantelhardt T, Trupka A (2002) Experience with ultrasound scissors and blades (UltraCision) in open and laparoscopic liver resection. Ann Surg 235:27–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rothmund R, Kraemer B, Neis F, Brucker S, Wallwiener M, Rada A, Hausch A, Scharpf M, Szyrach MN (2012) Efficacy and safety of the novel electrosurgical vessel sealing and cutting instrument BiCision®. Surg Endosc 26:3334–3343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harold KL, Pollinger H, Matthews BD, Kercher KW, Sing RF, Heniford BT (2003) Comparison of ultrasonic energy, bipolar thermal energy, and vascular clips for the hemostasis of small-, medium-, and large-sized arteries. Surg Endosc 17:1228–1230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lamberton GR, Hsi RS, Jin DH, Lindler TU, Jellison FC, Baldwin DD (2008) Prospective comparison of four laparoscopic vessel ligation devices. J Endourol 22:2307–2312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mantke R, Halangk W, Habermann A, Peters B, Konrad S, Guenther M, Lippert H (2011) Efficacy and safety of 5-mm-diameter bipolar and ultrasonic shears for cutting carotid arteries of the hybrid pig. Surg Endosc 25:577–585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Newcomb WL, Hope WW, Schmelzer TM, Heath JJ, Norton HJ, Lincourt AE, Heniford BT, Iannitti DA (2009) Comparison of blood vessel sealing among new electrosurgical and ultrasonic devices. Surg Endosc 23:90–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Person B, Vivas DA, Ruiz D, Talcott M, Coad JE, Wexner SD (2008) Comparison of four energy-based vascular sealing and cutting instruments: a porcine model. Surg Endosc 22:534–538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ou CS, Harper A, Liu YH, Rowbotham R (2002) Laparoscopic myomectomy technique. Use of colpotomy and the harmonic scalpel. J Reprod Med 47:849–853PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Demirturk F, Aytan H, Caliskan AC (2007) Comparison of the use of electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer with harmonic scalpel in total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 33:341–345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barnacle SJ, Robinson RD, Malinowski MJ (2007) Laparoscopic resection of a noncommunicating, rudimentary uterine horn using the harmonic scalpel: a report of 3 cases. J Reprod Med 52:570–574PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bessa SS, Abdel-Razek AH, Sharaan MA, Bassiouni AE, El-Khishen MA, El-Kayal el SA (2011) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in cirrhotics: a prospective randomized study comparing the conventional diathermy and the harmonic scalpel for gallbladder dissection. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 21:1–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwartz RO (1994) Laparoscopic hysterectomy. Supracervical vs assisted vaginal. J Reprod Med 39:625–630PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Müller A, Thiel FC, Renner SP, Winkler M, Häberle L, Beckmann MW (2010) Hysterectomy—a comparison of approaches. Dtsch Arztebl Int 107:353–359PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brill AI (2011) Electrosurgery: principles and practice to reduce risk and maximize efficacy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 38:687–702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, Garthwaite PH, Monk AF, Russell IT (2001) Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies. Health Technol Assess 5:1–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Janetschek G, Hobisch A, Peschel R, Bartsch G (2000) Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Urology 55:136–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sakurai N, Yamamoto Y, Asakawa Y, Taoka H, Takahashi K, Kubushiro K (2011) Laparoscopically resected uterine adenomatoid tumor with coexisting endometriosis: case report. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:257–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fitzgerald JEF, Malik M, Ahmed I (2012) A single blind controlled study of electrocautery and ultrasonic scalpel smoke plumes in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 26:337–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sindram D, Martin K, Meadows JP, Prabhu AS, Heath JJ, McKillop IH, Iannitti DA (2011) Collagen-elastin ratio predicts burst pressure of arterial seals created using a bipolar vessel sealing device in a porcine model. Surg Endosc 25:2604–2612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Richter S, Kollmar O, Neunhoeffer E, Schilling MK, Menger MD, Pistorius G (2006) Differential response of arteries and veins to bipolar vessel sealing: evaluation of a novel reusable device. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 16:149–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ghomi A, Hantes J, Lotze EC (2005) Incidence of cyclical bleeding after laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12:201–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schmidt T, Eren Y, Breidenbach M, Fehr D, Volkmer A, Fleisch M, Rein DT (2011) Modifications of laproscopic supracervical hysterectomy technique significantly reduce postoperative spotting. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:81–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lieng M, Qvigstad E, Istre O, Langebrekke A, Ballard K (2008) Long-term outcomes following laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. BJOG 115:1605–1610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jenkins TR (2004) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1875–1884PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralf Rothmund
    • 1
  • Mara Szyrach
    • 2
  • Ali Reda
    • 1
  • Markus D. Enderle
    • 2
  • Alexander Neugebauer
    • 2
  • Florin-Andrei Taran
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sara Brucker
    • 1
  • Andrea Hausch
    • 2
  • Christian Wallwiener
    • 1
  • Bernhard Kraemer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of TuebingenTuebingenGermany
  2. 2.ERBE Elektromedizin GmbHTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations