Implementation of a novel efficacy score to compare sealing and cutting devices in a porcine model
In general surgery, minimally invasive laparoscopic procedures have been steadily increasing over the last decade. The application of advanced bipolar and ultrasonic energy devices for sealing and cutting of blood vessels plays a vital role in routine clinical procedures. The advantages of energy-based instruments are enhanced sealing capability combined with both fast sealing time and minimal thermal injury. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy profiles of nine laparoscopic sealing and cutting devices in a porcine model, with a new scoring system.
Comparative studies in a porcine model were performed to assess vessel sealing, burst pressure, thermal spread, maximum heat, sealing/cooling time, and compression strength over the full jaw. Nine different devices from five manufacturers were tested in this study. The sealing and cutting devices (SCD) score has been developed to enable standardized comparisons of various devices. For this purpose, the most important parameters were identified through a consensus approach.
All sealed vessels with different devices could withstand a median pressure of more than 300 mmHg (range 112–2046 mmHg). The time for the sealing procedure was 7.705 s (range 5.305–18.38 s) for the ultrasonic and 7.860 s (range 5.08–10.17 s) for the bipolar devices. The ultrasonic instruments reached a median temperature of 218.1 °C (range 81.3–349.75 °C) and the bipolar devices a temperature of 125.5 °C (range 94.1–133.35 °C). The tissue reached a median temperature of 61.9 (range 47.1–80.6 °C) after ultrasonic sealing and 76.7 °C (range 63.1–94.2 °C) after bipolar sealing. The median SCD score was 10.47 (range 7.16–13.72).
All the instruments used seemed safe for use on the patient. The SCD score allows an indirect comparability of the instruments.
KeywordsEndoscopy Sealing and cutting devices Burst pressure Sealing time SCD score
We thank Covidien, Ethicon, Olympus, Martin, and ERBE for providing the generator and the instruments and Mr. Glier (Ethicon) for helping with and providing the burst pressure measurement device. We would also like to thank Testo for supporting and providing the thermal imaging camera and Tekscan, CMV Hoven GmbH, for the pressure measurement device.
Compliance with ethical standards
No financial support was obtained. Mrs. Brecht, Prof. Wallwiener, Prof. Sohn, Prof. Schuetz, Prof. Domschke, Prof. Fluhr and Drs. Sarah Schott, Dinkic, Golatta, Stenzinger, Kirchner, and Rom have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 3.Seehofer D, Mogl M, Boas-Knoop S, Unger J, Schirmeier A, Chopra S, Eurich D (2012) Safety and efficacy of new integrated bipolar and ultrasonic scissors compared to conventional laparoscopic 5-mm sealing and cutting instruments. Surg Endosc 26(9):2541–2549. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2229-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 5.Martin B (2006) Elektrochirurgie Handbuch. KLS Martin Group, Martin Brothers GmbH & Co KG V1.1, UmkirchGoogle Scholar
- 6.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(8):1228–1230. doi: 10.1007/s00464-002-8833-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Eick S, Loudermilk B, Walberg E, Wente MN (2013) Rationale, bench testing and in vivo evaluation of a novel 5 mm laparoscopic vessel sealing device with homogeneous pressure distribution in long instrument jaws. Ann Surg Innov Res 7(1):15. doi: 10.1186/1750-1164-7-15 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 21.Wallwiener CW, Rajab TK, Zubke W, Isaacson KB, Enderle M, Schaller D, Wallwiener M (2008) Thermal conduction, compression, and electrical current–an evaluation of major parameters of electrosurgical vessel sealing in a porcine in vitro model. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(5):605–610. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.05.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.De Wilde RL, Brolmann H, Koninckx PR, Lundorff P, Lower AM, Wattiez A, Mara M, Wallwiener M (2012) The Anti-Adhesions in Gynecology Expert P (2012) Prevention of adhesions in gynaecological surgery: the 2012 European field guideline. Gynecol Surg 9(4):365–368. doi: 10.1007/s10397-012-0764-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 25.Wallwiener CW, Rajab TK, Kramer B, Isaacson KB, Brucker S, Wallwiener M (2010) Quantifying electrosurgery-induced thermal effects and damage to human tissue: an exploratory study with the fallopian tube as a novel in vivo in situ model. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(1):70–77. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2009.09.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Uzunoglu FG, Bockhorn M, Fink JA, Reeh M, Vettorazzi E, Gawad KA, Bogoevski D, Vashist YK, Tsui TY, Koenig A, Mann O, Izbicki JR (2013) LigaSure vs. conventional dissection techniques in pancreatic surgery–a prospective randomised single-centre trial. J Gastrointest Surg 17(3):494–500. doi: 10.1007/s11605-012-2107-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Wilson MJ, Lopez M, Vargas M, Julian C, Tellez W, Rodriguez A, Bigham A, Armaza JF, Niermeyer S, Shriver M, Vargas E, Moore LG (2007) Greater uterine artery blood flow during pregnancy in multigenerational (Andean) than shorter-term (European) high-altitude residents. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 293(3):R1313–R1324. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00806.2006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.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(8):2604–2612. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-1606-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.Ghadially F (1988) Ultrastructural pathology of the cell and matrix, 3rd edn. Butterworths, BostonGoogle Scholar