Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 33, Issue 12, pp 4153–4163 | Cite as

Lateral thermal spread induced by energy devices: a porcine model to evaluate the influence on the recurrent laryngeal nerve

  • Masaru Hayami
  • Masayuki WatanabeEmail author
  • Shinji Mine
  • Yu Imamura
  • Akihiko Okamura
  • Masami Yuda
  • Kotaro Yamashita
  • Tasuku Toihata
  • Yoshiaki Shoji
  • Naoki Ishizuka
Article

Abstract

Background

Recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) paralysis is a frequently observed complication after esophagectomy, and thermal injury is considered to be one of the causes. The difference in the lateral thermal spread associated with the grasping range of various energy devices remains unknown.

Methods

Ultrasonic devices (Harmonic® HD1000i and Sonicision™) and a vessel-sealing device (Ligasure™) were studied. We evaluated the temperature of these devices, the activation time required, and the thermal spread on porcine muscle when the devices were used with different grasping ranges (thermal spread study). In addition, we evaluated the influence of thermal spread by short grasping use of the energy devices on the viability of RLN in a live porcine model (NIM study).

Results

In the thermal spread study, the temperature of the ultrasonic devices lowered as grasping range increased, whereas the highest temperature of Ligasure was observed when used with two-thirds grasping. The activation time of ultrasonic devices became longer as grasping range increased, whereas the grasping range did not influence the activation time of Ligasure. Thermal spreads 1 mm from the energy devices were unaffected by the grasping ranges. Although the temperature of the Ligasure was lower than that of the ultrasonic devices, thermal spread by Ligasure was significantly greater than that induced by the ultrasonic devices. In the NIM study, the activation of the Sonicision with one-third grasping range did not cause EMG changes at distances of up to 1 mm from the RLN, whereas applying Ligasure with a one-third grasping range 1 mm away from the RLN led to a critical result.

Conclusions

The grasping range did not influence the thermal spread induced by the energy devices. Ultrasonic devices may be safer in terms of lateral thermal spread to the RLN than Ligasure.

Keywords

Esophageal cancer Thermal spread Recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis Energy device Grasping range Continuous intraoperative neuromonitoring 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Drs. Masaru Hayami, Masayuki Watanabe, Shinji Mine, Yu Imamura, Akihiko Okamura, Masami Yuda, Kotaro Yamashita, Tasuku Toihata, Yoshiaki Shoji, and Naoki Ishizuka have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Supplementary material

464_2019_6724_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary Table 1 (DOCX 15 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Fujita H, Sueyoshi S, Tanaka T, Shirouzu K (2002) Three-field dissection for squamous cell carcinoma in the thoracic esophagus. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 8:328–335PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nishihira T, Hirayama K, Mori S (1998) A prospective randomized trial of extended cervical and superior mediastinal lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus. Am J Surg 175:47–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Matsubara T, Ueda M, Abe T, Akimori T, Kokudo N, Takahashi T (1999) Unique distribution patterns of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with superficial carcinoma of the thoracic oesophagus. Br J Surg 86:669–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gockel I, Kneist W, Keilmann A, Junginger T (2005) Recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (RLNP) following esophagectomy for carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 31:277–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wu CW, Dionigi G, Sun H, Liu X, Kim HY, Hsiao PJ, Tsai KB, Chen HC, Chen HY, Chang PY, Lu IC, Chiang FY (2014) Intraoperative neuromonitoring for the early detection and prevention of RLN traction injury in thyroid surgery: a porcine model. Surgery 155:329–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Myssiorek D (2004) Recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis: anatomy and etiology. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 37:25–44 (v)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dionigi G (2009) Energy based devices and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury: the need for safer instruments. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 394:579–580 (author reply 581–576)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Druzijanic N, Pogorelic Z, Perko Z, Mrklic I, Tomic S (2012) Comparison of lateral thermal damage of the human peritoneum using monopolar diathermy, Harmonic scalpel and LigaSure. Can J Surg 55:317–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sutton PA, Awad S, Perkins AC, Lobo DN (2010) Comparison of lateral thermal spread using monopolar and bipolar diathermy, the Harmonic Scalpel and the Ligasure. Br J Surg 97:428–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chavez KV, Barajas EM, Soroa F, Gamboa-Dominguez A, Ordonez S, Pantoja JP, Sierra M, Velazquez-Fernandez D, Herrera MF (2017) Safety assessment of the use of ultrasonic energy in the proximity of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in a porcine model. Am J Surg 215:186–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dionigi G, Chiang FY, Kim HY, Randolph GW, Mangano A, Chang PY, Lu IC, Lin YC, Chen HC, Wu CW (2017) Safety of LigaSure in recurrent laryngeal nerve dissection-porcine model using continuous monitoring. Laryngoscope 127:1724–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 26:2541–2549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim FJ, Chammas MF Jr, Gewehr E, Morihisa M, Caldas F, Hayacibara E, Baptistussi M, Meyer F, Martins AC (2008) Temperature safety profile of laparoscopic devices: harmonic ACE (ACE), Ligasure V (LV), and plasma trisector (PT). Surg Endosc 22:1464–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hruby GW, Marruffo FC, Durak E, Collins SM, Pierorazio P, Humphrey PA, Mansukhani MM, Landman J (2007) Evaluation of surgical energy devices for vessel sealing and peripheral energy spread in a porcine model. J Urol 178:2689–2693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Emam TA, Cuschieri A (2003) How safe is high-power ultrasonic dissection? Ann Surg 237:186–191PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Irino T, Hiki N, Ohashi M, Nunobe S, Sano T, Yamaguchi T (2016) The Hit and Away technique: optimal usage of the ultrasonic scalpel in laparoscopic gastrectomy. Surg Endosc 30:245–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pogorelic Z, Perko Z, Druzijanic N, Tomic S, Mrklic I (2009) How to prevent lateral thermal damage to tissue using the harmonic scalpel: experimental study on pig small intestine and abdominal wall. Eur Surg Res 43:235–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Randolph GW, Dralle H, International Intraoperative Monitoring Study G, Abdullah H, Barczynski M, Bellantone R, Brauckhoff M, Carnaille B, Cherenko S, Chiang FY, Dionigi G, Finck C, Hartl D, Kamani D, Lorenz K, Miccolli P, Mihai R, Miyauchi A, Orloff L, Perrier N, Poveda MD, Romanchishen A, Serpell J, Sitges-Serra A, Sloan T, Van Slycke S, Snyder S, Takami H, Volpi E, Woodson G (2011) Electrophysiologic recurrent laryngeal nerve monitoring during thyroid and parathyroid surgery: international standards guideline statement. Laryngoscope 121(Suppl 1):S1–S16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hikage M, Kamei T, Nakano T, Abe S, Katsura K, Taniyama Y, Sakurai T, Teshima J, Ito S, Niizuma N, Okamoto H, Fukutomi T, Yamada M, Maruyama S, Ohuchi N (2017) Impact of routine recurrent laryngeal nerve monitoring in prone esophagectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection. Surg Endosc 31:2986–2996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lamade W, Ulmer C, Seimer A, Molnar V, Meyding-Lamade U, Thon KP, Koch KP (2007) A new system for continuous recurrent laryngeal nerve monitoring. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 16:149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ulmer C, Koch KP, Seimer A, Molnar V, Meyding-Lamade U, Thon KP, Lamade W (2008) Real-time monitoring of the recurrent laryngeal nerve: an observational clinical trial. Surgery 143:359–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schneider R, Randolph GW, Sekulla C, Phelan E, Thanh PN, Bucher M, Machens A, Dralle H, Lorenz K (2013) Continuous intraoperative vagus nerve stimulation for identification of imminent recurrent laryngeal nerve injury. Head Neck 35:1591–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Slycke S, Gillardin JP, Brusselaers N, Vermeersch H (2013) Initial experience with S-shaped electrode for continuous vagal nerve stimulation in thyroid surgery. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 398:717–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moskalenko V, Huller M, Gasser M, Demidchik Y, Thiede A, Timm S, Ulrichs K, Hamelmann W (2009) Investigation of the regeneration potential of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) after compression injury, using neuromonitoring. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 394:469–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wu CW, Lu IC, Randolph GW, Kuo WR, Lee KW, Chen CL, Chiang FY (2010) Investigation of optimal intensity and safety of electrical nerve stimulation during intraoperative neuromonitoring of the recurrent laryngeal nerve: a prospective porcine model. Head Neck 32:1295–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nduka CC, Poland N, Kennedy M, Dye J, Darzi A (1998) Does the ultrasonically activated scalpel release viable airborne cancer cells? Surg Endosc 12:1031–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen C, Kallakuri S, Vedpathak A, Chimakurthy C, Cavanaugh JM, Clymer JW, Malaviya P (2012) The effects of ultrasonic and electrosurgery devices on nerve physiology. Br J Neurosurg 26:856–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wu CW, Chai YJ, Dionigi G, Chiang FY, Liu X, Sun H, Randolph GW, Tufano RP, Kim HY (2015) Recurrent laryngeal nerve safety parameters of the Harmonic Focus during thyroid surgery: porcine model using continuous monitoring. Laryngoscope 125:2838–2845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Koch C, Friedrich T, Metternich F, Tannapfel A, Reimann HP, Eichfeld U (2003) Determination of temperature elevation in tissue during the application of the harmonic scalpel. Ultrasound Med Biol 29:301–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Park CW, Portenier DD (2012) Bipolar electrosurgical devices. In: Feldman LS, Fuchshuber PR, Jones DB (eds) The SAGES manual on the Fundamental Use of Surgical Energy (FUSE). Springer, New York, pp 93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Habermann W, Muller W (2013) Tissue penetration of bipolar electrosurgical currents: joule overheating beyond the surface layer. Head Neck 35:535–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Matek W, Reidenbach HD, Wittmann A, Beierlein L, Hermanek P (1989) A comparative study of the tissue-destroying effect of the laser and electrocoagulation. Endoscopy 21:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lin YC, Dionigi G, Randolph GW, Lu IC, Chang PY, Tsai SY, Kim HY, Lee HY, Tufano RP, Sun H, Liu X, Chiang FY, Wu CW (2015) Electrophysiologic monitoring correlates of recurrent laryngeal nerve heat thermal injury in a porcine model. Laryngoscope 125:E283–E290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Milsom J, Trencheva K, Monette S, Pavoor R, Shukla P, Ma J, Sonoda T (2012) Evaluation of the safety, efficacy, and versatility of a new surgical energy device (THUNDERBEAT) in comparison with Harmonic ACE, LigaSure V, and EnSeal devices in a porcine model. Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22:378–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterological SurgeryCancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer ResearchTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Clinical Trial Planning and ManagementCancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer ResearchTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations