Advertisement

Esophagus

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 249–255 | Cite as

Lateral thermal spread and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis after minimally invasive esophagectomy in bipolar vessel sealing and ultrasonic energy devices: a comparative study

  • Kazuo KoyanagiEmail author
  • Fumihiko Kato
  • Keita Nakanishi
  • Soji Ozawa
Original Article

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to compare the extent of lateral thermal spread of surrounding tissues after the use of advanced bipolar and ultrasonic coagulation and shearing devices. Association between recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (RLNP) and such devices was assessed in patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).

Methods

LigaSure (LS) and Sonicision (SONIC) were used. In ex vivo experiments using the porcine muscle, blade temperature and tissue temperature were measured using a thermometer after the activation of both devices. For the clinical assessment, 46 consecutive patients who received MIE were retrospectively assessed.

Results

The temperature generated at the blade of both devices increased with the activation time. The blade temperature of LS was significantly lower than that of SONIC (P < 0.001). The blade temperature of SONIC exceeded 100 °C after 3-s activation. The temperature of surrounding tissues after a single activation of the devices decreased with the tissue distance from activation blade. The temperatures of tissues at 1 and 2 mm away from the blade side of LS were significantly lower than those of SONIC (P = 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). The temperature of tissue 2 mm away from the blade side of LS increased 6.4 °C from the baseline temperature. Furthermore, the incidence of RLNP in the LS group was lower than that in the SONIC group (P = 0.044).

Conclusion

This study highlights the necessity of spatial and temporal recognition of the thermal spread of coagulation and shearing devices to reduce the thermal injuries following MIE.

Keywords

Lateral thermal injury Coagulation and shearing devices Minimally invasive esophagectomy Recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis Esophageal cancer 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical statement

This work followed the guidelines set forth in the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000, concerning Human and Animal Rights. This article does not contain human or animal subjects performed by any authors. This was a retrospective study approved by the institutional review board of the National Cancer Center Hospital.

Conflict of interest

There are no financial or other relations that could lead to a conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Campbell PA, Cresswell AB, Frank TG, et al. Real-time thermography during energized vessel sealing and dissection. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1640–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Emam TA, Cuschieri A. How safe is high-power ultrasonic dissection? Ann Surg. 2003;237:186–91.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim FJ, Chammas MF Jr, Gewehr E, et al. Temperature safety profile of laparoscopic devices: harmonic ACE (ACE), LigaSure V (LV), and plasma trisector (PT). Surg Endosc. 2008;22:1464–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lamberton GR, His RS, Jin DH, et al. Prospective comparison of four laparoscopic vessel ligation devices. J Endourol. 2008;22:2307–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tachimori Y, Ozawa S, Numasaki H, et al. Comprehensive registry of esophageal cancer in Japan, 2009. Esophagus. 2016;13:110–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koyanagi K, Igaki H, Iwabu J, et al. Recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis after esophagectomy: respiratory complications and role of nerve reconstruction. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2015;237:1–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pertl L, Zacherl F, Mancusi G, et al. High risk of unilateral recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis after esophagectomy using cervical anastomosis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;268:1605–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cuschieri A, Shimi S, Banting S. Endoscopic oesophagectomy through a right thoracoscopic approach. J R Coll Surg. 1992;37:7–11.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Luketich JD, Alvelo-Rivera M, Buenaventura PO, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy outcome in 222 patients. Ann Surg. 2003;238:486–95.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Osugi H, Takemura M, Higashino M, et al. A comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy and radical lymph node dissection for squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus with open operation. Br J Surg. 2003;90:108–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koyanagi K, Ozawa S, Tachimori Y. Minimally invasive esophagectomy performed with the patient in a prone position: a systematic review. Surg Today. 2016;46:275–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koyanagi K, Ozawa S, Tachimori Y. Minimally invasive esophagectomy in the prone position improves postoperative outcomes: role of C-reactive protein as an indicator of surgical invasiveness. Esophagus. 2018;15:95–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Owaki T, Nakano S, Arimura K, et al. The ultrasonic coagulating and cutting system injuries nerve function. Endoscopy. 2002;34:575–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Noshiro H, Kai K, Yoda Y, et al. Palsy of the recurrent laryngeal nerves in association with an ultrasonic activated device during thoracoscopic esophagectomy with three-field lymphadenectomy. Esophagus. 2016;13:351–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Applewhite MK, White MG, James BC, et al. Ultrasonic, bipolar, and integrated energy devices: comparing heat spread in collateral tissues. J Surg Res. 2017;207:249–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Broughton D, Welling AL, Monroe EH, et al. Tissue effects in vessel sealing and transection from an ultrasonic device with more intelligent control of energy delivery. Med Devices. 2013;6:151–4.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Diamantis T, Kontos M, Arvelakis A, et al. Comparison of monopolar electrocoagulation, bipolar electrocoagulation, Ultracision, and LigaSure. Surg Today. 2006;36:908–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sutton PA, Awad S, Perkins AC, et al. Comparison of lateral thermal spread using monopolar and bipolar diathermy, the Harmonic Scalpel and LigaSure. Brit J Surg. 2010;97:428–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Janssen PJ, Brolmann HAM, Huirne JAF. Effectiveness of electrothermal bipolar vessel-sealing devices versus other electrothermal and ultrasonic devices for abdominal surgical hemostasis: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2892–901.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Esophageal Society and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Esophageal SurgeryNational Cancer Center HospitalTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Gastroenterological SurgeryTokai University School of MedicineIseharaJapan

Personalised recommendations