Surgical Efficacy Among Laparoscopic Ultrasonic Dissectors: Are We Advancing Safely? A Review of Literature
- 136 Downloads
The specialty of laparoscopy has evolved with the advent of new technologies over the last few years. Energy-based devices and Ultrasonic dissectors are used with a lot of factors in play-including ergonomics and economics during surgery. Here an attempt is based to review the surgical efficacy and safety of these dissectors with importance to plume production and lateral thermal damage. The factors contributing to adversities to the dissectors are also to be noted. The strategy adopted was aimed at finding relevant studies from PubMed from 1995 to 2014. The basic principle of plume production and thermal damage are studied in this review. Factors contributing to the same that can lead to adversities during laparoscopic surgeries are identified. Summarizing key points that increase lateral thermal damage and plume production amongst different ultrasonic shears and suggesting a technique to identify the right balance between the existing dissectors was possible. The RF Device and USS are both useful and widely used and are more safer than monopolar devices. RF Device is considerably slower than USS, as it cannot achieve coagulation and cutting at the same time. Although USS definitely improvises dissection and has less thermal injury than RF Device, the clinical implications in balancing dissection efficacy with hemostasis need to be investigated further. The ideal haemostatic energy-based shear device would be one with excellent hemostatic results and visual acuity while allowing none or minimal thermal energy escape at the point of application. In our current setting, a combined use of both RF and USS device usage as applied in the particular situations has potential.
KeywordsLaparoscopic Ultrasonic dissectors Thermal damage Aerosol/plume Energy devices
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
- 11.Ball K. Survey of physicians attitudes toward surgical smoke. Can Oper Room Nurs J. 1995;13(4):18–21 (No abstract available).Google Scholar
- 22.Amaral JF. Depth of thermal injury: ultracisionally activated scalpel vs. electrosurgery. Surg Endosc. 1995;9:226.Google Scholar