Advertisement

Surgical Efficacy Among Laparoscopic Ultrasonic Dissectors: Are We Advancing Safely? A Review of Literature

  • Rajesh Devassy
  • Sreelatha Gopalakrishnan
  • Rudy Leon De Wilde
Invited Review Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Laparoscopic Ultrasonic dissectors Thermal damage Aerosol/plume Energy devices 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

None declared.

References

  1. 1.
    Lallouf LB, Beri A, Klinger CH, et al. Practical hints for hemostasis in laparoscopic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2007;16(1):45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    da Silva RD, Sehrt D, Molina WR, et al. Significance of surgical plume obstruction during laparoscopy. JSLS. 2014;18(3):69. doi: 10.4293/JSLS.2014.00269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Den Boer KT, de Jong T, Dankelman J, et al. Problems with laparoscopic instruments: opinion of experts. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2001;11(3):149–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Emam TA, Cuschieri A. How safe is high-power ultrasonic dissection. Ann Surg. 2003;237:186–91.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;21:339. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cimino W, Bond L. Physics of ultrasonic surgery using tissue fragmentation: part I. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1996;1:89–100. doi: 10.1016/0301-5629(95)02021-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pogorelić Z, Perko Z, Družijanić N, et al. How to prevent lateral thermal damage to tissue using the harmonic scalpel: experimental study on pig small intestine and abdominal wall. Eur Surg Res. 2009;43:235–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DesCoteaux J, Picard P, Poulin E, et al. Preliminary study of electrocautery smoke particles produced in vitro and during laparoscopic procedures. Surgical Endoscopy. 1996;10:152. doi: 10.1007/BF00188362.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barrett WL, Garber SM. Surgical smoke: a review of the literature. Is this just a lot of hot air? Surg Endosc. 2003;17(6):979–87 (Epub 2003 Mar 19).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matthew MD, Stevens E, Mark Taylor S, et al. The air that we breathe’: assessment of laser and electrosurgical dissection devices on operating theater air quality. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;43(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s40463-014-0039.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    Hoglan M. Potential hazards from electrosurgery plume–recommendations for surgical smoke evacuation. Can Oper Room Nurs J. 1995;13(4):10–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ott DE, Moss E, Martinez K. Aerosol exposure from an ultrasonically activated (Harmonic) device. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1998;5(1):29–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weld KJ, Dryer S, Ames CD, et al. Analysis of surgical smoke produced by various energy-based instruments and effect on laparoscopic visibility. J Endourol. 2007;21(3):347–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schneider A, Doundoulakis E, Can S, et al. Evaluation of mist production and tissue dissection efficiency using different types of ultrasound shears. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(12):2822–6. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0512-5 (Epub 2009 May 23).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim FJ, Sehrt D, Pompeo A, et al. Comparison of surgical plume among laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors using a real-time digital quantitative technology. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:3408–12 (PubMed).PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim FJ, Sehrt D, Pompeo A, et al. Laminar and turbulent surgical plume characteristics generated from curved- and straight-blade laparoscopicultrasonic dissectors. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(5):1674–7. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3369-6 (Epub 2014 Jan 8).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sartori PV, De Fina S, Colombo G, et al. Ligasure versus Ultracision in thyroid surgery: a prospective randomized study. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2008;393:655–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gözen AS, Teber D, Rassweiler JJ. Principles and initial experience of a new device for dissection and hemostasis. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2007;16:58–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perko Z, Pogorelić Z, Bilan K, et al. Lateral thermal damage to rat abdominal wall after harmonic scalpel application. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:322–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kadesky KM, Schopf B, Blair GK. Proximity injury by the ultrasonically activated scalpel during dissection. J Pediatr Surg. 1997;32:878–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Amaral JF. Depth of thermal injury: ultracisionally activated scalpel vs. electrosurgery. Surg Endosc. 1995;9:226.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Humes DJ, Ahmed I, Lobo DN. The pedicle effect and direct coupling: delayed thermal injuries to the bile duct after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg. 2010;145:96–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Diamantis T, Gialikaris S, Kontos M, et al. Comparison of safety and efficacy of ultrasonic and bipolar thermal energy: an experimental study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2008;18:384–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Newcomb WL, Hope WW, Schmelzer TM, et al. Comparison of blood vessel sealing among new electrosurgical and ultrasonic devices. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:90–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Druzijanić N, Perko Z, Kraljević D, et al. Harmonic scalpel in transanal microsurgery. Hepatogastroenterology. 2008;55:356–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smulders JF, de Hingh IH, Stavast J, et al. Exploring new technologies to facilitate laparoscopic surgery: creating intestinal anastomoses without sutures or staples, using a radio-frequency-energy-driven bipolar fusion device. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:2105–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Elemen L, Yazir Y, Tugay M, et al. LigaSure compared with ligatures and endoclips in experimental appendectomy: how safe is it? Pediatr Surg Int. 2010;26:539–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Družijanić N, Pogorelić Z, Perko Z, et al. Comparison of lateral thermal damage of the human peritoneum using monopolar diathermy, Harmonic scalpel and LigaSure. Can J Surg. 2012;55(5):317–21.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lamberton GR, Hsi RS, Jin DH, Lindler TU, et al. Prospective comparison of four laparoscopic vessel ligation devices. J Endourol. 2008;22:2307–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim FJ, Sehrt D, da Silva RD, et al. Evaluation of emissivity and temperature profile of laparoscopic ultrasonic devices (blades and passive jaws). Surg Endosc. 2015;29(5):1179–84. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3787-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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. doi: 10.1007/s00464-007-9650-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sutton PA, Awad S, Perkins AC, et al. Comparison of lateral thermal spread using monopolar and bipolar diathermy, the Harmonic Scalpel and the Ligasure. Br J Surg. 2010;97:428–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kwok A, Nevell D, Ferrier A, et al. Comparison of tissue injury between laparosonic coagulating shears and electrosurgical scissors in the sheep model. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2001;8:378–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Emam TA, Cuschieri A. How safe is high-power ultrasonic dissection. Ann Surg. 2003;237:186–91.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Federation of Obstetric & Gynecological Societies of India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rajesh Devassy
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sreelatha Gopalakrishnan
    • 1
  • Rudy Leon De Wilde
    • 2
  1. 1.Dubai London Clinic & Specialty HospitalDubaiUnited Arab Emirates
  2. 2.Gem Advanced Minimal Access Surgery Training CentreUniversity Hospital for GynecologyOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations