Abstract
Background
Advanced bipolar devices (ABD; e.g., LigaSure™) have a lower blade temperature than ultrasonically activated devices (USAD; e.g., Harmonic® and Sonicision™) during activation, potentially enabling accurate lymph node dissection with less risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) due to pancreatic thermal injury in laparoscopic gastrectomy. Therefore, we compared the efficacy and safety of ABD and USAD in laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients.
Methods
A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) between August 2008 and September 2020. A total of 371 patients were enrolled, and short-term surgical outcomes, including the incidence of ISGPF grades B and C POPF, were compared between ABD and USAD. The risk factors for POPF in LDG were investigated by univariate and multivariate analyses.
Results
A propensity score-matching algorithm was used to select 120 patients for each group. The POPF rate was significantly lower (0.8 vs. 9.2%, p < 0.001), the morbidity rate was lower (13.3 vs. 28.3%, p < 0.001), the length of postoperative hospitalization was shorter (14 vs. 19 days, p < 0.001), and the lymph node retrieval rate was higher (34 vs. 26, p < 0.001) with an ABD than with a USAD. There were no mortalities in either group. A multivariate analysis showed that a USAD was the only independent risk factor with a considerably high odds ratio for the occurrence of POPF (USAD/ABD, odds ratio 8.38, p = 0.0466).
Conclusion
An ABD may improve the safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
According to Globocan, gastric cancer is the fifth-most common malignancy and the third leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide (768,793 deaths, 7.7% of the total) [1]. Despite advances in chemotherapy and radiation therapy in recent years, gastrectomy with regional lymphadenectomy remains the mainstay curative treatment for localized gastric cancer without distant metastasis [2, 3].
However, radical lymphadenectomy recommended in the Japanese guidelines involves the removal of the peripancreatic lymph nodes, which may be accompanied by postoperative pancreatic complications. Although postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is aseptic in the majority of cases, infection of POPF is a significant risk factor for further complications, especially bleeding and mortality [4]. Recently, retrospective and prospective cohort studies have demonstrated that POPF occurs more frequently after laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) than after open gastrectomy [5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. Furthermore, postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications, such as POPF, prolong the time to the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy and worsen the long-term outcomes [12, 13]. Therefore, safe and meticulous surgery is essential to prevent POPF for patients undergoing curative gastrectomy.
Advanced bipolar devices (ABD; e.g., LigaSure™) and ultrasonically activated devices (USAD; e.g., Harmonic® and Sonicision™) are the most widely used energy devices in such surgeries [14,15,16,17,18]. Although these instruments have different sealing and cutting mechanisms, they both ensure precise dissection with less bleeding in various surgical procedures. However, ABD and USAD may cause intraoperative collateral heat injury to the pancreas secondary to energized dissection during lymphadenectomy that may result in POPF in LG [6].
We previously reported that the grasping range and repetition of dissection are essential factors that affect the blade temperature of these devices [19]. In particular, USAD with partial tissue bite showed a significantly higher temperature at the blade than ABD. However, our previous report did not include any clinical data. Although many reports have compared the clinical outcomes of conventional surgery using ABD or USAD for various surgical procedures, very few studies for gastrectomy patients have compared the surgical outcomes of these devices [20,21,22]. Therefore, to compare the efficacy and safety of an ABD with that of a USAD, we retrospectively compared the clinicopathologic characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes, including POPF, of gastric cancer patients undergoing LG. In addition, we performed a risk factor analysis of POPF in LG.
Patients, materials, and methods
Study design and inclusion criteria
A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) with lymph node dissection to evaluate the short-term surgical outcomes of using an ABD versus a USAD. The inclusion criteria were patients who underwent LDG for gastric cancer at University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan, between August 2008 and September 2020 (Fig. 1).
The primary endpoint was grades B and C POPF according to the International Study Group for Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) classification [23]. The secondary endpoints were postoperative complications, blood loss, operation duration, number of harvested lymph nodes, and length of postoperative hospital stay.
Data collection
Data on patient characteristics and surgical outcomes were obtained from medical charts. Clinical TNM classification and stage were determined according to the 15th version of the Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma [24]. The extent of lymphadenectomy was classified using the 5th Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines [4].
All procedures were performed according to the ethical standards of the respective committees on human experimentation (institutional and national) and complied with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and later versions concerning Animal Rights. The Ethics Committee of University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan, approved this study.
Surgical procedures
LDG was performed by 10 surgeons, including 3 who were board-certified by the Japanese Society of Endoscopic Surgery. Surgical procedures were standardized for LDG and have been described in detail elsewhere [25,26,27]. LDG was performed using an ABD (LigaSure™; Medtronic plc, Dublin, Ireland, or Enseal®; Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH, USA) or USAD (Harmonic®; Ethicon Endo-Surgery or Sonicision™; Medtronic plc) as the main energy device for dissection, at each surgeon’s preference.
Most of the surgical procedures using ABD were similar to those using USAD, except for the clipless sealing procedure of certain small-caliber vessels. Intracorporal Billroth I reconstruction with functional end-to-end anastomosis or Roux-en-Y reconstruction was performed following distal gastrectomy [28, 29]. A portable drain was routinely inserted at the upper border of the pancreas.
Definition of POPF
POPF was defined as localized fluid accumulation on computed tomography (CT) and elevated amylase levels in the drain with accompanying abdominal pain and a fever [30]. We considered ISGPF grades B and C POPF to be clinically problematic, requiring some sort of intervention for treatment.
Statistical analyses
Comparisons were made using the Mann–Whitney U test, chi-square test, or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Propensity scores were calculated for all patients based on 11 crucial preoperative clinical variables that might affect the short-term outcome of gastrectomy: Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System for laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (ESSQSG); age; sex; BMI; clinical T, N, and M, tumor size; neoadjuvant chemotherapy; extent of lymphadenectomy; and type of reconstruction [31]. Subsequently, propensity score matching was performed using a 1-to-1 nearest matching algorithm without replacement, with a caliper width equal to 0.2 × the standard deviation of the propensity scores.
Furthermore, the risk factors for POPF were investigated in the propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort by univariate and multivariate analyses. The model included the sex, age, BMI, ESSQSG, cStage, extent of lymphadenectomy, and type of energy device used as possible confounding factors. The multivariate logistic regression models included variables with P < 0.01 in univariate analyses, and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for each variable. The R release 3.6.3 software program was used for all calculations [32]. Significance was set at the P < 5% level.
Results
Patient selection
A total of 796 consecutive patients underwent surgery for gastric cancer, of whom 425 met the exclusion criteria (Fig. 1). Thus, the remaining consecutive 371 patients were included in the analysis. A PSM algorithm with an optimal caliper was used to select 120 patients in each group.
Patient characteristics
The background characteristics for all patients and matched patients are shown in Table 1. Before matching, patients in the USAD group had a smaller tumor size (P < 0.01), a lower rate of ESSQSG (P < 0.01), and a higher rate of Roux-en-Y reconstruction (P < 0.01) than the ABD group. After matching, all covariates were well balanced between the ABD and USAD groups.
Short-term outcomes and postoperative complications
Energy devices and surgical outcomes, including details concerning postoperative complications before and after matching, are shown in Table 2. Before matching, POPF was more frequent in the USAD group than in the ABD group (6.4 vs. 0.6%, P <0.001). The overall postoperative complication rate for ISGPF grade B was not significantly different between the USAD and ABD groups (18.3 vs. 12%, P=0.183), but the USAD group had more blood loss (50 vs. 30 g, P < 0.001) and fewer harvested lymph nodes (24 vs. 32, P < 0.001) thanthe ABD group. In the matched analysis, POPF was significantly more frequent in the USAD group than in the ABD group (9.2 vs. 0.8%, P < 0.001). The USAD group had fewer harvested lymph nodes (26 vs. 34, P < 0.001) than the ABD group, as well as longer postoperative hospitalization (19 vs. 14 days, P < 0.001) and higher overall postoperative morbidity rates (28.3 vs. 13.3%, P <0.001). There was no marked difference in the types of postoperative complications between the USAD and ABD groups, except for POPF. No 90-day mortality was observed in either group.
Risk factors for POPF
To identify risk factors for POPF, a risk factor analysis was performed. The results of univariate and multivariate analyses of clinical factors are summarized in Table 3. In univariate analyses, POPF was significantly associated with an older age (OR=0.69, P <0.001), higher BMI (OR=4.6, P <0.001), higher cStage (OR=0.716, P <0.001), greater extent of lymph node dissection (OR=1.64, P <0.001), and the type of energy device used for dissection (USAD/ABD, OR=9.65, P<0.001) but not with the sex (P = 0.358) or surgeon qualification (P = 0.338). A multivariate analysis indicated that the type of energy device was the only independent risk factor with a considerably high OR for the occurrence of grades B and C POPF (USAD/ABD, OR 8.38, P = 0.047).
Discussion
When considering the safety and feasibility of LG, it is vital to assess the risks of POPF formation. PF after gastrectomy is thought to be caused by intraoperative injury to the pancreas. Possible causes of pancreatic injury during LG include thermal injury from energy devices, compression from forceps, accidental injury from anatomical variations in the shape and location of the pancreas, and pancreatic steatosis [6, 7, 19, 33,34,35,36,37,38]. Among them, heat injury caused by an ultrasonic device is a significant cause of pancreatic damage during LG [6, 33, 39]. In this retrospective study, we demonstrated that LDG with peripancreatic lymphadenectomy using an ABD was associated with a lower rate of POPF and morbidity than that using a USAD for gastric cancer surgery. The incidence of clinically relevant POPF (ISGPF grades B and C) of 0.8% in the ABD group was significantly lower than that of 9.2% in the USAD group (Table 2). These results are comparable to those reported in a recent study of laparoscopic surgery performed at a high-volume center in Japan, which found a 1.0–8.9% incidence of pancreatic fistula [5,6,7,8, 10, 11]. Other advantages of an ABD included a lower overall morbidity rate, more lymph nodes retrieved, and a shorter hospital stay. We also revealed in a multivariate analysis of a PSM cohort that only the usage of a USAD was a significant independent risk factor for POPF in LDG.
ABD create a vessel seal by applying bipolar electrosurgical radiofrequency energy to vessels interposed between the jaws of the device [15]. In contrast, USAD use high-frequency mechanical energy to disrupt hydrogen bonds in tissues and denature proteins [14]. Each device has its own advantages and disadvantages due to differing thermal profiles and sealing and cutting mechanisms. We previously reported that repeated dissection of energy devices with minimal cooling time results in high blade and jaw temperatures proportional to the incision distance. In particular, the USAD with partial tissue bite showed a significantly higher temperature at the blade (341 ± 28.3 °C) than that with the ABD (95.6 ± 5.5 °C) [19]. Due to the relatively low temperature of the activated blade and limited lateral thermal spread (0.9 mm beyond the tissue within the jaws), surgeons can use an ABD to dissect lymph nodes close to the pancreas and blood vessels, thereby minimizing the risk of damaging delicate adjacent structures while ensuring that the target lymph node can be completely removed [15, 19]. In addition, compared to a USAD, an ABD is more effective at achieving hemostasis and produces less surgical smoke and mist, as shown by the present results and previous reports, thereby improving the surgical visibility and lymph node clearance [20, 21]. However, another author believed that an ABD was not suitable for the precise surgical maneuvers required for operations such as gastrectomy with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer [22]. As reported earlier, an ABD requires some technical proficiency but can be used to perform definitive lymph node dissection more safely than a USAD [20]. Regardless of which energy device is used, surgeons should understand the thermal profile of the device and avoid inappropriate activation during suprapancreatic lymph node dissection in order to prevent thermal injury to the pancreas in LDG. The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) developed the Fundamental Use of Surgical Energy™ (FUSE) program to meet the need for increased education and training in the principles and properties of operating electrosurgical instruments safely [16]. The FUSE program facilitate the understanding and application of these fundamental skills concerning energy devices and thereby promote the safe care of all patients undergoing surgery.
There have been many reports comparing the outcomes of procedures using ABD with those of conventional surgery for various surgical procedures [21, 22, 40, 41]. However, only a limited number of studies have compared the surgical outcomes of ABD and USAD. No significant difference in short-term surgical results between ABD and USAD was reported in laparoscopic colorectal resection, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass [42,43,44]. In thyroidectomy, a previous study found no marked difference between the ABD and USAD groups in the efficacy or surgical outcomes of total thyroidectomy [18]. Another group reported that an ABD was inferior to a USAD in terms of the operative time [45]. Notably, Kim et al. reported that in LDG with extended lymph node resection among 186 patients with gastric cancer, the ABD had advantages over the USAD with regard to operative time, degree of postoperative pain, time for drain removal, and length of hospital stay [46]. However, their study did not show any advantage of an ABD over a USAD in terms of safety. In the present study, the ABD group exhibited a lower rate of POPF and mortality, more dissected lymph nodes, and a shorter hospital stay than the USAD group in LDG with lymphadenectomy for 240 gastric cancer patients. Thus, the present report is the largest series comparing the short-term surgical results of an ABD and a USAD in LDG and the first to demonstrate the safety of an ABD over a USAD in reducing POPF and mortality in LDG.
Several limitations associated with the present study warrant mention. First, this study employed a retrospective, single-center, non-randomized design. We compared the short-term outcomes of ABD and USAD after matching two groups using propensity scores to reduce any bias in the comparison. However, there may have been unknown confounders, including the potential for selection biases, so the overall results should be interpreted cautiously. Second, the superiority of an ABD with regard to oncological outcomes is not yet conclusive, as long-term surveillance has not been conducted. Third, other factors, such as advances in individual surgical techniques, might have influenced the improvement in surgical outcomes. Because LDG with the ABD was a new procedure for some surgeons at the start of the study, the ABD group included cases in which the surgeon was using the device for the first time. Thus, even in single-center trials, it can be very difficult to ensure that all doctors have the same level of experience and proficiency. However, this study is the largest series comparing the short-term surgical results of an ABD and a USAD for LDG and is the first to demonstrate the safety of an ABD over a USAD in reducing POPF and mortality following LDG.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the present study suggested that the ABD may be a safe and beneficial energy device for LDG, as the ABD was significantly more advantageous than the USAD in terms of the POPF and morbidity rates, number of lymph nodes retrieved, and postoperative hospital stay. To safely perform LG with lymph node dissection in patients with gastric cancer, the mechanism underlying the heat conductance of energy devices needs to be better considered, which may reduce the incidence of POPF. However, no matter what kind of energy device is used, surgeons need to be careful to avoid damaging normal tissues during surgery and ensure patient safety. Further studies involving multiple centers, a larger population, and a randomized controlled trial with long-term surveillance are needed to establish solid evidence concerning the safety of ABD.
Abbreviations
- ABD:
-
Advanced bipolar device
- USAD:
-
Ultrasonically activated devices
- POPF:
-
Postoperative pancreatic fistula
- LG:
-
Laparoscopic gastrectomy
- LDG:
-
Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy
- CT:
-
Computed tomography
- SNC:
-
Sonicision™ Shears
- LSM:
-
LigaSure™ Maryland jaw
- PSM:
-
Propensity score-matched
- OR:
-
Odds ratio
- CI:
-
Confidence interval
- ISGPF:
-
International Study Group for Pancreatic Fistula
- ESSQSG:
-
Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System for laparoscopic distal gastrectomy
References
Globocan (2020) https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/populations/900-world-fact-sheets.pdf. Accessed 26 Jul 2022
Al-Batran SE, Homann N, Pauligk C et al (2019) FLOT4-AIO Investigators. Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomized, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet 393:1948–1957
Association JGC (2021) Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2018. Gastric Cancer 24:1–21
Loos M, Strobel O, Dietrich M et al (2021) Hyperamylasemia and acute pancreatitis after pancreatoduodenectomy: Two different entities. Surgery 169:369–376
Hiki N, Honda M, Etoh T et al (2017) Higher incidence of pancreatic fistula in laparoscopic gastrectomy. Real-world evidence from a nationwide prospective cohort study. Gastric Cancer 21:162–170
Obama K, Okabe H, Hosogi H et al (2011) Feasibility of laparoscopic gastrectomy with radical lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: from a viewpoint of pancreas-related complications. Surgery 149:15–21
Fujita T, Ohta M, Ozaki Y et al (2015) Collateral thermal damage to the pancreas by ultrasonic instruments during lymph node dissection in laparoscopic gastrectomy. Asian J Endosc Surg 8:281–288
Washio M, Yamashita K, Niihara M et al (2020) Postoperative pancreatic fistula after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 4:618–627
Haverkamp L, Weijs TJ, van der Sluis PC et al (2013) Laparoscopic total gastrectomy versus open total gastrectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 27:1509–1520
Honda M, Hiki N, Kinoshita T et al (2016) Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for clinical stage I gastric cancer: the LOC-1 study. Ann Surg 264:214–222
Kinoshita T, Uyama I, Terashima M et al (2019) LOC-A study group. Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for clinical stage II/III gastric cancer: a multicenter cohort study in Japan (LOC-A study). Ann Surg 269:887–894
Pucher PH, Aggarwal R, Qurashi M et al (2014) Meta-analysis of the effect of postoperative in-hospital morbidity on long-term patient survival. Br J Surg 101:1499–1508
Tokunaga M, Tanizawa Y, Bando E et al (2013) Poor survival rate in patients with postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications following curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1575–1583
Amaral JF (1994) The experimental development of an ultrasonically activated scalpel for laparoscopic use. Surg Laparosc Endosc 4:92–99
Heniford BT, Matthews BD, Sing RF et al (2001) Initial results with an electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer. Surg Endosc 15:799–801
SAGES. Fundamental use of surgical energy - FUSE, A SAGES Fundamentals Program. https://www.fuseprogram.org. Accessed 26 Jul 2022
Helal M, Albertini J, Lockhart J et al (1997) Laparoscopic nephrectomy using the harmonic scalpel. J Endourol 11:267–268
Upadhyaya A, Hu T, Meng Z et al (2016) Harmonic versus LigaSure hemostasis technique in thyroid surgery: a meta-analysis. Biomed Rep 5:221–722
Shibao K, Joden F, Adachi Y et al (2021) Repeated partial tissue bite with inadequate cooling time for an energy device may cause thermal injury. Surg Endosc 35:3189–3198
Takiguchi N, Nagata M, Soda H et al (2010) Multicenter randomized comparison of LigaSure versus conventional surgery for gastro-intestinal carcinoma. Surg Today 40:1050–1054
Lee WJ, Chen TC, Lai IR et al (2003) Randomized clinical trial of Ligasure versus conventional surgery for extended gastric cancer resection. Br J Surg 90:1493–1496
Fujita J, Takiguchi S, Nishikawa K et al (2014) Randomized controlled trial of the LigaSure vessel sealing system versus conventional open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Surg Today 44:1723–1729
Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C et al (2017) International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After. Surgery 161:584–591
Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (2017) Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma, the 15th Edition (in Japanese). Tokyo: Kanehara
Shibao K, Sato N, Higure A et al (2015) A new oval multichannel port to facilitate reduced port distal gastrectomy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 24:135–140
Uyama I, Sakurai Y, Komori Y et al (2005) Laparoscopic gastrectomy with preservation of the vagus nerve accompanied by lymph node dissection for early gastric carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 200:140–145
Noshiro H, Nagai E, Shimizu S et al (2005) Laparoscopically assisted distal gastrectomy with standard radical lymph node dissection for gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 19:1592–1596
Kanaya S, Kawamura Y, Kawada H et al (2011) The delta-shaped anastomosis in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy: analysis of the initial 100 consecutive procedures of intracorporeal gastroduodenostomy. Gastric Cancer 14:365–371
Omori T, Masuzawa T, Akamatsu H et al (2014) A simple and safe method for Billroth I reconstruction in single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy using a novel intracorporeal triangular anastomotic technique. J Gastrointest Surg 18:613–616
Obama K, Okabe H, Hosogi H et al (2010) Feasibility of laparoscopic gastrectomy with radical lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: from a viewpoint of pancreas-related complications. Surgery 149:15–21
Mori T, Kimura T, Kitajima M (2010) Skill accreditation system for laparoscopic gastroenterologic surgeons in Japan. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 19:18–23
R Core Team, Vienna, Austria, R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 26 Jul 2022
Irino T, Hiki N, Ohashi M et al (2016) The Hit and Away technique: optimal usage of the ultrasonic scalpel in laparoscopic gastrectomy. Surg Endosc 30:245–250
Kobayashi N, Shinohara H, Haruta S et al (2016) Process of pancreas head as a risk factor for postoperative pancreatic fistula in laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery. World J Surg 40:2194–2201
Tsujiura M, Hiki N, Ohashi M et al (2017) “Pancreas-compressionless gastrectomy”: a novel laparoscopic approach for suprapancreatic lymph node dissection. Ann Surg Oncol 24:3331–3337
Migita K, Matsumoto S, Wakatsuki K et al (2016) The anatomical location of the pancreas is associated with the incidence of pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic gastrectomy. Surg Endosc 30:5481–5489
Sato Y, Inokuchi M, Otsuki S et al (2017) Risk factor of pancreatic fistula after radical gastrectomy from the viewpoint of fatty pancreas. Dig Surg 34:455–461
Kobayashi N, Shinohara H, Haruta S, at al. (2022) Reducing the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula in radical gastrectomy: pre-assessment with computed tomography for the diagnosis of pancreatic steatosis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 407:587–596
Sutton PA, Awad S, Perkins AC et al (2010) Comparison of lateral thermal spread using monopolar and bipolar diathermy, the Harmonic Scalpel and the Ligasure. Br J Surg 3:428–433
Saiura A, Yamamoto J, Koga R et al (2006) Usefulness of LigaSure for liver resection: analysis by randomized clinical trial. Am J Surg 192:41–45
Palazzo FF, Francis DL, Clifton MA (2002) Randomized clinical trial of Ligasure versus open haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 89:154–157
Targarona EM, Balague C, Marin J et al (2005) Energy sources for laparoscopic colectomy: a prospective randomized comparison of conventional electrosurgery, bipolar computer-controlled electrosurgery and ultrasonic dissection. Operative outcome and costs analysis. Surg Innov 12:339–344
Velotti N, Manigrasso M, Di Lauro K et al (2019) Comparison between LigaSure™ and Harmonic® in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a single-center experience on 422 patients. J Obes. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3402137
Kirmizi S, Kayaalp C, Karagul S et al (2017) Comparison of Harmonic scalpel and Ligasure devices in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 12:28–31
Cannizzaro MA, Borzì L, Lo Bianco S et al (2016) Comparison between Focus Harmonic scalpel and other hemostatic techniques in open thyroidectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Head Neck 38:1571–1578
Kim YN, Yoo YC, Guner A et al (2015) Comparison of perioperative surgical outcomes between a bipolar device and an ultrasonic device during laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 29:589–595
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conception and design: KS, NM, NS, KH. Collection and assembly of data: KS, SH, YA, SK, YK, NM, NS. Data analysis and interpretation: KS, NM, NS, KH. Manuscript writing: all authors. Final approval manuscript: all authors. Accountable for all aspects of the work: all authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
All procedures were conducted following the ethical standards of the respective committees on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and later versions. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan.
Conflict of interest
Dr. Kazunori Shibao has received a speaker honorarium from Ethicon Endosurgery and Medtronic plc. Dr. Keiji Hirata has received a personal fee from Ethicon Endosurgery and Medtronic plc. The other authors (Drs. Shinsaku Honda, Yasuhiro Adachi, Shiro Kohi, Yuzan Kudou, Nobutaka Matayoshi, and Nagahiro Sato) declare that they have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Shibao, K., Honda, S., Adachi, Y. et al. An advanced bipolar device helps reduce the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula in laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients: a propensity score-matched analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 407, 3479–3486 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-022-02692-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-022-02692-5