Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 26, Issue 8, pp 2388–2393 | Cite as

Postoperative efficacy and safety of vessel sealing: an experimental study on carotid arteries of the pig

  • Stéphane V. BerdahEmail author
  • Christiaan Hoff
  • Peiman Hossein Poornoroozy
  • Peter Razek
  • Yves Van Nieuwenhove
New Technology



The aim of this preclinical study was to analyze the burst pressure of large in vivo sealed vessels, not just immediately, but also in the first 7 postoperative days.


In 26 anesthetized pigs, the right carotid artery was sealed and cut using a novel device that integrates bipolar and ultrasonic energy. The animals were then awakened. They underwent a second surgical procedure after different follow-up periods ranging from 1 to 7 days: the left common carotid artery was sealed and cut in the same way as the contralateral artery. Perioperative and postoperative clinical events, evolution of burst pressure over time, and comparison between immediate and delayed burst pressure were analyzed.


All sealings were successful. There were no perioperative or postoperative complications. Median immediate (day 0) burst pressure was 949 mmHg (IQR 781–1181). Burst pressure decreased postoperatively but was never below 500 mmHg in any pig.


Postoperative variations are observed in the burst pressure of in vivo sealed arteries. Immediate burst pressure alone should not be used for validating vascular sealing devices.


Sealing and cutting systems Sealing device safety Sealing device efficacy 



This work was supported by a Grant from Olympus Europa holding GMBH, Hamburg, Germany. Authors thank Marie-Ange Beccaris, Arthur Berdah, Keisuke Miura and Fabienne Moucadel for their assistance during surgical procedures.


Pr. Stéphane V. Berdah received consultation fees from Ethicon and Olympus. Dr. Christiaan Hoff, Dr. Peiman Hossein Poornoroozy, Dr. Peter Razek, and Pr. Yves Van Nieuwenhove received consultation fees from Olympus.


  1. 1.
    Lantis JC II, Durville FM, Connolly R, Schwaitzberg SD (1998) Comparison of coagulation modalities in surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 8:381–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kennedy JS, Stranahan PL, Taylor KD, Chandler JG (1998) High-burst-strength, feedback-controlled bipolar vessel sealing. Surg Endosc 12:876–878PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harold KL, Pollinger H, Matthews BD, Kercher KW, Sing RF, Heniford BT (2003) Comparison of ultrasonic energy, bipolar thermal energy, and vascular clips for the hemostasis of small-, medium-, and large-sized arteries. Surg Endosc 17:1228–1230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carbonell AM, Joels CS, Kercher KW, Matthews BD, Sing RF, Heniford BT (2003) A comparison of laparoscopic bipolar vessel sealing devices in the haemostasis of small-, medium-, and large-sized arteries. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 13:377–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bubenik LJ, Hosgood G, Vasanjee SC (2005) Bursting tension of medium and large canine arteries sealed with ultrasonic energy or suture ligation. Vet Surg 34:289–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Richter S, Kollmar O, Schilling MK, Pistorius GA, Menger MD (2006) Efficacy and quality of vessel sealing: comparison of a reusable with a disposable device and effects of clamp surface geometry and structure. Surg Endosc 20:890–894PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Person B, Vivas DA, Ruiz D, Talcott M, Coad JE, Wexner SD (2008) Comparison of four energy-based vascular sealing and cutting instruments: a porcine model. Surg Endosc 22:534–538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Newcomb WL, Hope WW, Schmelzer TM, Heath JJ, Norton HJ, Lincourt AE, Heniford BT, Iannitti DA (2009) Comparison of blood vessel sealing among new electrosurgical and ultrasonic devices. Surg Endosc 23:90–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noble EJ, Smart NJ, Challand C, Sleigh K, Oriolowo A, Hosie KB (2011) Experimental comparison of mesenteric vessel sealing and thermal damage between one bipolar and two ultrasonic shears devices. Br J Surg 98:797–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mantke R, Halangk W, Habermann A, Peters B, Konrad S, Guenther M, Lippert H (2011) Efficacy and safety of 5 mm-diameter bipolar and ultrasonic shears for cutting carotid arteries of the hybrid pig. Surg Endosc 25:577–585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spivak H, Richardson WS, Hunter JG (1998) The use of bipolar cautery, laparoscopic coagulating shears, and vascular clips for haemostasis of small and medium-sized vessels. Surg Endosc 12:183–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Landman J, Kerbl K, Rehman J, Andreoni C, Humphrey PA, Collyer W, Olweny E, Sundaram C, Clayman RV (2003) Evaluation of a vessel sealing system, bipolar electrosurgery, harmonic scalpel, titanium clips, endoscopic gastrointestinal anastomosis vascular staples and sutures for arterial and venous ligation in a porcine model. J Urol 169:697–700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pietrow PK, Weizer AZ, L’Esperance JO, Auge BK, Silverstein A, Cummings T, Preminger GM, Albala DM (2005) Plasma kinetic bipolar vessel sealing: burst pressures and thermal spread in an animal model. J Endourol 19:107–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Richter S, Kollmar O, Neunhoeffer E, Schilling MK, Menger MD, Pistorius GJ (2006) Differential response of arteries and veins to bipolar vessel sealing: evaluation of a novel reusable device. Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 16:149–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 178:2689–2693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clements RH, Palepu R (2007) In vivo comparison of the coagulation capability of sono surg and harmonic ace on 4 mm and 5 mm arteries. Surg Endosc 21:2203–2206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tanaka T, Ueda K, Hayashi M, Hamano K (2009) Clinical application of an ultrasonic scalpel to divide pulmonary vessels based on laboratory evidence. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 8:615–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sindram D, Martin K, Meadows JP, Prabhu AS, Heath JJ, McKillop IH, Iannitti DA (2011) Collagen-elastin ratio predicts burst pressure of arterial seals created using a bipolar vessel sealing device in a porcine model. Surg Endosc 25(8):2604–2612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klar M, Haberstroh J, Timme S, Fritzsch G, Gitsch G, Denschlag D (2011) Comparison of a reusable with a disposable vessel-sealing device in a sheep model: efficacy and costs. Fertil Steril 95:795–798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lacin T, Batirel HF, Ozer K, Demirutku A, Ahiskali R, Yuksel M (2007) Safety of a thermal vessel sealer on main pulmonary vessels. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 31:482–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nicastri DG, Wu M, Yun J, Swanson SJ (2007) Evaluation of efficacy of an ultrasonic scalpel for pulmonary vascular ligation in an animal model. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 134:160–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stéphane V. Berdah
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christiaan Hoff
    • 1
  • Peiman Hossein Poornoroozy
    • 1
  • Peter Razek
    • 1
  • Yves Van Nieuwenhove
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculté de Médecine NordAix-Marseille Université, CERC (Centre d’Enseignement et de Recherche Chirurgical)Marseille Cedex 15France

Personalised recommendations