Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 494–501 | Cite as

Ultrasonically Activated Shears Reduce Blood Loss without Increasing Inflammatory Reactions in Open Distal Gastrectomy for Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Study

  • Seung-Young Oh
  • Boram Choi
  • Kyung-Goo Lee
  • Hwi-Nyeong Choe
  • Hye-Joo Lee
  • Yun-Suhk Suh
  • Seong-Ho Kong
  • Hyuk-Joon Lee
  • Woo Ho Kim
  • Han-Kwang Yang
Gastrointestinal Oncology



Previous studies regarding ultrasonically activated shears (UAS) were performed without controlled surgical procedures or consideration of potential thermal injury due to high temperature of active blade of UAS. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UAS through a comparison with conventional monopolar electrocautery (CME) in open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer.


From October 2011 to November 2012, 56 gastric cancer patients eligible for open distal gastrectomy were randomized into UAS or CME groups. Primary endpoints were estimated blood loss (EBL) during surgery and amount of drainage through the fifth postoperative day. Secondary endpoints were operation time, length of hospital stay, postoperative morbidity, changes in cytokine levels in serum, peritoneal irrigation saline, and peritoneal drainage, and inflammatory markers of serum. (Registration-number of NCT01971775).


EBL was lower in the UAS group than that in the CME group (339.8 ± 201.2 vs. 428.6 ± 165.8 mL, p = 0.021). However, the amount of postoperative drainage was not significantly different between the two groups. Although the complication rate was not different between the two groups, there were three cases of intra-abdominal bleeding requiring transfusion only in the CME group. Inflammatory markers from the cytokine assays and serum laboratory tests showed no significant differences between the two groups.


UAS reduced EBL without increasing inflammatory reactions.


Gastric Cancer Estimate Blood Loss Distal Gastrectomy Cytology Examination Cytokine Assay 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This study was an investigator-initiated trial supported by a research grant from Johnson & Johnson Medical Korea.


  1. 1.
    Amaral JF. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 200 consecutive patients using an ultrasonically activated scalpel. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1995;5:255–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roye GD, Monchik J, Amaral JF. Endoscopic adrenalectomy using ultrasonic cutting and coagulating. Surg Tech Int. 2000;9:129–38.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hubner M, Demartines N, Muller S, Dindo D, Clavien PA, Hahnloser D. Prospective randomized study of monopolar scissors, bipolar vessel sealer and ultrasonic shears in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2008;95:1098–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amaral JF. The experimental development of an ultrasonically activated scalpel for laparoscopic use. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1994;4:92–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amaral JF. Ultrasonic dissection. Endosc Surg Allied Tech. 1994;2:181–5.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kanehira E, Omura K, Kinoshita T, Kawakami K, Watanabe Y. How secure are the arteries occluded by a newly developed ultrasonically activated device? Surg Endosc. 1999;13:340–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abe K, Terashima M, Fujiwara H, Takagane A, Uesugi N, Saito K. Experimental evaluation of bursting pressure in lymphatic vessels with ultrasonically activated shears. World J Surg. 2005;29:106–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tanaka T, Matsugu Y, Fukuda Y. Use of ultrasonically activated shears improves the safety of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Arch Surg. 2002;137:1258–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sista F, Schietroma M, Ruscitti C, De Santis G, De Vita F, Carlei F, Amicucci G. New ultrasonic dissector versus conventional hemostasis in thyroid surgery: a randomized prospective study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22:220–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen XL, Chen XZ, Lu ZH, et al. Comparison of ultrasonic scalpel versus conventional techniques in open gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One. 2014;9:e103330.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leung KL, Lai PB, Ho RL, Meng WC, Yiu RY, Lee JF, Lau WY. Systemic cytokine response after laparoscopic-assisted resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2000;231:506-11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwenk W, Jacobi C, Mansmann U, Bohm B, Muller JM. Inflammatory response after laparoscopic and conventional colorectal resections: results of a prospective randomized trial. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2000;385:2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wichmann MW, Huttl TP, Winter H, Spelsberg F, Angele MK, Heiss MM, Jauch KW. Immunological effects of laparoscopic vs open colorectal surgery: a prospective clinical study. Arch Surg. 2005;140:692–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldstein SL, Harold KL, Lentzner A, et al. Comparison of thermal spread after ureteral ligation with the Laparo-Sonic ultrasonic shears and the Ligasure system. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2002;12:61–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eberli D, Hefermehl LJ, Muller A, Sulser T, Knonagel H. Thermal spread of vessel-sealing devices evaluated in a clinically relevant in vitro model. Urol Int. 2011;86:476-82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hefermehl LJ, Largo RA, Hermanns T, Poyet C, Sulser T, Eberli D. Lateral temperature spread of monopolar, bipolar and ultrasonic instruments for robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery. BJU Int. 2013;114:245–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tsimoyiannis EC, Jabarin M, Tsimoyiannis JC, Betzios JP, Tsilikatis C, Glantzounis G. Ultrasonically activated shears in extended lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. World J Surg. Feb 2002;26:158–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Choi MG, Oh SJ, Noh JH, Sohn TS, Kim S, Bae JM. Ultrasonically activated shears versus electrocautery in open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Gastric Cancer. 2013;17:556–561.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005;138:8–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Inoue K, Nakane Y, Michiura T, et al. Ultrasonic scalpel for gastric cancer surgery: a prospective randomized study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:1840–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilhelm D, Szabo M, Glass F, Schuhmacher C, Friess H, Feussner H. Randomized controlled trial of ultrasonic dissection versus standard surgical technique in open left hemicolectomy or total gastrectomy. Br J Surg. 2011;98:220–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Emam TA, Cuschieri A. How safe is high-power ultrasonic dissection? Ann Surg. 2003;237:186–91.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Govekar HR, Robinson TN, Stiegmann GV, McGreevy FT. Residual heat of laparoscopic energy devices: how long must the surgeon wait to touch additional tissue? Surg Endosc. 2011;25:3499–502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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
  26. 26.
    Kowal-Vern A, Walenga JM, Hoppensteadt D, Sharp-Pucci M, Gamelli RL. Interleukin-2 and interleukin-6 in relation to burn wound size in the acute phase of thermal injury. J Am Coll Surg. 1994;178:357–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jeschke MG, Barrow RE, Herndon DN. Extended hypermetabolic response of the liver in severely burned pediatric patients. Arch Surg. 2004;139:641–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kraft R, Kulp GA, Herndon DN, et al. Is there a difference in clinical outcomes, inflammation, and hypermetabolism between scald and flame burn? Pediatric Crit Care Med. 2011;12:e275–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alexis A, Carrer DP, Droggiti DI, et al. Immune responses in relation to the type and time of thermal injury: an experimental study. Injury. 2015;46:227-32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Han TS, Kong SH, Lee HJ, et al. Dissemination of free cancer cells from the gastric lumen and from perigastric lymphovascular pedicles during radical gastric cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:2818–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kodera Y, Yamamura Y, Shimizu Y, et al. Peritoneal washing cytology: prognostic value of positive findings in patients with gastric carcinoma undergoing a potentially curative resection. J Surg Oncol. 1999;72:60–4; discussion 64–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seung-Young Oh
    • 1
  • Boram Choi
    • 2
  • Kyung-Goo Lee
    • 1
  • Hwi-Nyeong Choe
    • 3
  • Hye-Joo Lee
    • 3
  • Yun-Suhk Suh
    • 1
  • Seong-Ho Kong
    • 1
  • Hyuk-Joon Lee
    • 1
    • 2
  • Woo Ho Kim
    • 2
    • 4
  • Han-Kwang Yang
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SurgerySeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Cancer Research InstituteSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  3. 3.Department of NursingSeoul National University HospitalSeoulKorea
  4. 4.Department of PathologySeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations