Article

Dissection by Ultrasonic Energy Versus Monopolar Electrosurgical Energy in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Department of General Surgery, St George's Hospital and Medical School, University of London, UK.
JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons / Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons (Impact Factor: 0.79). 01/2010; 14(1):23-34. DOI: 10.4293/108680810X12674612014383
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard for management of symptomatic gallstones. Electrocautery remains the main energy form used during laparoscopic dissection. However, due to its risks, search is continuous for safer and more efficient forms of energy. This review assesses the effects of dissection using ultrasonic energy compared with monopolar electrocautery during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
A literature search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE was performed. Studies included were trials that prospectively randomized adult patients with symptomatic gallstone disease to either ultrasonic or monopolar electrocautery dissection during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Data were collected regarding the characteristics and methodological quality of each trial. Outcome measures included operating time, gallbladder perforation rate, bleeding, bile leak, conversion rate, length of hospital stay and sick leave, postoperative pain and nausea scores, and influence on systemic immune and inflammatory responses. For metaanalysis, the statistical package RevMan version 4.2 was used. For continuous data, Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) was calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the fixed effects model. For Categorical data, the Odds Ratio (OR) was calculated with 95% confidence interval using fixed effects model.
Seven trials were included in this review, with a total number of 695 patients randomized to 2 dissection methods: 340 in the electrocautery group and 355 in the ultrasonic group. No mortality was recorded in any of the trials. With ultrasonic dissection, operating time is significantly shorter in elective surgery (WMD -8.19, 95% CI -10.36 to -6.02, P<0.0001), acute cholecystitis (WMD -17, 95% CI -28.68 to -5.32, P=0.004), complicated cases (WMD -15, 95% CI -28.15 to -1.85, P=0.03), or if surgery was performed by trainee surgeons who had performed <10 procedures (P=0.043). Gallbladder perforation risk with bile leak or stone loss is lower (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.42, P<0.0001 and OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.47, P=0.002 respectively), particularly in the subgroup of complicated cases (OR 0.24 95% CI 0.09 to 0.61, P=0.003). Mean durations of hospital stay and sick leave were shorter with ultrasonic dissection (WMD -0.3, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.09, P=0.005 and WMD -3.8, 95% CI -6.21 to -1.39, P=0.002 respectively), with a smaller mean number of patients who stayed overnight in the hospital (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.89, P=0.04). Postoperative abdominal pain scores at 1, 4, and 24 hours were significantly lower with ultrasonic dissection as were postoperative nausea scores at 2, 4, and 24 hours.
Based on a few trials with relatively small patient samples, this review does not attempt to advocate the use of a single-dissection technology but rather to elucidate results that could be used in future trials and analyses. It demonstrates, with statistical significance, a shorter operating time, hospital stay and sick leave, lower gallbladder perforation risk especially in complicated cases, and lower pain and nausea scores at different postoperative time points. However, many of these potential benefits are subjective, and prone to selection, and expectation bias because most included trials are unblinded. Also the clinical significance of these statistical results has yet to be proved. The main disadvantages are the difficulty in Harmonic scalpel handling, and cost. Appropriate training programs may be implemented to overcome the first disadvantage. Cost remains the main universal issue with current ultrasonic devices, which outweighs the potential clinical benefits (if any), indicating the need for further cost-benefit analysis.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Walid Sasi, Jul 28, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
129 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the potential for postoperative laparoscopic adhesion formation utilizing either monopolar cautery or ultrasonic energy and to determine whether there is added benefit with the addition of a suspension of hyaluronate/carboxymethylcellulose in saline versus saline alone. Injuries were induced in rabbits by using monopolar cautery on 1 uterine horn and adjacent sidewall and ultrasonic energy on the opposite. Hyaluronate/carboxymethylcellulose or saline was added to every other animal. Autopsies were performed after 3 weeks. Clinical and pathologic scoring of adhesions was performed by blinded investigators. A very significant difference occurred in pathologic adhesion scores favoring the ultrasonic scalpel when the animals were treated with saline. However, a borderline significant difference was found in pathologic scores favoring the ultrasonic scalpel compared to the monopolar cautery. There was no significant difference in clinical adhesion scores between the 2 modalities. No significant difference in either score was found with the addition of hyaluronate/carboxymethylcellulose or saline with either instrument. No benefit was found for adhesion prevention with hyaluronate/carboxymethylcellulose. Although no reduction was achieved in clinical adhesions, the ultrasonic scalpel resulted in fewer histologic signs of tissue inflammation in the early postoperative period, suggesting that further clinical adhesions might develop over time with cautery.
    JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons / Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 07/2011; 15(3):350-4. DOI:10.4293/108680811X13125733356233 · 0.79 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Strategic laparoscopic surgery for improved cosmesis (SLIC) is a less invasive surgical approach than conventional laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility and safety of SLIC for general and bariatric surgical operations. Additionally, we compared the outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with those performed by the SLIC technique. In an academic medical center, from April 2008 to December 2010, 127 patients underwent SLIC procedures: 38 SLIC cholecystectomy, 56 SLIC gastric banding, 26 SLIC sleeve gastrectomy, 1 SLIC gastrojejunostomy, and 6 SLIC appendectomy. SLIC sleeve gastrectomy was initially performed through a single 4.0-cm supraumbilical incision with extraction of the gastric specimen through the same incision. The technique evolved to laparoscopic incisions that were all placed within the umbilicus and suprapubic region. There were no 30-day or in-hospital mortalities or 30-day re-admissions or re-operations. For SLIC cholecystectomy, gastric banding, appendectomy, and gastrojejunostomy, conversion to conventional laparoscopy occurred in 5.3%, 5.4%, 0%, and 0%, respectively; there were no major or minor postoperative complications. For SLIC sleeve gastrectomy, there were no significant differences in mean operative time and length of hospital stay compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy; 1 (3.8%) of 26 SLIC patients required conversion to five-port laparoscopy. There were no major complications. Minor complications occurred in 7.7% in the SLIC sleeve group versus 8.3% in the laparoscopic sleeve group. SLIC in general and bariatric operations is technically feasible, safe, and associated with a low rate of conversion to conventional laparoscopy. Compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, SLIC sleeve gastrectomy can be performed without a prolonged operative time with comparable perioperative outcomes.
    Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques 03/2012; 22(4):355-61. DOI:10.1089/lap.2011.0370 · 1.19 Impact Factor
Show more