Analyze energy-induced damage to the swine vagina during laparoscopic hysterectomy.
Laparoscopic colpotomy was performed in swine using ultrasonic, monopolar, and bipolar energy. Specimens (n = 22) from 13 swine were stained with hematoxylin and eosin and Masson's trichrome for energy-related damage. The distal scalpel-cut margin was used as reference. Energy induced damage was assessed by gynecologic and veterinary pathologists blinded to energy source.
Injury was most apparent on Masson's trichrome, demonstrating clear injury demarcation, allowing consistent, quantitative damage measurements. Mean injury was 0 ± 0 μM (scalpel, n = 22), 782 ± 359 μM (ultrasonic, n = 7), 2016 ± 1423 μM (monopolar, n = 8), and 3011 ± 1239 μM (bipolar, n = 7). Using scalpel as the reference, all were significant (P < .001).
All energy sources demonstrated tissue damage, with ultrasonic showing the least and bipolar the greatest. Further study of tissue damage relative to cuff closure at laparoscopic hysterectomy is warranted.
"Gruber et al. performed a histopathologic assessment to compare the thermal damage after the use of ultrasonic, monopolar and bipolar energy for colpotomy in swine. They concluded that ultrasonic energy causes the least and bipolar energy the greatest tissue damage . In all our procedures, including those complicated by a VCD, ultrasonic energy was used for colpotomy and additional bipolar energy was used for haemostasis (Table 3). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Vaginal cuff dehiscence (VCD) is a severe adverse event and occurs more frequently after total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) compared with abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. The aim of this study is to compare the incidence of VCD after various suturing methods to close the vaginal vault. We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Patients who underwent TLH between January 2004 and May 2011 were enrolled. We compared the incidence of VCD after closure with transvaginal interrupted sutures versus laparoscopic interrupted sutures versus a laparoscopic single-layer running suture. The latter was either bidirectional barbed or a running vicryl suture with clips placed at each end commonly used in transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Three hundred thirty-one TLHs were included. In 75 (22.7 %), the vaginal vault was closed by transvaginal approach; in 90 (27.2 %), by laparoscopic interrupted sutures; and in 166 (50.2 %), by a laparoscopic running suture. Eight VCDs occurred: one (1.3 %) after transvaginal interrupted closure, three (3.3 %) after laparoscopic interrupted suturing and four (2.4 %) after a laparoscopic running suture was used (p = .707). With regard to the incidence of VCD, based on our data, neither a superiority of single-layer laparoscopic closure of the vaginal cuff with an unknotted running suture nor of the transvaginal and the laparoscopic interrupted suturing techniques could be demonstrated. We hypothesise that besides the suturing technique, other causes, such as the type and amount of coagulation used for colpotomy, may play a role in the increased risk of VCD after TLH.
Gynecological Surgery 11/2012; 9(4):393-400. DOI:10.1007/s10397-012-0745-5
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Energy sources incorporating "vessel sealing" capabilities are being increasingly used in gynecologic laparoscopic surgery although conventional monopolar and bipolar electrosurgery remain popular. The preference for one device over another is based on a combination of factors, including the surgeon's subjective experience, availability, and cost. Although comparative clinical studies and meta-analyses of laparoscopic energy sources have reported small but statistically significant differences in volumes of blood loss, the clinical significance of such small volumes is questionable. The overall usefulness of the various energy sources available will depend on a number of factors including vessel burst pressure and seal time, lateral thermal spread, and smoke production. Animal studies and laboratory-based trials are useful in providing a controlled environment to investigate such parameters. At present, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of one energy source over another.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.