Laparoscopic hysterectomy using various energy sources in swine: a histopathologic assessment.
ABSTRACT 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.
- [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.Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 05/2013; 20(3):308-18. · 1.58 Impact Factor