Comparison of a reusable with a disposable vessel-sealing device in a sheep model: Efficacy and costs

13Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy of the new reusable vessel-sealing device MarSeal (KLS Martin, Tuttlingen, Germany) with the conventional standard disposable LigaSure device (Covidien-Valleylab, Boulder, CO) in an in vivo animal model. Design: Prospective animal study. Setting: Center of Experimental Surgery at a university hospital. Animals: Thirteen sheep. Intervention(s): The carotid and femoral arteries were dissected bilaterally and sealed randomly with MarSeal unilaterally and consecutively with LigaSure contralaterally in vivo. Afterward the burst pressure was determined for each artery. Main Outcome Measure(s): Sealing time, failure rate, and burst pressure. Result(s): The mean diameter of all arteries sealed did not differ significantly between the two groups (MarSeal 5.40 mm vs. LigaSure 5.35 mm). The mean sealing time was significantly shorter with use of the reusable device (MarSeal 5.2 seconds vs. LigaSure 9.1 seconds). We did not find a significant difference in sealing failure rates between the groups (MarSeal 7.0% vs. LigaSure 9.1%). In addition, analysis of mean burst pressure did not reveal a significant difference between the different devices (MarSeal 429 mm Hg vs. LigaSure 484 mm Hg). There was no significant difference with respect to lateral thermal damage (MarSeal 0.91 cm vs. LigaSure 0.93 cm). Conclusion(s): In our in vivo animal study, the new reusable MarSeal device appears to be equivalently effective for vessel sealing when compared with the conventional disposable LigaSure device. © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Published by Elsevier Inc.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

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. Fertility and Sterility, 95(2), 795–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.09.014

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free