Evaluation and Comparison of Contemporary Energy-Based Surgical Vessel Sealing Devices

35Citations
Citations of this article
39Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Introduction: We evaluated and compared five currently available energy-based vessel sealing devices to assess typical surgical metrics. Methods: We tested Caiman 5 (C5), Harmonic Scalpel Ace Plus (HA), Harmonic Ace +7 (HA7), LigaSure (LS), and Enseal G2 (ES) on small (2-5 mm), medium (5.1-7 mm), and large (7.1-9 mm) vessels obtained from 15 Yorkshire pigs. Vessels were randomly sealed and transected. We recorded sealing and transection time, charring and carbonization, thermal spread, and bursting pressure (BP). Specimens were sent for histopathologic evaluation of seal quality and thermal spread. Results: A total of 246 vessels were evaluated: 125 were arteries and 121 were veins. There was no difference in BPs for small size arteries. For medium arteries, C5 provided the highest BP (proximal and distal jaw), followed by HA7, ES, LS, and HA [1740, 1600, 1165, 1165, 981, and 571 mm Hg, respectively, HA <0.001); HA <0.001); HA <0.001); C5 250 mm Hg.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Okhunov, Z., Yoon, R., Lusch, A., Spradling, K., Suarez, M., Kaler, K. S., … Landman, J. (2018). Evaluation and Comparison of Contemporary Energy-Based Surgical Vessel Sealing Devices. Journal of Endourology, 32(4), 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0596

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