Evaluation of the safety, efficacy, and versatility of a new surgical energy device (THUNDERBEAT) in comparison with harmonic ACE, LigaSure V, and EnSeal devices in a porcine model

Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 378-386

  Milsom, Jeffrey ^a   Trencheva, Koiana ^a   Monette, Sebastien ^a,b   Pavoor, Raghava ^a   Shukla, Parul ^a   Ma, Junjun ^a,c   Sonoda, Toyooki ^a  

^a WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^b MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^c SHANGHAI SECOND MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; BURSTING PRESSURE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISSECTION; FEMALE; NONHUMAN; PRESSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SURGICAL ENERGY DEVICE; SURGICAL INSTRUMENT; SWINE; TEMPERATURE RELATED PHENOMENA; THERMAL SPREAD; ULTRASOUND;

ANIMALS; ARTERITIS; CAUTERY; DISSECTION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT SAFETY; FEMALE; HEMOSTASIS, SURGICAL; LAPAROSCOPY; LIGATION; MODELS, ANIMAL; SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS; SWINE; VASCULAR SURGICAL PROCEDURES; WOUND CLOSURE TECHNIQUES;

EID: 84861086866     PISSN: 10926429     EISSN: 15579034     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/lap.2011.0420     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Targarona EM, Balague C, Marin J, et al. Energy sources for laparoscopic colectomy: A prospective randomized comparison of conventional electrosurgery, bipolar computercontrolled electrosurgery and ultrasonic dissection. Operative outcome and costs analysis. Surg Innov 2005;12:339-344.
2. Campbell PA, Cresswell AB, Frank TG, et al. Real-time thermography during energized vessel sealing and dissection. Surg Endosc 2003;17:1640-1645.
3. Takada M, Ichihara T, Kuroda Y. Comparative study of electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer and ultrasonic coagulating shears in laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 2005; 19:226-228.
4. Campagnacci R, de Sanctis A, Baldarelli M, et al. Electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing device vs. ultrasonic coagulating shears in laparoscopic colectomies: A comparative study. Surg Endosc 2007;21:1526-1531.
5. Bergamaschi R, Yavuz Y, Marvik R. Laparoscopic bowel resection: A comparison of three ultrasonically activated devices. JSLS 2003;7:19-22.
6. Gossot D, Buess G, Cuschieri A, et al. Ultrasonic dissection for endoscopic surgery. The E.A.E.S. Technology Group. Surg Endosc 1999;13:412-417.
7. Carbonell AM, Joels CS, Kercher KW, et al. A comparison of laparoscopic bipolar vessel sealing devices in the hemostasis of small-, medium-, and large-sized arteries. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2003;13:377-380.
8. Newcomb WL, Hope WW, Schmelzer TM, et al. Comparison of blood vessel sealing among new electrosurgical and ultrasonic devices. Surg Endosc 2009;23:90-96.
9. Lamberton GR, Hsi RS, Jin DH, et al. Prospective comparison of four laparoscopic vessel ligation devices. J Endourol 2008;22:2307-2312.
10. Harold KL, Pollinger H, Matthews BD, et al. Comparison of ultrasonic energy, bipolar thermal energy, and vascular clips for the hemostasis of small-, medium-, and large-sized arteries. Surg Endosc 2003;17:1228-1230.
11. Sindram D, Martin K, Meadows JP, et al. Collagen-elastin ratio predicts burst pressure of arterial seals created using a bipolar vessel sealing device in a porcine model. Surg Endosc 2011;25:2604-2612.
12. Hruby GW, Marruffo FC, Durak E, et al. Evaluation of surgical energy devices for vessel sealing and peripheral energy spread in a porcine model. J Urol 2007;178:2689-2693.
13. Dubuc-Lissoir J. Use of a new energy-based vessel ligation device during laparoscopic gynecologic oncologic surgery. Surg Endosc 2003;17:466-468.