Laparoscopic vessel sealing technologies.

Laparoscopic vessel sealing devices have revolutionized modern laparoscopy. These devices fall into 2 major categories: advanced bipolar and ultrasonic instruments. The range of tissue effects available with these technologies is more limited than with conventional monopolar electrosurgery; however, both advanced bipolar and ultrasonic devices efficiently seal vessels (≤7-mm and ≤5-mm diameter, respectively), and most also have built-in tissue transection capabilities. These technologies have been the subject of a range of comparative studies on their relative advantages and disadvantages, and, to date, neither advanced bipolar or ultrasonic devices has been proven to be superior.

[1]  S. Nakada,et al.  Comparison of blade temperature dynamics after activation of Harmonic Ace scalpel and the Ultracision Harmonic Scalpel LCS-K5. , 2008, Journal of endourology.

[2]  A. Melzer,et al.  Ultrasonic dissection for endoscopic surgery , 1999, Surgical Endoscopy.

[3]  Chan W. Park,et al.  Bipolar Electrosurgical Devices , 2012 .

[4]  D. Lobo,et al.  Comparison of lateral thermal spread using monopolar and bipolar diathermy, the Harmonic Scalpel™ and the Ligasure™ , 2010, The British journal of surgery.

[5]  J. Amaral.  Laparoscopic Application of an Ultrasonically Activated Scalpel , 1993 .

[6]  James G. Bittner,et al.  Ultrasonic Energy Systems , 2012 .

[7]  M. Munro.  Economics and energy sources. , 2013, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[8]  K. Nagakari,et al.  Comparison of two different energy-based vascular sealing systems for the hemostasis of various types of arteries: a porcine model-evaluation of LigaSure ForceTriad™. , 2010, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[9]  R D Tucker,et al.  Bipolar electrosurgical devices. , 1993, Endoscopic surgery and allied technologies.

[10]  R. Clements,et al.  In vivo comparison of the coagulation capability of SonoSurg and Harmonic Ace on 4 mm and 5 mm arteries , 2007, Surgical Endoscopy.

[11]  Arnold P Advincula,et al.  The evolutionary state of electrosurgery: where are we now? , 2008, Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology.

[12]  Henry R. Govekar,et al.  Residual heat of laparoscopic energy devices: how long must the surgeon wait to touch additional tissue? , 2011, Surgical Endoscopy.

[13]  G. Vilos,et al.  Electrosurgical generators and monopolar and bipolar electrosurgery. , 2013, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[14]  F. Kim,et al.  Comparison of surgical plume among laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors using a real-time digital quantitative technology , 2012, Surgical Endoscopy.

[15]  Mahesh M Mansukhani,et al.  Evaluation of surgical energy devices for vessel sealing and peripheral energy spread in a porcine model. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[16]  D Duane Baldwin,et al.  Prospective comparison of four laparoscopic vessel ligation devices. , 2008, Journal of endourology.

[17]  A. Brill.  Bipolar electrosurgery: convention and innovation. , 2008, Clinical obstetrics and gynecology.

[18]  Kenneth S K Law,et al.  Comparative studies of energy sources in gynecologic laparoscopy. , 2013, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[19]  David A. Iannitti,et al.  Comparison of blood vessel sealing among new electrosurgical and ultrasonic devices , 2008, Surgical Endoscopy.

[20]  A. Park,et al.  Laparoscopic Dissecting Instruments , 2001, Seminars in laparoscopic surgery.

[21]  K. Hosie,et al.  Experimental comparison of mesenteric vessel sealing and thermal damage between one bipolar and two ultrasonic shears devices , 2011, The British journal of surgery.

[22]  James E. Coad,et al.  Comparison of four energy-based vascular sealing and cutting instruments: A porcine model , 2008, Surgical Endoscopy.

[23]  R Van Velthoven,et al.  A review of currently available vessel sealing systems , 2007, Minimally invasive therapy & allied technologies : MITAT : official journal of the Society for Minimally Invasive Therapy.