Bipolar coagulation with the BiClamp® forceps versus conventional suture ligation: a multicenter randomized controlled trial in 175 vaginal hysterectomy patients

PurposeTo compare bipolar vessel sealing (BVS; BiClamp®) versus conventional suture ligation in vaginal hysterectomy.MethodsA multicenter, single-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted at eight women’s hospitals in Germany. One hundred and seventy-five patients with benign uterine disease underwent vaginal hysterectomy using BVS (n = 88) or conventional suture ligation (n = 87 controls). Data analysis was based on intention-to-treat.ResultsPostoperative pain (primary endpoint) was decreased in the BVS group, but not significantly. Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in this group, with <100 mL recorded in 79/88 versus 52/86 patients (P < 0.001). Hemoglobin decrease indicated non-significantly lower blood loss in the BVS group. Operating time was significantly shorter in the BVS group than in the controls (38.0 ± 18.6 vs. 48.0 ± 24.9 min; P = 0.001). On average, 7.8 sutures/operation were saved with bipolar coagulation (P < 0.0001). Ease of use ratings were significantly higher for BVS. Hospital stay was similar for both groups. Adverse event rates did not differ significantly.ConclusionsThe BiClamp® procedure proved superior or similar to conventional ligation, particularly with regard to intraoperative blood loss, operating time and postoperative pain, although statistical significance was not attained for postoperative pain. Moreover, BVS was easier to use and more cost effective.

[1]  H. Cronjé,et al.  Electrosurgical bipolar vessel sealing during vaginal hysterectomy , 2005, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[2]  H. Clavé,et al.  Painless vaginal hysterectomy with thermal hemostasis (results of a series of 152 cases) , 2005, Gynecological Surgery.

[3]  M. Menger,et al.  Intelligent, impedance-regulated, pulsed coagulation in a porcine renal artery model. , 2007, Fertility and sterility.

[4]  M. C. Vos,et al.  Electrosurgical bipolar vessel sealing versus conventional clamping and suturing for total abdominal hysterectomy: a randomized trial. , 2008, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[5]  W. Zubke,et al.  Allgemeine Gynäkologie. Vaginale Hysterektomien mit Hilfe der BiClamp , 2005 .

[6]  Andrea Manca,et al.  Cost effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with standard hysterectomy: results from a randomised trial , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  J. Bhaumik,et al.  Safety and efficacy of using the LigaSure vessel sealing system for securing the pedicles in vaginal hysterectomy: randomised controlled trial , 2005 .

[8]  V. Hach-Wunderle,et al.  Die Geschichte der Gefäßligatur , 2004, Gefässchirurgie.

[9]  Mark Whittaker,et al.  The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  Z Ding,et al.  Use of Ligasure™ Bipolar Diathermy System in vaginal hysterectomy , 2005, Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology : the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

[11]  A. Fauconnier,et al.  [Postoperative pain after hysterectomy through vaginal routes using electro surgical bipolar vessel sealing versus conventional suture ligature]. , 2007, Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité.

[12]  D. Wallwiener,et al.  Vaginal hysterectomy: a new approach using bicoagulation forceps , 2004, Gynecological Surgery.

[13]  L. Emery,et al.  Outpatient vaginal hysterectomy is safe for patients and reduces institutional cost. , 2005, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[14]  R. Kreienberg,et al.  Atlas der gynäkologischen Operationen , 2009 .

[15]  R. Mclellan,et al.  Ligasure versus sutures in total abdominal hysterectomy , 2001 .

[16]  T. Falcone,et al.  Hysterectomy for benign disease. , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  H. Clavé,et al.  Hystérectomie sans douleurs : une technique innovante , 2003 .

[18]  D. Wallwiener,et al.  Use of the BiClamp (a bipolar coagulation forceps) in gynecological surgery , 2007, Gynecological Surgery.

[19]  R. Pasic,et al.  Observational comparison of abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy as performed at a university teaching hospital. , 2006, The Journal of reproductive medicine.

[20]  D. Querleu,et al.  Hysterectomy: indications, surgical routes, cases for adnexal or cervical conservation. , 1998, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[21]  L. Emery,et al.  Randomized Trial of Suture Versus Electrosurgical Bipolar Vessel Sealing in Vaginal Hysterectomy , 2003, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[22]  William E. Copeland,et al.  Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , 1893, Texas medical journal.

[23]  A. Griffiths,et al.  Authors response to: A Prospective observational study of the safety and acceptability of vaginal hysterectomy performed in a 24‐hour day case surgery setting , 2007, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[24]  N. Douay,et al.  Douleur postopératoire après hystérectomie par voie vaginale selon la méthode d'hémostase utilisée : thermofusion ou suture aux fils , 2007 .

[25]  Andrew I Brill,et al.  Hysterectomy in the 21st Century: Different Approaches, Different Challenges , 2006, Clinical obstetrics and gynecology.