Efficacy and safety of the novel electrosurgical vessel sealing and cutting instrument BiCision®

BackgroundThe use of energy-based tissue-sealing and cutting instruments is becoming more and more popular in visceral, urological, and gynecological surgery. For their safe and efficacious use in clinical practice, such instruments have to reliably seal vessels with a minimal sealing failure rate, cause minimal thermal damage to adjacent tissue, and have good cutting qualities.MethodsThe efficacy and safety of the novel energy-based instrument for dissection, hemostasis and cutting (BiCision®, ERBE) was compared to a commercially available device (EnSeal®, Ethicon Endo-Surgery). We investigated vessel-sealing reliability (success rate), sealing quality and sealing time, lateral thermal damage cutting quality, tissue sticking to the instrument, burst pressure and delayed complications in an acute and chronic pig model after splenectomy, small bowel resection, nephrectomy, salpingo-oophorectomy, and sealing of peripheral vessels.ResultsFor all parameters investigated, BiCision® was at least equivalent to EnSeal®. BiCision® was even superior to EnSeal® with respect to the burst pressure in arteries (p = 0.044) and veins (p = 0.023) and the cut quality in all locations (arteries, p = 0.0009; veins, p = 0.043). The course of the 7-day chronic study was uneventful except for one animal that developed an intestinal obstruction. None of the animals showed any signs of postoperative bleeding. On second-look laparotomy at day 7, macroscopic inspection of the sealed tissue and vessels did not show any signs of complications or evidence that bleeding had occurred. Histologically, the integrity of vessel wall fusion, thermal alterations, and inflammatory reactions were comparable, confirming substantial equivalence.ConclusionWe demonstrated that the efficacy and quality of vessel sealing with BiCision® is at least equivalent to those of EnSeal® for vessel diameters up to 7 mm. Since EnSeal® has already been shown to be safe in clinical practice, BiCision® should be as reliable as EnSeal® under clinical conditions.

[1]  D. Menzies,et al.  Postoperative adhesions: their treatment and relevance in clinical practice. , 1993, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

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

[3]  David A. Iannitti,et al.  Collagen–elastin ratio predicts burst pressure of arterial seals created using a bipolar vessel sealing device in a porcine model , 2011, Surgical Endoscopy.

[4]  H. Lippert,et al.  Efficacy and safety of 5-mm-diameter bipolar and ultrasonic shears for cutting carotid arteries of the hybrid pig , 2011, Surgical Endoscopy.

[5]  K. Harold,et al.  Comparison of ultrasonic energy, bipolar thermal energy, and vascular clips for the hemostasis of small-, medium-, and large-sized arteries , 2003, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[6]  G. diZerega Contemporary adhesion prevention. , 1994, Fertility and sterility.

[7]  M. Menger,et al.  Efficacy and quality of vessel sealing: comparison of a reusable with a disposable device and effects of clamp surface geometry and structure. , 2006, Surgical endoscopy.

[8]  S. Jackman,et al.  Laparoscopic Nephrectomy Using the EnSeal Tissue Sealing and Hemostasis System: Successful Therapeutic Application of Nanotechnology , 2008, JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.

[9]  W. Helton,et al.  Evaluation of a bipolar radiofrequency device for laparoscopic hepatic resection: technique and clinical experience in 18 patients. , 2009, HPB.

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

[11]  A. Hershlag,et al.  Is laparoscopy back? , 2005, Fertility and sterility.

[12]  T. Falcone,et al.  Assessment of laparoscopic injuries by three methods. , 2001, Fertility and sterility.

[13]  T. Ponsky,et al.  Experience with a new energy source for tissue fusion in pediatric patients. , 2008, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[14]  J. S. Kennedy,et al.  High-burst-strength, feedback-controlled bipolar vessel sealing , 1998, Surgical Endoscopy.

[15]  Michael B. Taylor,et al.  Comparative study of in vivo lymphatic sealing capability of the porcine thoracic duct using laparoscopic dissection devices. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[16]  Daniel Schäller,et al.  Thermal conduction, compression, and electrical current--an evaluation of major parameters of electrosurgical vessel sealing in a porcine in vitro model. , 2008, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[17]  D. Albala,et al.  PlasmaKinetic bipolar vessel sealing: burst pressures and thermal spread in an animal model. , 2005, Journal of endourology.

[18]  A. Shalhav,et al.  Application of ice cold irrigation during vascular pedicle control of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: EnSeal instrument cooling to reduce collateral thermal tissue damage. , 2010, Journal of endourology.

[19]  A. Harrell,et al.  Energy sources in laparoscopy. , 2004, Seminars in laparoscopic surgery.

[20]  R. Philosophe Avoiding complications of laparoscopic surgery. , 2003, Fertility and sterility.

[21]  Michael D Menger,et al.  Differential response of arteries and veins to bipolar vessel sealing: evaluation of a novel reusable device. , 2006, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[22]  B. Hurst,et al.  Laparoscopic myomectomy for symptomatic uterine myomas. , 2005, Fertility and sterility.

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