Journals / Cerrahpaşa Medical Journal / 2022 / Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of Gyrus PKS™ PlasmaSpatula Versus Vectec™ Monopolar L-Hook During Colpotomy Step in Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in Terms of Vaginal Cuff Thermal Damage

Pages
66–70
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Bipolar Gyrus ® PKS PlasmaSpatula caused less lateral thermal damage and provided a better non-smoked surgical view compared to the Monopolar L-Hook cutting device

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Thermal injury is a complication that can develop during laparoscopic hysterectomy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study is to compare the vaginal cuff thermal injury caused by 2 different energy-based surgical devices used in the colpotomy step in total laparoscopic hysterectomy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Bipolar Gyrus ® PKS PlasmaSpatula caused less lateral thermal damage and provided a better non-smoked surgical view compared to the Monopolar L-Hook cutting device
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Thermal injury is a complication that can develop during laparoscopic hysterectomy. The ureter, which is located close to the surgical margin, may be damaged, especially due to the thermal effect created by the electrosurgical devices used in the colpotomy step. The aim of this study is to compare the vaginal cuff thermal injury caused by 2 different energy-based surgical devices used in the colpotomy step in total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Methods: The study included 55 patients who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy. Patients were randomly assigned to the Bipolar Gyrus® PKS PlasmaSpatula (Gyrus-ACMI, Maple Grove, MA) cutting device group (n = 27) or the Monopolar L-Hook (VECTEC, Bioparc, Hauterive, France) cutting device group (n = 28), and colpotomy was performed using the assigned energy-based surgical device for each group. The removed uterus was examined by the same pathologist in the pathology department. During the colpotomy stage, the thermally damaged area was measured and photographed in millimeters from the application point of the electrosurgical device at the cervix–vaginal border. The extent of lateral thermal damage was measured in width using a light microscope from the point of instrument application to the margin of unchanged nearby tissue. Results: Thermal damage was significantly greater in the Monopolar L-Hook group than in the Bipolar Gyrus ® PKS PlasmaSpatula cutting device group (8.1 mm [range 6.6-9.1 mm] vs. 4.7 mm [range 4.1-5.6 mm], P = .000). However, Bipolar Gyrus ® PKS PlasmaSpatula provided a better surgical field as it did not produce excessive smoke and caused less thermal damage. The colpotomy time, cuff closure time, total operative time, blood loss, and cuff cellulite were similar between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Bipolar Gyrus ® PKS PlasmaSpatula caused less lateral thermal damage and provided a better non-smoked surgical view compared to the Monopolar L-Hook cutting device

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇİMŞİR, M. T., GÜNİZİ, C., YILDIZ, M. S. (2022). Comparison of Gyrus PKS™ PlasmaSpatula Versus Vectec™ Monopolar L-Hook During Colpotomy Step in Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in Terms of Vaginal Cuff Thermal Damage. Cerrahpaşa Medical Journal, Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 1, 66–70. https://ajindex.com/articles/473097

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Janssen PF, Brölmann HA, Huirne JA. Effectiveness of electrothermal bipolar vessel-sealing devices versus other electrothermal and ultrasonic devices for abdominal surgical hemostasis: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2012
  2. 26(10):2892-2901. [CrossRef] 2. Aytan H, Nazik H, Narin R, Api M, Tok EC. Comparison of the use of LigaSure, HALO PKS cutting forceps, and ENSEAL tissue sealer in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014
  3. 21(4):650-655. [CrossRef] 3. Choi C, Do IG, Song T. Ultrasonic versus monopolar energy-based surgical devices in terms of surgical smoke and lateral thermal damage (ULMOST): a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2018
  4. 32(11):4415-4421. [CrossRef] 4. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, et al. Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2012
  5. 30(7):695-700. [CrossRef] 5. Chalermchockchareonkit A, Tekasakul P, Chaisilwattana P, Sirimai K, Wahab N. Laparoscopic hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy for severe pelvic endometriosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012
  6. 116(2):109-111. [CrossRef] 6. Zakka K, Erridge S, Chidambaram S, et al. Electrocautery, diathermy, and surgical energy devices: are surgical teams at risk during the COVID-19 pandemic? Ann Surg. 2020
  7. 272(3):e257-e262. [CrossRef] 7. Noel NL, Isaacson KB. Morcellation complications: from direct trauma to inoculation. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2016
  8. [CrossRef] 8. Janssen PF, Brölmann HA, Huirne JA. Causes and prevention of laparoscopic ureter injuries: an analysis of 31 cases during laparoscopic hysterectomy in the Netherlands. Surg Endosc. 2013
  9. 27(3):946- 956. [CrossRef] 9. Feng D, Tang Y, Yang Y, Wei X, Han P, Wei W. Does prophylactic ureteral catheter placement offer any advantage for laparoscopic gynecological surgery? A urologist' perspective from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Androl Urol. 2020
  10. 9(5):2262-2269. [CrossRef] 10. Vilos GA, Rajakumar C. Electrosurgical generators and monopolar and bipolar electrosurgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013
  11. 20(3):279- 287. [CrossRef] 11. Law KS, Lyons SD. Comparative studies of energy sources in gynecologic laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013
  12. 20(3):308-318. [CrossRef] 12. Rothmund R, Kraemer B, Brucker S, et al. Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy using EnSeal vs standard bipolar coagulation tech