A prospective randomized comparison of two instruments for dissection and vessel sealing in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
Détails
Télécharger: s00464-006-9034-6.pdf (231.39 [Ko])
Etat: Public
Version: Final published version
Licence: Non spécifiée
Etat: Public
Version: Final published version
Licence: Non spécifiée
ID Serval
serval:BIB_3CE562A175C4
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
A prospective randomized comparison of two instruments for dissection and vessel sealing in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
Périodique
Surgical Endoscopy
ISSN
1432-2218 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
0930-2794
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2007
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
21
Numéro
4
Pages
592-594
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial
Publication Status: ppublish
Publication Status: ppublish
Résumé
BACKGROUND: A newly available, laparoscopic 5-mm bipolar vessel sealing device promises substantial advantages over the 10-mm instrument. This study compared the safety as well as the technical and surgical aspects of these different tools.
METHODS: For this study, 30 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic left-sided colectomy were prospectively randomized for the 5-mm LigaSure or The 10-mm LigaSure. The patients' demographics were analyzed together with their intraoperative and postoperative parameters, and the instruments were assessed by the surgeons with a standardized questionnaire.
RESULTS: The two groups were comparable and demonstrated similar mean operation times, blood losses, and hospital stays. The 5-mm LigaSure was applied in more operation steps and resulted in fewer bleeding episodes and less lens cleaning. Monopolar scissors were used less frequently in the 5-mm group, thus minimizing cauteric lesions and their complications (0 in the 5-mm group vs 2 in the 10-mm group). Overall satisfaction with the 5-mm LigaSure was significantly higher (8.4 +/- 0.18 vs 6.9 +/- 0.41 out of 10; p = 0.002), with significant advantages in terms of dissection capacity, visibility, and handling.
CONCLUSION: The 5-mm LigaSure is as secure and fast as the larger 10-mm device and compares favorably in terms of finer dissection as well as trocar flexibility and handling. Therefore, it can be used safely in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
METHODS: For this study, 30 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic left-sided colectomy were prospectively randomized for the 5-mm LigaSure or The 10-mm LigaSure. The patients' demographics were analyzed together with their intraoperative and postoperative parameters, and the instruments were assessed by the surgeons with a standardized questionnaire.
RESULTS: The two groups were comparable and demonstrated similar mean operation times, blood losses, and hospital stays. The 5-mm LigaSure was applied in more operation steps and resulted in fewer bleeding episodes and less lens cleaning. Monopolar scissors were used less frequently in the 5-mm group, thus minimizing cauteric lesions and their complications (0 in the 5-mm group vs 2 in the 10-mm group). Overall satisfaction with the 5-mm LigaSure was significantly higher (8.4 +/- 0.18 vs 6.9 +/- 0.41 out of 10; p = 0.002), with significant advantages in terms of dissection capacity, visibility, and handling.
CONCLUSION: The 5-mm LigaSure is as secure and fast as the larger 10-mm device and compares favorably in terms of finer dissection as well as trocar flexibility and handling. Therefore, it can be used safely in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
Mots-clé
Aged, Blood Loss, Surgical/prevention & control, Colectomy/instrumentation, Colectomy/methods, Colonic Neoplasms/mortality, Colonic Neoplasms/pathology, Equipment Safety, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Hemostasis, Surgical/instrumentation, Hemostasis, Surgical/methods, Humans, Laparoscopy/adverse effects, Laparoscopy/methods, Length of Stay, Ligation/instrumentation, Male, Middle Aged, Probability, Prospective Studies, Risk Assessment, Sensitivity and Specificity, Statistics, Nonparametric, Treatment Outcome
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Oui
Création de la notice
28/01/2008 8:53
Dernière modification de la notice
01/02/2022 7:09