Randomized comparative study of the effectiveness and safety of various bipolar devices during electrosurgical vaginal hysterectomy

Abstract

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the morphometric features of tissues after exposure to bipolar energy of various electrosurgical generators and surgical hemostatic instruments used in vaginal hysterectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 48 individuals who underwent a vaginal hysterectomy. The patients were divided in three groups based on the instrument used for sealing blood vessels: a BiClamp^® was applied in Group 1 (n = 16), a TissueSeal PLUS COMFORT^® in Group 2 (n = 16), and a Thunderbeat^® in Group 3 (n = 16). The maximum temperature of tissue measured using a Fluke FLK TIS 40 9HZ thermal imaging infrared camera was compared within the groups.

RESULTS: The maximum tissue temperature between the branches on electroligation, the minimum tissue temperature, and the tissue temperature at the coagulation boundary were significantly lower when using a TissueSeal PLUS COMFORT^® clamp than when using BiClamp^® and Thunderbeat^® clamps (H value = 41.8, p ≤ 0.01). Morphometric parameters (prevalence, coagulation depth and area) were the smallest with a TissueSeal PLUS COMFORT^® clamp compared to other clamps.

CONCLUSIONS: Using a TissueSeal PLUS COMFORT^® clamp during vaginal hysterectomy is effective and safe and has the best thermometric and morphometric characteristics when applied to the tissue, thereby reducing the risk of lateral thermal damage. The possibility of perifocal heat transfer varies with the type of tool and with the temperature at the coagulation boundary.

Keywords

vaginal hysterectomy / lateral thermal damage / BiClamp® / TissueSeal PLUS COMFORT® / Thunderbeat

References

[1] Ailamazyan EK, Bezhenar VF, Savitsky GA, et al. The rational choice of surgical approach for hysterectomy. J Gynecol Surg. 2006;(3 suppl. 1):S95–S96.

[2] Ailamazyan E.K., Bezhenar V.F., Savitsky G.A. et al. The rational choice of surgical approach for hysterectomy // J. Gynecol. Surg. 2006. No. 3. Suppl. 1. P. S95–S96.

[3] Bezhenar’ VF, Novikov EI, Vasilenko LV, Komlichenko JeV. Vlagalishhnye operacii. Saint-Petersburg: Izd-vo N-L; 2013. (In Russ.)

[4] Беженарь В.Ф., Новиков Е.И., Василенко Л.В., Комличенко Э.В. Влагалищные операции. Санкт-Петербург: Изд-во Н-Л, 2013.

[5] Whiteman MK, Hillis SD, Jamieson DJ, et al. Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000-2004. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(1):34.e1–34.e347. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.05.039

[6] Whiteman M.K., Hillis S.D., Jamieson D.J. et al. Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000–2004 // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2008. Vol. 198. No. 1. P. 34.e1–34.e347. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.05.039

[7] Candiani M, Izzo S, Bulfoni A, Riparini J, Ronzoni S, Marconi A. Laparoscopic vs vaginal hysterectomy for benign pathology. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(4):368.e1–368.e3687. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.09.016

[8] Candiani M., Izzo S., Bulfoni A., Riparini J., Ronzoni S., Marconi A. Laparoscopic vs vaginal hysterectomy for benign pathology // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009. Vol. 200. No. 4. P. 368.e1–368.e3687. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.09.016

[9] Forsgren C, Altman D. Risk of pelvic organ fistula in patients undergoing hysterectomy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;22(5):404–407. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e32833e49b0

[10] Forsgren C., Altman D. Risk of pelvic organ fistula in patients undergoing hysterectomy // Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2010. Vol. 22. No. 5. P. 404–407. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e32833e49b0

[11] Moen MD, Richter HE. Vaginal hysterectomy: past, present, and future. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(9):1161–1165. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-014-2459-x

[12] Moen M.D., Richter H.E. Vaginal hysterectomy: past, present, and future // Int. Urogynecol. J. 2014. Vol. 25. No. 9. P. 1161–1165. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-014-2459-x

[13] Plekhanov AN, Bezhenar VF, Epifanova TA, et al. Tissue thermometric characteristics in the intervention area during electrosurgical vaginal hysterectomy. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2020;(6):98–105. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18565/aig.2020.5.98-104

[14] Плеханов А.Н., Беженарь В.Ф., Епифанова Т.А. Термометрические характеристики тканей в зоне вмешательства при выполнении электрохирургической влагалищной гистерэктомии // Акушерство и гинекология. 2020. № 6. С. 98–105. DOI: 10.18565/aig.2020.5.98-104

[15] Pogorelić Z, Katić J, Mrklić I, et al. Lateral thermal damage of mesoappendix and appendiceal base during laparoscopic appendectomy in children: comparison of the harmonic scalpel (Ultracision), bipolar coagulation (LigaSure), and thermal fusion technology (MiSeal). J Surg Res. 2017;212:101–107. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.01.014

[16] Pogorelić Z., Katić J., Mrklić I. et al. Lateral thermal damage of mesoappendix and appendiceal base during laparoscopic appendectomy in children: comparison of the harmonic scalpel (Ultracision), bipolar coagulation (LigaSure), and thermal fusion technology (MiSeal) // J. Surg. Res. 2017. Vol. 212. P. 101–107. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.01.014

[17] Jaiswal A, Huang KG. Energy devices in gynecological laparoscopy — Archaic to modern era. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2017;6(4):147–151. DOI: 10.1016/j.gmit.2017.08.002

[18] Jaiswal A., Huang K.G. Energy devices in gynecological laparoscopy — Archaic to modern era // Gynecol. Minim. Invasive Ther. 2017. Vol. 6. No. 4. P. 147–151. DOI: 10.1016/j.gmit.2017.08.002

[19] Zhu Q, Ruan J, Zhang L, Jiang W, Liu H, Shi G. The study of laparoscopic electrosurgical instruments on thermal effect of uterine tissues. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285(6):1637–1641. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-011-2207-0

[20] Zhu Q., Ruan J., Zhang L., Jiang W., Liu H., Shi G. The study of laparoscopic electrosurgical instruments on thermal effect of uterine tissues // Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2012. Vol. 285. No. 6. P. 1637–1641. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-011-2207-0

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Eсо-Vector