Current status on the adoption of high energy devices in Italy: An Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery and New Technologies (SICE) national survey.
Bipolar vessels sealing systems
Electrosurgery
Harmonic scalpel
High energy devices
Radiofrequency electrosurgery
Survey
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2021
11 2021
Historique:
received:
22
07
2020
accepted:
21
10
2020
pubmed:
7
11
2020
medline:
26
10
2021
entrez:
6
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the past three decades, different High Energy Devices (HED) have been introduced in surgical practice to improve the efficiency of surgical procedures. HED allow vessel sealing, coagulation and transection as well as an efficient tissue dissection. This survey was designed to verify the current status on the adoption of HED in Italy. A survey was conducted across Italian general surgery units. The questionnaire was composed of three sections (general information, elective surgery, emergency surgery) including 44 questions. Only one member per each surgery unit was allowed to complete the questionnaire. For elective procedures, the survey included questions on thyroid surgery, lower and upper GI surgery, proctologic surgery, adrenal gland surgery, pancreatic and hepatobiliary surgery, cholecystectomy, abdominal wall surgery and breast surgery. Appendectomy, cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis and bowel obstruction due to adhesions were considered for emergency surgery. The list of alternatives for every single question included a percentage category as follows: " < 25%, 25-50%, 51-75% or > 75%", both for open and minimally-invasive surgery. A total of 113 surgical units completed the questionnaire. The reported use of HED was high both in open and minimally-invasive upper and lower GI surgery. Similarly, HED were widely used in minimally-invasive pancreatic and adrenal surgery. The use of HED was wider in minimally-invasive hepatic and biliary tree surgery compared to open surgery, whereas the majority of the respondents reported the use of any type of HED in less than 25% of elective cholecystectomies. HED were only rarely employed also in the majority of emergency open and laparoscopic procedures, including cholecystectomy, appendectomy, and adhesiolysis. Similarly, very few respondents declared to use HED in abdominal wall surgery and proctology. The distribution of the most used type of HED varied among the different surgical interventions. US HED were mostly used in thyroid, upper GI, and adrenal surgery. A relevant use of H-US/RF devices was reported in lower GI, pancreatic, hepatobiliary and breast surgery. RF HED were the preferred choice in proctology. HED are extensively used in minimally-invasive elective surgery involving the upper and lower GI tract, liver, pancreas and adrenal gland. Nowadays, reasons for choosing a specific HED in clinical practice rely on several aspects, including surgeon's preference, economic features, and specific drawbacks of the energy employed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In the past three decades, different High Energy Devices (HED) have been introduced in surgical practice to improve the efficiency of surgical procedures. HED allow vessel sealing, coagulation and transection as well as an efficient tissue dissection. This survey was designed to verify the current status on the adoption of HED in Italy.
METHODS
A survey was conducted across Italian general surgery units. The questionnaire was composed of three sections (general information, elective surgery, emergency surgery) including 44 questions. Only one member per each surgery unit was allowed to complete the questionnaire. For elective procedures, the survey included questions on thyroid surgery, lower and upper GI surgery, proctologic surgery, adrenal gland surgery, pancreatic and hepatobiliary surgery, cholecystectomy, abdominal wall surgery and breast surgery. Appendectomy, cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis and bowel obstruction due to adhesions were considered for emergency surgery. The list of alternatives for every single question included a percentage category as follows: " < 25%, 25-50%, 51-75% or > 75%", both for open and minimally-invasive surgery.
RESULTS
A total of 113 surgical units completed the questionnaire. The reported use of HED was high both in open and minimally-invasive upper and lower GI surgery. Similarly, HED were widely used in minimally-invasive pancreatic and adrenal surgery. The use of HED was wider in minimally-invasive hepatic and biliary tree surgery compared to open surgery, whereas the majority of the respondents reported the use of any type of HED in less than 25% of elective cholecystectomies. HED were only rarely employed also in the majority of emergency open and laparoscopic procedures, including cholecystectomy, appendectomy, and adhesiolysis. Similarly, very few respondents declared to use HED in abdominal wall surgery and proctology. The distribution of the most used type of HED varied among the different surgical interventions. US HED were mostly used in thyroid, upper GI, and adrenal surgery. A relevant use of H-US/RF devices was reported in lower GI, pancreatic, hepatobiliary and breast surgery. RF HED were the preferred choice in proctology.
CONCLUSION
HED are extensively used in minimally-invasive elective surgery involving the upper and lower GI tract, liver, pancreas and adrenal gland. Nowadays, reasons for choosing a specific HED in clinical practice rely on several aspects, including surgeon's preference, economic features, and specific drawbacks of the energy employed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33155075
doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-08117-y
pii: 10.1007/s00464-020-08117-y
pmc: PMC7644118
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6201-6211Informations de copyright
© 2020. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Kennedy J, Buysse S, Lawes K et al (1999) Recent innovations in bipolar electrosurgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 8:95–99
doi: 10.3109/13645709909153141
Carroll T, Ladner K, Meyers AD (2005) Alternative surgical dissection techniques. OtolaryngolClin N Am 38:397–411
doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2004.10.001
Devassy R, Gopalakrishnan S, De Wilde RL (2015) Surgical efficacy among laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors: are we advancing safely? A review of literature. J ObstetGynaecol India 65:293–300
doi: 10.1007/s13224-015-0774-x
Person B, Vivas DA, Ruiz D, Talcott M et al (2008) Comparison of four energy-based vascular sealing and cutting instruments: a porcine model. SurgEndosc 22:534–538
Harold KL, Pollinger H, Matthews BD et al (2003) Comparison of ultrasonic energy, bipolar thermal energy, and vascular clips for the hemostasis of small-, medium-, and large-sized arteries. SurgEndosc 17:1228–1230
Campbell PA, Cresswell AB, Frank TG et al (2003) Real time thermography during energized vessel sealing and dissection. SurgEndosc 17:1640–1645
Weld KJ, Dryer S, Ames CD et al (2007) Analysis of surgical smoke produced by various energy-based instruments and effect on laparoscopic visibility. J Endourol 21(3):347–351
doi: 10.1089/end.2006.9994
Allaix ME, Edgar JB, Furneé E et al (2016) Energy sources for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: is one better than the others? J LaparoendAdvSurg 26:264–269
Di Lorenzo N, Franceschilli L, Allaix ME et al (2012) Radiofrequency versus ultrasonic energy in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of operative time and blood loss. SurgEndosc 26:2917–2924
Rimonda R, Arezzo A, Garrone C, et al. (2009) Electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing system vs. Harmonic scalpel in colorectal laparoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized study. Dis Colon Rectum 52 (4): 657–661
Eysenbach G (2004) Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet e-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 6(3):E34
doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34
Shih TH, Fan X (2009) Comparing response rates in email and paper surveys: a meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 4:26–40
doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2008.01.003
Agresta F, Campanile FC, Vettoretto, et al (2015) Italian surgical society working group Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: consensus conference-based guidelines. Langebecks Arch Surg 400(4):429–453
doi: 10.1007/s00423-015-1300-4
Saverio Di, Podda M, De Simone B et al (2020) Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 updates of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines. World J Emergency Surg 15(1):27
doi: 10.1186/s13017-020-00306-3
Kim FJ, Sehrt D, da Silva RD et al (2015) Evaluation of emissivity and temperature profile of laparoscopic ultrasonic devices (blades and passive jaws). SurgEndosc 29(5):1179–1184
Tsirline VB, Lau KN, Swan RZ et al (2013) Evaluation of an innovative, cordless ultrasonic dissector. SurgInnov 20(5):524–529
Ott DE, Moss E, Martinez K (1998) Aerosol exposure from an ultrasonically activated (Harmonic) device. J Am AssocGynecolLaparosc 5(1):29–32
Kim F, David S, Pompeo A, Molina W (2012) Comparison of surgical plume among laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors using a real-time digital quantitative technology. SurgEndosc 26(12):3408–3412
Mintz Y, Arezzo A, Boni L, Chand M, Brodie R, Fingerhut A, the Technology Committee of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (2020) A low-cost, safe, and effective method for smoke evacuation in laparoscopic surgery for suspected coronavirus patients. Ann Surg 272(1):e7–e8
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003965
Campanile FC, Podda M, Arezzo A et al (2020) Acute cholecystitis during COVID-19 pandemic: a multisocietary position statement. World J EmergSurg 15(1):38
doi: 10.1186/s13017-020-00317-0
Botteri E, Podda M, Sartori A (2020) The COVID-19 pandemic should not take us back to prelaparoscopic era. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 89(2):273–274.