Literature review of the energy sources for performing laparoscopic colorectal surgery

doi:10.4240/wjgs.v4.i1.1

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 4, Issue 1

This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (7732)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Figures (1-5) series, Tables (1-1) series.

Item

Count

PDF

565

HTML

6163

Figures (1-5)

597

Tables (1-1)

407

Sum=7732

Jan 27, 2012 (publication date) through Jan 23, 2025

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (13)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

ISSN

1948-9366

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Editorial

World J Gastrointest Surg. Jan 27, 2012; 4(1): 1-8
Published online Jan 27, 2012. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v4.i1.1

Table 1 A literature review of energy sources for laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Study	Length of surgery (min)	Blood loss (mL)	Conversion rate (%)	Morbidity (%)	Mortality (%)	Hospital stay
Targarona et al[4]; data expressed as the mean (range); ^aP < 0.01 vsI, ^cP < 0.01 vsI
I Electrosurgery (n = 11)	180 (90-210)	200 (0-350)	9.1	36.3	ND	7 (6-32) d
II Ultracision (n = 12)	120 (65-220)^a	100 (0-150)^c	0	18.2	ND	8 (4-18) d
III Ligasure (n = 15)	110 (70-210)^a	100 (0-450)	6.7	13.3	ND	6 (6-16) d
Morino et al[5]; data expressed as the mean (range); ^eP < 0.032 vsI
I Monopolar electrosurgery (n = 72)	102.6 (75-190)	182.6 (50-330)	11.1	6.9	0	8.9 (6-12) POD
II Ultracision (n = 74)	93.0 (45-170)	140.8 (35-290)^e	12.2	6.7	0	8.5 (6-11) POD
Takada et al[6]; data expressed as the mean ± SE; ^gP < 0.001 vs TC ofI, ⁱP < 0.001 vs Sig ofI, ^hP < 0.05 vs TC ofI, ^jP < 0.01 vs Sig ofI
I Harmonic scalpel (n = 15)
TC (n = 8)	18.4 ± 0.7	ND	ND	1.2 ± 0.4	ND	15.3 ± 1.5 d
Sig (n = 7)	27.6 ± 1.7	ND	ND	2.0 ± 0.4	ND	14.2 ± 1.5 d
II Ligasure (n = 15)
TC (n = 8)	7.9 ± 0.9^g	ND	ND	0.3 ± 0.2^h	ND	14.2 ± 1.3 d
Sig (n = 7)	15.0 ± 0.9ⁱ	ND	ND	0.3 ± 0.2^j	ND	12.8 ± 1.5 d
Campagnacci et al[7]; data expressed as the mean (range); ^kP < 0.001 vs RC ofI, ^mP < 0.001 vs LC ofI, ^oP = 0.002 vs LAR ofI
I Harmonic scalpel (n = 100)
RC (n = 37)	133 (95-190)	370 (150-680)	0	2.0	0	6.1 (5-7) POD
LC (n = 47)	176 (95-240)	455 (270-845)	1.0	0	0	7.1 (5-8) POD
LAR (n = 16)	201 (145-320)	495 (280-900)	0	0	0	7.3 (6-8) POD
II Ligasure (n = 100)
RC (n = 32)	111 (70-195)	115 (30-160)^k	0	0	0	5.2 (4-6) POD
LC (n = 50)	140 (120-170)	150 (70-220)^m	0	0	0	6.5 (5-7) POD
LAR (n = 18)	153 (130-220)	185 (100-285)^o	0	0	0	6.8 (5-8) POD
Hubner et al[8]; data expressed as the mean (range); ^qP < 0.001 vsI
I MES (n = 20)	137 (65-230)	125 (0-450)	ND	50.0	ND	8.5 (5-29) d
II UCS (n = 20)	90 (45-177)^q	50 (0-500)	ND	30.0	ND	7 (3-28) d
III BVS (n = 21)	105 (58-195)^q	50 (0-600)	ND	47.6	ND	7 (3-31) d
Rimonda et al[9]; data expressed as the mean ± SD
I Ultracision (n = 70)	114.8 ± 47.6	107.9 ± 42.0	8.6	11.4	0	7.4 ± 2.2 POD
II Ligasure (n = 70)	116.3 ± 44.0	111.2 ± 51.5	7.1	10.0	1.4	6.9 ± 3.3 POD

POD: Postoperative hospital stay; TC: Transverse colectomy; Sig: Simoidectomy; RC: Right colectomies; LC: Left colectomies; LAR: Low anterior resection; MES: Monopolar electrosurgery scissors; UCS: Ultrasonically coagulating shears; BVS: Bipolar vessel sealers.

Citation: Hotta T, Takifuji K, Yokoyama S, Matsuda K, Higashiguchi T, Tominaga T, Oku Y, Watanabe T, Nasu T, Hashimoto T, Tamura K, Ieda J, Yamamoto N, Iwamoto H, Yamaue H. Literature review of the energy sources for performing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. World J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 4(1): 1-8
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v4/i1/1.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v4.i1.1