Harmonic Scalpel Tonsillectomy Versus Coblation Tonsillectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Efficacy of LigaSure Versus Harmonic Devices in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Our goal is to conduct a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies to evaluate the efficacy of LigaSure (Valleylab, Boulder, CO) compared with Harmonic (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., Cincinnati, OH) devices in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Our search strategy, from inception until March 1, 2024, involved multiple databases, including the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science (WOS), PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We evaluated randomized clinical trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2) tool and non-randomized studies using the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies for Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. The primary outcomes assessed were operative time, mean length of hospital stay, and the rates of intraoperative complications such as bleeding, organ injury, leakage, and hematoma formation. Additionally, we collected data on postoperative complications, including bleeding, abscess formation, leakage, fever (>38°C), and reoperation rates. Data were analyzed using random-effects models and reported as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using Review Manager software (RevMan, version 5.4 for Windows, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020). Four studies, comprising two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and two retrospective cohort studies, involving a total of 692 patients, were included in the analysis. Both the operative time and length of hospital stay did not significantly differ between the LigaSure and Harmonic groups (p>0.05). The pooled analysis also revealed no significant difference between the LigaSure and Harmonic groups in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications (p>0.05). In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis found no significant statistical or clinical differences between LigaSure and Harmonic devices in terms of operative outcomes and complication rates in patients undergoing LSG.

Harmonic Scalpel Tonsillectomy Versus Coblation Tonsillectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Aim

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of coblation versus harmonic scalpel methods among patients undergoing tonsillectomy.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were systematically screened from inception until October 2022. The outcomes were summarized as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference/standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model.

Results

Six RCTs were analyzed, encompassing a sum of 461 patients (harmonic scalpel = 233 patients and coblation = 228 patients). The overall quality assessment was low risk of bias in two RCTs, some concerns of bias in three RCTs, and high risk of bias in one RCT. There was no significant difference between harmonic scalpel and coblation groups regarding the mean operative time (n = 6 RCTs, MD=-7.45 min, 95% CI [-15.26, 0.01], p = 0.06) mean intraoperative blood loss (n = 5 RCTs, MD=-36.03 ml, 95% CI [-77.46, 5.41], p = 0.09), and rate of postoperative hemorrhage (n = 5 RCTs, RR = 0.59, 95% CI [0.25, 1.39], p = 0.23). The overall postoperative pain score was significantly reduced in favor of the coblation group compared with the harmonic scalpel group (n = 5 RCTs, MD = 0.40, 95% CI [0.10, 0.69], p = 0.009)".

Conclusions

The harmonic scalpel and coblation techniques share equal efficacy among patients undergoing tonsillectomy. The reduction in postoperative pain score provided by the coblation method is not clinically meaningful in clinical practice. Additional RCTs are needed to consolidate the power and quality of the presented evidence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12070-023-04022-7.