Comparison of vessel sealing systems with conventional

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of different surgical procedures for patients with hemorrhoids: a network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study used a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different surgical approaches in patients with hemorrhoids.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials on patients with hemorrhoids treated by different surgical procedures. The search was conducted until January 15, 2023. Two investigators independently screened the resulting literature, extracted information, evaluated the risk of bias of the included studies, and performed a network meta-analysis.

RESULT

A total of 23 randomized controlled studies were included and involved 3573 patients and 10 interventions, namely L (Ligasure), M-M (Milligan-Morgan), F (Ferguson), H (Harmonic), OH (open Harmonic), CH (closed Harmonic), PPH (procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids), TST (tissue selecting technique), T-S (TST STARE+; tissue selection therapy stapled transanal rectal resection plus), and STARR (stapled transanal rectal resection). Network meta-analysis results showed that L has the shortest mean operating time and STARR has the longest mean operating time, F and H have the longest length of hospitalization and T-S has the shortest length of hospitalization, PPH has the most intraoperative blood loss and L has the least intraoperative blood loss, TST has the shortest time to first defecation and M-M has the longest time to first defecation, STARR had the least recurrence and PPH had the most recurrence, PPH had the least anal stenosis and L had the most anal stenosis, and F had the least postoperative pain after 24 h and PPH had the most postoperative pain after 24 h.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests that L is best at reducing mean operative time and intraoperative bleeding, T-S is best at reducing mean length of stay, TST has the shortest time to first defecation, STARR is best at reducing recurrence rates, PPH is best at reducing postoperative anal stricture, and F is best at reducing postoperative pain after 24 h.

An umbrella review of the surgical performance of Harmonic ultrasonic devices and impact on patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

For thirty years, the Harmonic scalpel has been used for precise dissection, sealing and transection. There are numerous meta-analyses on individual surgical procedures with Harmonic, but no overarching review covering all the areas. This umbrella review seeks to summarize the clinical results from the use of Harmonic across surgical fields and broadly quantify its effects on patient outcomes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Databases were searched for meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Harmonic devices to conventional techniques or advanced bipolar (ABP) devices. For each procedure type, the most comprehensive MAs were evaluated. RCTs not already analysed in a MA were also included. Operating time, length of stay, intraoperative blood loss, drainage volume, pain, and overall complications were evaluated, and the methodological quality and certainty of evidence were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four systematic literature reviews were identified on colectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, gastrectomy, mastectomy, flap harvesting, cholecystectomy, thyroidectomy, tonsillectomy, and neck dissection. There were also 83 RCTs included. In every MA evaluated, Harmonic devices were associated with either statistically significant or numerical improvements in every outcome compared with conventional techniques; most MAs reported a reduction in operating time of ≥ 25 min. Harmonic versus ABP device MAs in colectomy and thyroidectomy showed no significant differences in outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Across surgical procedures, Harmonic devices demonstrated improved patient outcomes for operating time, length of stay, intraoperative bleeding, drainage volume, pain, and overall complications compared to conventional techniques. Additional studies are required to assess differences between Harmonic and ABP devices.

Ligasure™ Hemorrhoidectomy versus Conventional Hemorrhoidectomy: Comparison in Outcome

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhoids are a common problem faced in the surgical practice that cause a variety of symptoms ranging from bleeding per rectum to prolapsed, non-reducible and painful anal masses. Therefore, hemorrhoidectomy is one of most frequently performed surgical procedures worldwide. AIM: In this study, we will compare between the conventional surgical method and between LigaSure™ hemorrhoidectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All 120 patients underwent hemorrhoidectomy by conventional and LigaSure™ method between September 2015 and September 2018 in Al-Kafeel hospital in Karbala city in Iraq. All cases underwent surgery by the three authors under regional anesthesia or general anesthesia by anesthetic team. A thorough history taking and physical examination were done and an informed consent has been taken from each patient before the surgery. Conventional hemorrhoidectomy was done for 50 patients randomly selected. The operation was done in the open method (Milligan Morgan’s). LigaSure™ hemorrhoidectomy was done for 70 patients randomly selected as well. Quantification of intra-operative bleeding was done by counting the number of gauzes. Patients were evaluated 5 days and a month and 3 months after the operation for complications and improvement of symptoms. The data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 22.0. RESULTS: There were significant differences regarding the operation time, number of gauzes soaked with blood, hospital stay, pain score, post-operative bleeding, wound infection, residual mass, fecal incontinence and anal stenosis in favor of the LigaSure™ method. There was no significant difference regarding urine retention and post-operative discharge between the two methods. CONCLUSION: LigaSure™ hemorrhoidectomy can be a good alternative to conventional methods to reduce pain and make a more rapid recovery after hemorrhoidal surgery.

Comparison of the reliability and efficacy of LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy and a conventional Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy in the surgical treatment of grade 3 and 4 hemorrhoids

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results of LigaSure-assisted hemorrhoidectomy and Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy as a conventional method in our clinic.

Materials and Methods

Patients who underwent LigaSure-assisted hemorrhoidectomy or conventional hemorrhoidectomy for grade 3 and 4 hemorrhoids in our clinic between 2009 and 2014 were included in this study. The patient data were reviewed by screening records. Gender, age, preoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, operation time, presence of thrombosis, number of packages, hospitalization time, early and late postoperative complications, prolonged pain presence, and follow-up period were recorded.

Results

In this period, surgical interventions were performed on 365 patients diagnosed with hemorrhoids. Among these, 159 underwent LigaSure-assisted operations, while 206 were operated on by conventional methods. One hundred forty-four (39.5%) cases were female, while 221 (60.5%) cases were male. The median age of the patients was 40 (19-82) years in the LigaSure group and 41 (16-78) years in the conventional method group. The operation time was 15 (4-60) min in the LigaSure group and 20 (6-40) min in the conventional method group. Postoperative analgesics were given to the 182 (88.3%) cases in the conventional group and 107 (67.3%) cases in the LigaSure group. The time required for returning to normal daily activity was 6 (1-15) days in the LigaSure group and 7 (1-30) days in the conventional method group.

Conclusion

In this study, LigaSure was determined to be superior to a conventional method in terms of operation time, hospitalization period, postoperative analgesic requirements, time required for returning to normal daily activity, and postoperative bleeding.

Harmonic Scalpel and Electrothermal Bipolar Vessel Sealing System in Head and Neck Surgery

Objectives:

Define and compare the thermal nerve injury caused by 3 different vessel sealing and dissection devices: the harmonic scalpel (HS), the electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing system (EBVS), and the bipolar electrosurgery unit (BE).

Methods:

First we recorded the heating variations in pig tissue caused by a BE unit, HS, and EBVS after an activation for 5, 10, and 15 seconds at minimum and at maximum power. In the second part, we evaluated the histological damage caused by HS and EBVS on 20 in vivo human nerves, 10 per device. The 2 scalpels were placed and activated at 3 different distances from the nerve (1, 3, and 5 mm). The extension and the degree of the nerve lesion was then calculated.

Results:

The instrument determining the highest rise in temperature was the BE unit, followed by HS and then EBVS. Comparison between the extension and degree of nerve injury caused by the 2 scalpels showed no statistically significant differences. Based on these evaluations, we established a relative safety limit at 3 mm and an absolute safety limit at 5 mm for both scalpels.

Conclusions:

Our data suggest EBVS and HS can be considered valid and safe devices for ENT surgery.