| Title |
Evaluation of a novel electrosurgical sealing mode in an ex vivo and in vivo porcine model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-5832-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karolin Thiel, Walter Linzenbold, Markus D. Enderle, B. Nold, Alfred Königsrainer, Martin Schenk, Christian Thiel |
| Abstract |
Bipolar vessel sealing has been successfully introduced in a variety of procedures like prostatectomy, hysterectomy, and nephrectomy. In this study, we evaluated a new sealing mode-the thermoSEAL(®) mode (TSM)-operated with the VIO3 generator in an ex vivo and in vivo animal study and compared the results with the commercially available BiClamp mode (BCM), operated with the VIO300D generator. Two different instruments were used in combination with both modes, BiCision(®) and BiClamp(®) 201T (Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH). In the ex vivo experiment, the sealing of renal arteries was evaluated using both instruments and modes. For the in vivo study, different types of arteries and veins were sealed using both modes and instruments in a side-by-side comparison for acute complications in a total of four animals. Mean burst pressure was in all cases significantly above 360 mmHg (p < 0.001). Sealing time during the ex vivo setting was significantly shorter for TSM compared to BCM: BiCision(®) (3.7 ± 0.4 vs. 7.1 ± 0.3 s; p < 0.0001); BiClamp(®) 201T (3.9 ± 0.3 vs. 5.1 ± 1.1 s; p < 0.0015). Lateral thermal damage was more pronounced for BCM: BiCision(®) (TSM 1.4 ± 0.3 mm vs. BCM 1.9 ± 0.2 mm; p < 0.0001); BiClamp(®) 201T (TSM 1.9 ± 0.6 mm vs. BCM 3.1 ± 0.6 mm; p < 0.0001). The sealing time during the in vivo study was significantly shorter for TSM in combination with BiCision(®) for arteries [TSM 3.0 ± 0.7 s vs. BCM 6.5 ± 1.3 s, (p < 0.0001) and veins 3.2 ± 1.1 vs. 5.8 ± 1.8 s, (p < 0.0001)]. No significant differences were seen for the two modes used with BiClamp(®) 201T [artery: TSM 3.3 ± 0.7 s vs. BCM 3.4 ± 0.9 s, (p = 0.891)]. High sealing rates for arteries (100%) and veins (>90%) were noted for both instruments and modes. While both modes used with two different instruments reveal high safety characterized by a high burst pressure, low thermal damage (ex vivo) zones, and high sealing rates (in vivo), the thermoSEAL(®) mode convinces by its fast sealing speed probably helping to reduce operation time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 50% |
| Other | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 13% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 13% |
| Engineering | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2017.
All research outputs
#17,915,942
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#4,419
of 6,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,234
of 318,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#134
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,097 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,311 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.