Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2006;36(10):908-13.
doi: 10.1007/s00595-006-3254-1.

Comparison of Monopolar Electrocoagulation, Bipolar Electrocoagulation, Ultracision, and Ligasure

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of Monopolar Electrocoagulation, Bipolar Electrocoagulation, Ultracision, and Ligasure

Theodore Diamantis et al. Surg Today. .

Abstract

Purpose: Hemostasis is a fundamental principle of surgery. We compared the safety and efficacy of monopolar electrocoagulation (ME), bipolar electrocoagulation (BE), Ligasure (LS), a modern bipolar vessel sealing system, and Ultracision (UC), a system of ultrasound energy based shears. We also studied the healing process after their use.

Methods: We used each of the above methods to coagulate and divide the short gastric vessels of 16 white male New Zealand rabbits. The animals were killed after 3, 7, 14, or 21 days, and the coagulation sites and the adjacent gastric wall were examined histologically.

Results: LS and UC achieved complete hemostasis without any complications. Conversely, ME and BE often resulted in failed coagulation and perforation of the neighboring gastric wall from a side thermal injury. Histologically, LS demonstrated the mildest side thermal injury and the fastest healing process. We noted greater thermal injury and inflammatory response after UC than after LS on days 7 and 14; however, ME and BE caused the most severe lesions.

Conclusions: LS and UC are clearly the safest and most efficient methods of coagulation, whereas ME and BE could cause serious clinical and histological complications. We found histological evidence that UC causes a slightly greater inflammatory response than LS, and the clinical implications of this warrant further investigation.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 38 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Surg Endosc. 1998 Jun;12(6):876-8 - PubMed
    1. Br J Surg. 2002 Apr;89(4):428-32 - PubMed
    1. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2002 Feb;12(1):61-3 - PubMed
    1. Surg Endosc. 1994 Mar;8(3):185-7 - PubMed
    1. Surg Endosc. 1996 Jan;10(1):71-3 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback