Evidence Hub

Advanced bipolar vessel sealing devices vs conventional bipolar energy in minimally invasive hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

P. Zorzato, F. Ferrari, S. Garzon, M. Franchi, S. Cianci, A. S. Laganà, V. Chiantera, J. Casarin et al.

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2023

314 participants · 13 citations

Abstract

To compare conventional bipolar electrosurgery with advanced bipolar vessel sealing (ABVS) devices for total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH). A systematic review was conducted by searching Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library from January 1989 to November 2021. We identified all studies comparing ABVS devices with conventional bipolar electrosurgery in TLH and reporting at least one of the following outcomes: total blood loss, total operative time, hospital stay, perioperative complications, or costs. Meta-analysis was conducted with a random effect model reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (ORs) with related 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Two randomized controlled trials and two retrospective studies encompassing 314 patients were included out of 615 manuscripts. The pooled estimated total blood loss in the ABVS devices group was lower than conventional bipolar electrosurgery of 39 mL (95% CI − 65.8 to − 12.6 mL; p = .004). The use of ABVS devices significantly reduced the total operative time by 8 min (95% CI − 16.7 to − 0.8 min; p = .033). Hospital stay length did not differ between the two groups, and a comparable overall surgical complication rate was observed [OR of 0.9 (95% CI 0.256 – 3.200; p = .878]. High-quality evidence comparing ABVS devices with conventional bipolar electrosurgery for TLH is lacking. ABVS devices were associated with reduced total blood loss and operative time; however, observed differences seem clinically…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 314 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free