Effectiveness of electrothermal bipolar vessel-sealing devices versus other electrothermal and ultrasonic devices for abdominal surgical hemostasis: a systematic review
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adequate hemostatic techniques are essential for optimal intra- and postoperative results. A number of different hemostatic techniques and devices have been developed over the past few years, but which device should be preferred during laparoscopic and open abdominal procedures?
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness and costs of vessel-sealing devices with those of other electrothermal or ultrasonic devices in abdominal surgical procedures.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs that included 554 patients met the inclusion criteria. Various procedures that used a vessel-sealing device (LigaSure™) (n = 264) were compared to ultrasonic devices (n = 139) and mono- (n = 20) or bipolar devices (n = 130). LigaSure was favored in two studies with respect to less blood loss, shorter operating time, and lower costs. However, no differences were observed in the other studies. Considering the relatively low number of complications, all hemostatic devices used may be considered relatively safe. None of the studies reported on quality of life or cost effectiveness.
CONCLUSIONS: Vessel-sealing devices may be considered safe and their use may reduce costs due to reduced blood loss and shorter operating time in some abdominal surgical procedures compared to mono- or bipolar electrothermal devices. Wider-ranging RCTs of sufficient quality that assess (cost) effectiveness are required to make firm conclusions.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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: 554 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Preliminary Toxicity Analysis of 3DCRT versus IMRT on the High Dose Arm of the RTOG 0126 Prostate Cancer Trial
- Adaptive Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer: Initial Clinical Outcomes from a Prospective Trial
- American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 263: Standardizing Nomenclatures in Radiation Oncology
- Motion Management Strategies and Technical Issues Associated with Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Thoracic and Upper Abdominal Tumors: A Review from NRG Oncology
- High-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy as a monotherapy for localized prostate cancer: treatment description and preliminary results of a phase I/II clinical trial
- Highly efficient training, refinement, and validation of a knowledge-based plan quality control system for radiotherapy clinical trials
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.