Comparison of surgical plume among laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors using a real-time digital quantitative technology
Background This study aimed to analyze the effect of surgical plume generation from various ultrasonic dissectors on laparoscopic visibility, including the first cordless ultrasonic dissector, using a novel real-time digital quantification technique. Methods The Covidien Cordless Sonicision, the Har...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Surgical endoscopy 2012-12, Vol.26 (12), p.3408-3412 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 3412 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 12 |
| container_start_page | 3408 |
| container_title | Surgical endoscopy |
| container_volume | 26 |
| creator | Kim, Fernando J. Sehrt, David Pompeo, Alexandre Molina, Wilson R. |
| description | Background
This study aimed to analyze the effect of surgical plume generation from various ultrasonic dissectors on laparoscopic visibility, including the first cordless ultrasonic dissector, using a novel real-time digital quantification technique.
Methods
The Covidien Cordless Sonicision, the Harmonic ACE, and the Olympus SonoSurg were applied to bovine liver with industry-specified settings. Consecutive activations were digitally captured from a laparoscope positioned to replicate the clinical setting. Plume was recognized by ImageJ software, and the percentage of pixels containing plume in each video frame was calculated. Analysis of variance statistical multi-analysis and Welch’s
t
test were computed for all
p
values.
Results
The average maximum plume produced by the Sonicision, ACE, and SonoSurg with the maximum setting were respectively 8.76 % (range, 4.32–17.41 %), 18.04 % (range, 9.07–55.12 %), and 9.46 % (range, 5.68–22.12 %) (
p
= 0.026). The deviations between the ACE and the other devices were significant (
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00464-012-2351-z |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3505554</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2823741971</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-b7da01270e61b524d395a29e13cf9f3f045e0d8379ca4a6b51f2084d5c3656e83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU9rFTEUxYMo9ln9AG5kQIRuRvN_ko0gD6tCwY2uQ14mM03JJNNkpqX99N7He9YquMoN93dP7slB6DXB7wnG3YeKMZe8xYS2lAnS3j9BG8IZ3ChRT9EGa4Zb2ml-gl7UeoUB10Q8RyeUSokV0xt0u83TbEuoOTV5aOpaxuBsbOa4Tr6xU05jEy0Qubo8B9escSkWaCj7UKt3Sy61WWsA0DbF29guAUb7MIYFhK5XmxaolnDjm8W7y5RjHu9eomeDjdW_Op6n6Of55x_br-3F9y_ftp8uWicwXtpd11uw12EvyU5Q3jMtLNWeMDfogQ2YC497xTrtLLdyJ8hAseK9cEwK6RU7RR8PuvO6m3zvfIL1o5lLmGy5M9kG83cnhUsz5hvDBBZCcBA4OwqUfL36upgpVOdjtMnntRpCKWZSEa4BffsPepXXksCeIUR3uJNE7wXJgXLwp7X44WEZgs0-VnOI1YBvs4_V3MPMm8cuHiZ-5wjAuyNgK8Q3FJtcqH84qZRQqgOOHrgKrTT68mjF_77-C__Rvfo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1197076194</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of surgical plume among laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors using a real-time digital quantitative technology</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Kim, Fernando J. ; Sehrt, David ; Pompeo, Alexandre ; Molina, Wilson R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kim, Fernando J. ; Sehrt, David ; Pompeo, Alexandre ; Molina, Wilson R.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
This study aimed to analyze the effect of surgical plume generation from various ultrasonic dissectors on laparoscopic visibility, including the first cordless ultrasonic dissector, using a novel real-time digital quantification technique.
Methods
The Covidien Cordless Sonicision, the Harmonic ACE, and the Olympus SonoSurg were applied to bovine liver with industry-specified settings. Consecutive activations were digitally captured from a laparoscope positioned to replicate the clinical setting. Plume was recognized by ImageJ software, and the percentage of pixels containing plume in each video frame was calculated. Analysis of variance statistical multi-analysis and Welch’s
t
test were computed for all
p
values.
Results
The average maximum plume produced by the Sonicision, ACE, and SonoSurg with the maximum setting were respectively 8.76 % (range, 4.32–17.41 %), 18.04 % (range, 9.07–55.12 %), and 9.46 % (range, 5.68–22.12 %) (
p
= 0.026). The deviations between the ACE and the other devices were significant (
p
< 0.05). The average maximum plumes produced with the coagulation setting were 4.80 % (range, 0.24–19.83 %) for the Sonicision, 26.63 % (range, 8.12–73.50 %) for the ACE, and 0.21 % (range, 0.06–1.05 %) for the SonoSurg (
p
< 0.001). The differences between all the instruments in the coagulation setting were significant.
Conclusion
To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first report on a real-time digital analysis of surgical plume generation using ImageJ software. In the coagulation setting, the SonoSurg generated minimal plume. The Sonicision obstructed approximately 4 %, whereas the ACE generated plume that obstructed 25 % of the laparoscopic field. In the cutting setting, the SonoSurg and Sonicision generated the least obstruction, whereas the ACE caused the most obstruction.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0930-2794</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-2218</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2351-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22660839</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SUREEX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Abdominal Surgery ; Animals ; Applied physiology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cattle ; Computer Systems ; Digestive system. Abdomen ; Dissection - instrumentation ; Endoscopy ; Equipment Design ; Ergonomics. Work place. Occupational physiology ; Gastroenterology ; Gynecology ; Hepatology ; Human physiology applied to population studies and life conditions. Human ecophysiology ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Laparoscopes ; Laparoscopy ; Medical sciences ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Proctology ; Software ; Surgery ; Ultrasonic Surgical Procedures - instrumentation ; Urology ; Variance analysis</subject><ispartof>Surgical endoscopy, 2012-12, Vol.26 (12), p.3408-3412</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2012</rights><rights>2014 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-b7da01270e61b524d395a29e13cf9f3f045e0d8379ca4a6b51f2084d5c3656e83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-b7da01270e61b524d395a29e13cf9f3f045e0d8379ca4a6b51f2084d5c3656e83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00464-012-2351-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00464-012-2351-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=26885887$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22660839$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kim, Fernando J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sehrt, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pompeo, Alexandre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Molina, Wilson R.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of surgical plume among laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors using a real-time digital quantitative technology</title><title>Surgical endoscopy</title><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><description>Background
This study aimed to analyze the effect of surgical plume generation from various ultrasonic dissectors on laparoscopic visibility, including the first cordless ultrasonic dissector, using a novel real-time digital quantification technique.
Methods
The Covidien Cordless Sonicision, the Harmonic ACE, and the Olympus SonoSurg were applied to bovine liver with industry-specified settings. Consecutive activations were digitally captured from a laparoscope positioned to replicate the clinical setting. Plume was recognized by ImageJ software, and the percentage of pixels containing plume in each video frame was calculated. Analysis of variance statistical multi-analysis and Welch’s
t
test were computed for all
p
values.
Results
The average maximum plume produced by the Sonicision, ACE, and SonoSurg with the maximum setting were respectively 8.76 % (range, 4.32–17.41 %), 18.04 % (range, 9.07–55.12 %), and 9.46 % (range, 5.68–22.12 %) (
p
= 0.026). The deviations between the ACE and the other devices were significant (
p
< 0.05). The average maximum plumes produced with the coagulation setting were 4.80 % (range, 0.24–19.83 %) for the Sonicision, 26.63 % (range, 8.12–73.50 %) for the ACE, and 0.21 % (range, 0.06–1.05 %) for the SonoSurg (
p
< 0.001). The differences between all the instruments in the coagulation setting were significant.
Conclusion
To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first report on a real-time digital analysis of surgical plume generation using ImageJ software. In the coagulation setting, the SonoSurg generated minimal plume. The Sonicision obstructed approximately 4 %, whereas the ACE generated plume that obstructed 25 % of the laparoscopic field. In the cutting setting, the SonoSurg and Sonicision generated the least obstruction, whereas the ACE caused the most obstruction.</description><subject>Abdominal Surgery</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Applied physiology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Computer Systems</subject><subject>Digestive system. Abdomen</subject><subject>Dissection - instrumentation</subject><subject>Endoscopy</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Ergonomics. Work place. Occupational physiology</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Hepatology</subject><subject>Human physiology applied to population studies and life conditions. Human ecophysiology</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Laparoscopes</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Proctology</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Ultrasonic Surgical Procedures - instrumentation</subject><subject>Urology</subject><subject>Variance analysis</subject><issn>0930-2794</issn><issn>1432-2218</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU9rFTEUxYMo9ln9AG5kQIRuRvN_ko0gD6tCwY2uQ14mM03JJNNkpqX99N7He9YquMoN93dP7slB6DXB7wnG3YeKMZe8xYS2lAnS3j9BG8IZ3ChRT9EGa4Zb2ml-gl7UeoUB10Q8RyeUSokV0xt0u83TbEuoOTV5aOpaxuBsbOa4Tr6xU05jEy0Qubo8B9escSkWaCj7UKt3Sy61WWsA0DbF29guAUb7MIYFhK5XmxaolnDjm8W7y5RjHu9eomeDjdW_Op6n6Of55x_br-3F9y_ftp8uWicwXtpd11uw12EvyU5Q3jMtLNWeMDfogQ2YC497xTrtLLdyJ8hAseK9cEwK6RU7RR8PuvO6m3zvfIL1o5lLmGy5M9kG83cnhUsz5hvDBBZCcBA4OwqUfL36upgpVOdjtMnntRpCKWZSEa4BffsPepXXksCeIUR3uJNE7wXJgXLwp7X44WEZgs0-VnOI1YBvs4_V3MPMm8cuHiZ-5wjAuyNgK8Q3FJtcqH84qZRQqgOOHrgKrTT68mjF_77-C__Rvfo</recordid><startdate>20121201</startdate><enddate>20121201</enddate><creator>Kim, Fernando J.</creator><creator>Sehrt, David</creator><creator>Pompeo, Alexandre</creator><creator>Molina, Wilson R.</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20121201</creationdate><title>Comparison of surgical plume among laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors using a real-time digital quantitative technology</title><author>Kim, Fernando J. ; Sehrt, David ; Pompeo, Alexandre ; Molina, Wilson R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-b7da01270e61b524d395a29e13cf9f3f045e0d8379ca4a6b51f2084d5c3656e83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Abdominal Surgery</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Applied physiology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Computer Systems</topic><topic>Digestive system. Abdomen</topic><topic>Dissection - instrumentation</topic><topic>Endoscopy</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Ergonomics. Work place. Occupational physiology</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Hepatology</topic><topic>Human physiology applied to population studies and life conditions. Human ecophysiology</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Laparoscopes</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Proctology</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Ultrasonic Surgical Procedures - instrumentation</topic><topic>Urology</topic><topic>Variance analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kim, Fernando J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sehrt, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pompeo, Alexandre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Molina, Wilson R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health & Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Surgical endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kim, Fernando J.</au><au>Sehrt, David</au><au>Pompeo, Alexandre</au><au>Molina, Wilson R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of surgical plume among laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors using a real-time digital quantitative technology</atitle><jtitle>Surgical endoscopy</jtitle><stitle>Surg Endosc</stitle><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><date>2012-12-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>3408</spage><epage>3412</epage><pages>3408-3412</pages><issn>0930-2794</issn><eissn>1432-2218</eissn><coden>SUREEX</coden><abstract>Background
This study aimed to analyze the effect of surgical plume generation from various ultrasonic dissectors on laparoscopic visibility, including the first cordless ultrasonic dissector, using a novel real-time digital quantification technique.
Methods
The Covidien Cordless Sonicision, the Harmonic ACE, and the Olympus SonoSurg were applied to bovine liver with industry-specified settings. Consecutive activations were digitally captured from a laparoscope positioned to replicate the clinical setting. Plume was recognized by ImageJ software, and the percentage of pixels containing plume in each video frame was calculated. Analysis of variance statistical multi-analysis and Welch’s
t
test were computed for all
p
values.
Results
The average maximum plume produced by the Sonicision, ACE, and SonoSurg with the maximum setting were respectively 8.76 % (range, 4.32–17.41 %), 18.04 % (range, 9.07–55.12 %), and 9.46 % (range, 5.68–22.12 %) (
p
= 0.026). The deviations between the ACE and the other devices were significant (
p
< 0.05). The average maximum plumes produced with the coagulation setting were 4.80 % (range, 0.24–19.83 %) for the Sonicision, 26.63 % (range, 8.12–73.50 %) for the ACE, and 0.21 % (range, 0.06–1.05 %) for the SonoSurg (
p
< 0.001). The differences between all the instruments in the coagulation setting were significant.
Conclusion
To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first report on a real-time digital analysis of surgical plume generation using ImageJ software. In the coagulation setting, the SonoSurg generated minimal plume. The Sonicision obstructed approximately 4 %, whereas the ACE generated plume that obstructed 25 % of the laparoscopic field. In the cutting setting, the SonoSurg and Sonicision generated the least obstruction, whereas the ACE caused the most obstruction.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>22660839</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00464-012-2351-z</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0930-2794 |
| ispartof | Surgical endoscopy, 2012-12, Vol.26 (12), p.3408-3412 |
| issn | 0930-2794 1432-2218 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3505554 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Abdominal Surgery Animals Applied physiology Biological and medical sciences Cattle Computer Systems Digestive system. Abdomen Dissection - instrumentation Endoscopy Equipment Design Ergonomics. Work place. Occupational physiology Gastroenterology Gynecology Hepatology Human physiology applied to population studies and life conditions. Human ecophysiology Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) Laparoscopes Laparoscopy Medical sciences Medicine Medicine & Public Health Proctology Software Surgery Ultrasonic Surgical Procedures - instrumentation Urology Variance analysis |
| title | Comparison of surgical plume among laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors using a real-time digital quantitative technology |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-15T10%3A38%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20surgical%20plume%20among%20laparoscopic%20ultrasonic%20dissectors%20using%20a%20real-time%20digital%20quantitative%20technology&rft.jtitle=Surgical%20endoscopy&rft.au=Kim,%20Fernando%20J.&rft.date=2012-12-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=3408&rft.epage=3412&rft.pages=3408-3412&rft.issn=0930-2794&rft.eissn=1432-2218&rft.coden=SUREEX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00464-012-2351-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2823741971%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1197076194&rft_id=info:pmid/22660839&rfr_iscdi=true |