Outcomes of conventional and advanced energy devices in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review

References

• Alkatout I, Mechler U, Mettler L, et al. The development of Laparoscopy-A historical overview. Front Surg. 2021;8:799442. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.799442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law KSK, Abbott JA, Lyons SD. Energy sources for gynecologic laparoscopic surgery: a review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2014;69(12):763–776. doi: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aminimoghaddam S, Pahlevani R, Kazemi M. Electrosurgery and clinical applications of electrosurgical devices in gynecologic procedures. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2018;32:90. doi: 10.14196/mjiri.32.90.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brinkmann F, Hüttner R, Mehner PJ, et al. Temperature profile and residual heat of monopolar laparoscopic and endoscopic dissection instruments. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(6):4507–4517. doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08804-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Sayed M, Mohamed S, Saridogan E. Safe use of electrosurgery in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;22(1):9–20. doi: 10.1111/tog.12620.
   Google Scholar
• Alkatout I, Schollmeyer T, Hawaldar NA, et al. Principles and safety measures of electrosurgery in laparoscopy. JSLS. 2012;16(1):130–139. doi: 10.4293/108680812X13291597716348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaiswal A, Huang KG. Energy devices in gynecological laparoscopy - Archaic to modern era. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2017;6(4):147–151. doi: 10.1016/j.gmit.2017.08.002.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ou CS, Harper A, Liu YH, et al. Laparoscopic myomectomy technique. Use of colpotomy and the harmonic scalpel. J Reprod Med. 2002;47(10):849–853.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litta P, Fantinato S, Calonaci F, et al. A randomized controlled study comparing harmonic versus electrosurgery in laparoscopic myomectomy. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(5):1882–1886. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.08.049.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuo HH, Li Y, Wang CJ, et al. A case-controlled study comparing harmonic versus electrosurgery in laparoscopic myomectomy. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;56(1):73–76. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2015.12.023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang HY, Liu YC, Li YC, et al. Comparison of three different hemostatic devices in laparoscopic myomectomy. J Chin Med Assoc. 2018;81(2):178–182. doi: 10.1016/j.jcma.2017.04.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holub Z, Jabor A. Laparoscopic surgical staging for uterine malignancies using harmonic shears (UltraCision) in comparison to electrosurgery: operative technique, feasibility and complications. Gynecol Surg. 2006;3(1):25–30. doi: 10.1007/s10397-005-0173-x.
   Google Scholar
• Holub Z, Jabor A, Kliment L, et al. Laparoscopic staging of endometrial cancer using laparosonic instruments: comparison with electrosurgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001;100(1):81–86. doi: 10.1016/s0301-2115(01)00429-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holub Z, Jabor A, Kliment L, et al. Laparoscopic lymph node dissection using ultrasonically activated shears: comparison with electrosurgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2002;12(3):175–180. doi: 10.1089/10926420260188065.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ou CS, Joki J, Wells K, et al. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy using multifunction grasping, coagulating, and cutting forceps. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2004;14(2):67–71. doi: 10.1089/109264204322973817.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho HY, Choi KJ, Lee YL, et al. Comparison of two bipolar systems in laparoscopic hysterectomy. JSLS. 2012;16(3):456–460. doi: 10.4293/108680812X13462882736259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee CL, Huang KG, Wang CJ, et al. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy using pulsed bipolar system: comparison with conventional bipolar electrosurgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105(3):620–624. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.01.029.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Su H, Han CM, Wang CJ, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of the pulsed bipolar system and conventional electrosurgery in laparoscopic myomectomy - a retrospective matched control study. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;50(1):25–28. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2009.05.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen PF, Brölmann HAM, van Kesteren PJM, et al. Perioperative outcomes using LigaSure compared with conventional bipolar instruments in laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2011;118(13):1568–1575. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03089.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taşkın S, Şükür YE, Altın D, et al. Bipolar energy instruments in laparoscopic uterine cancer surgery: a randomized study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2018;28(6):645–649. doi: 10.1089/lap.2017.0639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li YC, Chao A, Yang LY, et al. Electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing device (LigaSureTM) versus conventional diathermy in laparoscopic myomectomy: a propensity-matched analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0193611. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193611.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagotti A, Vizzielli G, Fanfani F, et al. Randomized study comparing use of THUNDERBEAT technology vs standard electrosurgery during laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for gynecologic cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(3):447–453. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.12.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demirturk F, Aytan H, Caliskan AC. Comparison of the use of electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer with harmonic scalpel in total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2007;33(3):341–345. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2007.00533.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansal V, Bansal A, Bansal AK, et al. Comparison between bipolar vessel sealer (LigaSure vessel sealer) and harmonic scalpel in total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2014;3(4):1006–1009. doi: 10.5455/2320-1770.ijrcog20141226.
   Google Scholar
• Ta A. Bipolar vessel sealer versus harmonic scalpel in laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. Gynecol Obstet. 2012;02(05):5.
   Google Scholar
• Rothmund R, Szyrach M, Reda A, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical comparison between UltraCision and the novel sealing and cutting device BiCision in patients with laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(10):3852–3859. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-2994-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiber LDJ, Ginn DN, Jan A, et al. Comparison of industry-leading energy devices for use in gynecologic laparoscopy: articulating ENSEAL versus LigaSure energy devices. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25(3):467–473.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.10.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasanov M, Denschlag D, Seemann E, et al. Bipolar vessel-sealing devices in laparoscopic hysterectomies: a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;297(2):409–414. doi: 10.1007/s00404-017-4599-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aykan Yuksel B, Karadag B, Mulayim B. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of two advanced vessel sealing technologies in total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2019;45(11):2220–2227. doi: 10.1111/jog.14096.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong C, Goh A, Merkur H. Comparison of surgical outcomes using gyrus PKSTM vs LigaSureTM in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomised controlled trial. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;60(5):790–796. doi: 10.1111/ajo.13217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velayudam L, Talwar P, Kumarachar SH, et al. Efficacy and safety of electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer vs ENSEAL in total laparoscopic hysterectomy for large uterus: a comparative study in mysuru, South India. World J Laparosc Surg. 2021;14(1):5–9. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1431.
   Google Scholar
• Aytan H, Nazik H, Narin R, et al. Comparison of the use of LigaSure, HALO PKS cutting forceps, and ENSEAL tissue sealer in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(4):650–655. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.01.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holub Z, Voracek J, Jun LK, et al. Laparoscopic hysterectomy: randomized study of harmonic scalpel and electrosurgery. J Gynecol Surg. 2000;16(1):33–39. doi: 10.1089/gyn.2000.16.33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danolić D, Marcelić L, Alvir I, et al. EP1265 advanced bipolar seal and cut technology device (caiman®) versus traditional bipolar electrosurgery in laparoscopic hysterectomies. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29(4):2023.
   Google Scholar
• Rothmund R, Kraemer B, Brucker S, et al. Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy using EnSeal vs standard bipolar coagulation technique: randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(5):661–666. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.04.014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gitas G, Pados G, Laganà AS, et al. Role of laparoscopic hysterectomy in cervical and endometrial cancer: a narrative review. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2023;32(1):1–11. doi: 10.1080/13645706.2022.2154166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alkatout I. An atraumatic retractor for interdisciplinary use in conventional laparoscopy and robotic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2018;27(5):265–271. doi: 10.1080/13645706.2018.1440244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watrowski R, Kostov S, Alkatout I. Complications in laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery: definitions, classifications, incidence and risk factors - an up-to-date review. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2021;16(3):501–525. doi: 10.5114/wiitm.2021.108800.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar