Laparoscopic Bowel Resection: A Comparison of Three Ultrasonically Activated Devices

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES To compare resection time and collateral thermal damage of 3 currently available ultrasonically activated devices in laparoscopic small bowel surgery. METHODS AutoSonix, SonoSurg, and UltraCision were compared in laparoscopic small bowel mesentery resection in a porcine model. A resection was defined as 12 endarcade arteries supplying the intended bowel segment. Vssels were divided 1 cm off the bowel wall. AutoSonix, SonoSurg, and UltraCision were comparable for blade length and type, cutting mechanism, handle ergonomics, and vibration amplitude, but not well matched for vibration frequency (55.5;23.5;55.5 kHz), working shaft diameter (5;11;10 mm) and length (29;33;34 cm), respectively. A sample size of 114 was calculated to detect a 25% difference with 90% power at a 5% significance level. Resections were allocated to devices by block randomization. Analysis of variance and pairwise Scheffe tests were used for multiple comparisons, and a Kaplan-Meier plot was drawn to confirm differences in resection time with each device. A pathologist blind to the devices evaluated bowel wall biopsies for thermal damage. RESULTS Procedures as allocated comprised 114 resections (38 with each device). UltraCision median resection time of 5160 (range 2340-7860) seconds was significantly longer (P=0.0001). The difference in resection time between AutoSonix (median 3420, range 1860-8760 s) and SonoSurg (median 3660, range 1800-6900 s) did not reach statistical significance. A microscopy revealed no thermal damage. CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic resection time for porcine bowel mesentery was shorter with AutoSonix or SonoSurg than with UltraCision, and no thermal damage to the bowel wall was found.