Literature DB >> 17444785

Analysis of surgical smoke produced by various energy-based instruments and effect on laparoscopic visibility.

Kyle J Weld1, Stephen Dryer, Caroline D Ames, Kuk Cho, Chris Hogan, Myonghwa Lee, Pratim Biswas, Jaime Landman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We analyzed the smoke plume produced by various energy-based laparoscopic instruments and determined its effect on laparoscopic visibility.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Bipolar Macroforceps, Harmonic Scalpel, Floating Ball, and Monopolar Shears were applied in vitro to porcine psoas muscle. An Aerodynamic Particle Sizer and Electrostatic Classifier provided a size distribution of the plume for particles >500 nm and <500 nm, and a geometric mean particle size was calculated. A Condensation Particle Counter provided the total particle-number concentration. Electron microscopy was used to characterize particle size and shape further. Visibility was calculated using the measured-size distribution data and the Rayleigh and Mie light-scattering theories.
RESULTS: The real-time instruments were successful in measuring aerosolized particle size distributions in two size ranges. Electron microscopy revealed smaller, homogeneous, spherical particles and larger, irregular particles consistent with cellular components. The aerosol produced by the Bipolar Macroforceps obscured visibility the least (relative visibility 0.887) among the instruments tested. Particles from the Harmonic Scalpel resulted in a relative visibility of 0.801. Monopolar-based instruments produced plumes responsible for the poorest relative visibility (Floating Ball 0.252; Monopolar Shears 0.026).
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical smoke is composed of two distinct particle populations caused by the nucleation of vapors as they cool (the small particles) and the entrainment of tissue secondary to mechanical aspects (the large particles). High concentrations of small particles are most responsible for the deterioration in laparoscopic vision. Bipolar and ultrasonic instruments generate a surgical plume that causes the least deterioration of visibility among the instruments tested.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17444785     DOI: 10.1089/end.2006.9994

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  23 in total

Review 1.  Surgical Efficacy Among Laparoscopic Ultrasonic Dissectors: Are We Advancing Safely? A Review of Literature.

Authors:  Rajesh Devassy; Sreelatha Gopalakrishnan; Rudy Leon De Wilde
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2015-09-14

2.  Evaluation of fine particles in surgical smoke from an urologist's operating room by time and by distance.

Authors:  Hong-Kai Wang; Fei Mo; Chun-Guang Ma; Bo Dai; Guo-Hai Shi; Yao Zhu; Hai-Liang Zhang; Ding-Wei Ye
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2015-08-15       Impact factor: 2.370

3.  Laminar and turbulent surgical plume characteristics generated from curved- and straight-blade laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors.

Authors:  Fernando J Kim; David Sehrt; Alexandre Pompeo; Wilson R Molina
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  Health risks associated with exposure to surgical smoke for surgeons and operation room personnel.

Authors:  Kae Okoshi; Katsutoshi Kobayashi; Koichi Kinoshita; Yasuko Tomizawa; Suguru Hasegawa; Yoshiharu Sakai
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 2.549

5.  Implementation of a novel efficacy score to compare sealing and cutting devices in a porcine model.

Authors:  Lea Brecht; Markus Wallwiener; Sarah Schott; Christoph Domschke; Christine Dinkic; Michael Golatta; Florian Schuetz; Herbert Fluhr; Albrecht Stenzinger; Marietta Kirchner; Christof Sohn; Joachim Rom
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-08-24       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Ultrasonic versus monopolar energy-based surgical devices in terms of surgical smoke and lateral thermal damage (ULMOST): a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Chahien Choi; In-Gu Do; Taejong Song
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-04-09       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Current Evidence for Minimally Invasive Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Risk Mitigation Strategies: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Sami A Chadi; Keegan Guidolin; Antonio Caycedo-Marulanda; Abdu Sharkawy; Antonino Spinelli; Fayez A Quereshy; Allan Okrainec
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 8.  Consistency of global recommendations regarding open versus laparoscopic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

Authors:  Susan Jacob; Ahmer Hameed; Vincent Lam; Tony Cy Pang
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 2.025

9.  Infrared spectroscopy on smoke produced by cauterization of animal tissue.

Authors:  Michele Gianella; Markus W Sigrist
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 3.576

10.  Significance of surgical plume obstruction during laparoscopy.

Authors:  Rodrigo Donalisio da Silva; David Sehrt; Wilson R Molina; Jake Moss; Sang Hyun Park; Fernando J Kim
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2014 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.