PURPOSE: In this clinical study we investigated the use and results of the LigaSure Vessel Sealing Sytem (LVSS) (Valleylab, Boulder, CO) compared with conventional surgery in esophageal cancer resection. DESCRIPTION: The LVSS (Valleylab) is a device with a hemostatic design frequently used in abdominal surgery. Sixty patients (n = 30 in each group) with esophageal cancer from a single center were evaluated to undergo esophagectomy using either the LVSS or conventional clamping methods. The main outcome measures (ie, operating time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative course) were then compared. EVALUATION: In resections performed using the LVSS, operation duration (307 +/- 35 minutes vs 260 +/- 35 minutes; p = 0.000), intraoperative blood loss (average 533 +/- 211 mL vs 390 +/- 256 mL; p = 0.022), and postoperative drainage volumes (abdomen, 70 +/- 86 mL vs 40 +/- 61 mL; p = 0.122; thorax, 690 +/- 646 mL vs 540 +/- 359 mL; p = 0.271) all decreased. CONCLUSIONS: The LVSS is easy to use and a reliable method in esophageal cancer surgery. Compared with conventional hemostatic techniques a reduction in intraoperative and postoperative blood loss, and a shortening of operation duration were determined. We believe that the use of the LVSS in esophageal surgery will become even more widespread in the future.
PURPOSE: In this clinical study we investigated the use and results of the LigaSure Vessel Sealing Sytem (LVSS) (Valleylab, Boulder, CO) compared with conventional surgery in esophageal cancer resection. DESCRIPTION: The LVSS (Valleylab) is a device with a hemostatic design frequently used in abdominal surgery. Sixty patients (n = 30 in each group) with esophageal cancer from a single center were evaluated to undergo esophagectomy using either the LVSS or conventional clamping methods. The main outcome measures (ie, operating time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative course) were then compared. EVALUATION: In resections performed using the LVSS, operation duration (307 +/- 35 minutes vs 260 +/- 35 minutes; p = 0.000), intraoperative blood loss (average 533 +/- 211 mL vs 390 +/- 256 mL; p = 0.022), and postoperative drainage volumes (abdomen, 70 +/- 86 mL vs 40 +/- 61 mL; p = 0.122; thorax, 690 +/- 646 mL vs 540 +/- 359 mL; p = 0.271) all decreased. CONCLUSIONS: The LVSS is easy to use and a reliable method in esophageal cancer surgery. Compared with conventional hemostatic techniques a reduction in intraoperative and postoperative blood loss, and a shortening of operation duration were determined. We believe that the use of the LVSS in esophageal surgery will become even more widespread in the future.