OBJECTIVE: Waterjet dissection is accomplished with Helix Hydro-Jet, but a new device with improved operative handling and potentially superior dissection qualities has been developed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four fresh cadaveric pig brains were simultaneously cut with Helix Hydro-Jet and Erbejet 2. A commonly used applicator and a new applicator for the Helix Hydro-Jet were directly compared to the new Erbejet 2. Under standardised conditions, different pressure levels were applied to the brain surface without arachnoids. Technical features, cutting depth, tissue damage and differences of applicators were examined. RESULTS: Microscopic analysis of cutting depth revealed different dissection characteristics of both the devices. With the standard applicators, waterjet cutting depth was shown to be deeper and with more foaming using the Helix Hydro-Jet compared to that of the Erbejet 2. With the new applicators, less foaming and a lower and more linear increased cutting depth were observed with the Helix Hydro-Jet, very similar to the superior qualities shown by the Erbejet 2. CONCLUSIONS: The new developed applicator of the Erbejet 2 also improves the intraoperative results of the so far applied Helix Hydro-Jet. The new Erbejet 2 provides some advantages for practicability; but in combination with the new applicator, the Helix Hydro-Jet accomplished almost identical superior dissection qualities of the Erbejet 2.
OBJECTIVE: Waterjet dissection is accomplished with Helix Hydro-Jet, but a new device with improved operative handling and potentially superior dissection qualities has been developed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four fresh cadaveric pig brains were simultaneously cut with Helix Hydro-Jet and Erbejet 2. A commonly used applicator and a new applicator for the Helix Hydro-Jet were directly compared to the new Erbejet 2. Under standardised conditions, different pressure levels were applied to the brain surface without arachnoids. Technical features, cutting depth, tissue damage and differences of applicators were examined. RESULTS: Microscopic analysis of cutting depth revealed different dissection characteristics of both the devices. With the standard applicators, waterjet cutting depth was shown to be deeper and with more foaming using the Helix Hydro-Jet compared to that of the Erbejet 2. With the new applicators, less foaming and a lower and more linear increased cutting depth were observed with the Helix Hydro-Jet, very similar to the superior qualities shown by the Erbejet 2. CONCLUSIONS: The new developed applicator of the Erbejet 2 also improves the intraoperative results of the so far applied Helix Hydro-Jet. The new Erbejet 2 provides some advantages for practicability; but in combination with the new applicator, the Helix Hydro-Jet accomplished almost identical superior dissection qualities of the Erbejet 2.