BACKGROUND: Energy devices are essential laparoscopic tools. Residual heat is defined as the increased instrument temperature after energy activation is completed. This study aimed to determine the length of time a surgeon needs to wait before touching other tissue using four common laparoscopic energy sources. METHODS: Thermal imaging quantified instrument and tissue temperature ex vivo using monopolar coagulation, argon beam coagulation, ultrasonic dissection, and bipolar tissue fusion devices. To simulate realistic operative usage, each instrument was activated for 5 s four consecutive times with 5 s pauses between fires. Thermal conductivity to bovine liver tissue was measured 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 s after final activation. RESULTS: The maximum increase in instrument tip temperature was 172 ± 63°C for the ultrasonic dissection, 81 ± 18°C for the monopolar coagulation, 46 ± 19°C for the bipolar tissue fusion, and 1 ± 1°C for the argon beam coagulation (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). Touching the instrument tip to tissue at four intervals after the final activation (2.5, 5, 10, and 20 s) found that ultrasonic energy raised the tissue temperature higher (maximum change, 58°C) than the other three energy devices at all four time points (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonic energy instruments have greater residual heat than monopolar electrosurgery, bipolar tissue fusion, and argon beam. The ultrasonic energy instrument tips heated tissue more than 20°C from baseline even 20 s after activation; whereas all the other energy sources raised the tissue temperature less than 20°C by 5 s. These practical findings may alter a surgeon's usage of these common energy devices.
BACKGROUND: Energy devices are essential laparoscopic tools. Residual heat is defined as the increased instrument temperature after energy activation is completed. This study aimed to determine the length of time a surgeon needs to wait before touching other tissue using four common laparoscopic energy sources. METHODS: Thermal imaging quantified instrument and tissue temperature ex vivo using monopolar coagulation, argon beam coagulation, ultrasonic dissection, and bipolar tissue fusion devices. To simulate realistic operative usage, each instrument was activated for 5 s four consecutive times with 5 s pauses between fires. Thermal conductivity to bovine liver tissue was measured 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 s after final activation. RESULTS: The maximum increase in instrument tip temperature was 172 ± 63°C for the ultrasonic dissection, 81 ± 18°C for the monopolar coagulation, 46 ± 19°C for the bipolar tissue fusion, and 1 ± 1°C for the argon beam coagulation (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). Touching the instrument tip to tissue at four intervals after the final activation (2.5, 5, 10, and 20 s) found that ultrasonic energy raised the tissue temperature higher (maximum change, 58°C) than the other three energy devices at all four time points (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonic energy instruments have greater residual heat than monopolar electrosurgery, bipolar tissue fusion, and argon beam. The ultrasonic energy instrument tips heated tissue more than 20°C from baseline even 20 s after activation; whereas all the other energy sources raised the tissue temperature less than 20°C by 5 s. These practical findings may alter a surgeon's usage of these common energy devices.
Authors: Thomas N Robinson; Katherine R Pavlovsky; Heidi Looney; Greg V Stiegmann; Francis T McGreevy Journal: Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 1.719
Authors: F J Kim; M F Chammas; E Gewehr; M Morihisa; F Caldas; E Hayacibara; M Baptistussi; F Meyer; A C Martins Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-11-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Edward L Jones; Thomas N Robinson; Jennifer R McHenry; Christina L Dunn; Paul N Montero; Henry R Govekar; Greg V Stiegmann Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-05-12 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Nicole T Townsend; Nicole A Nadlonek; Edward L Jones; Jennifer R McHenry; Bruce Dunne; Gregory V Stiegmann; Thomas N Robinson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Krzysztof J Wikiel; Douglas M Overbey; Heather Carmichael; Brandon C Chapman; John T Moore; Carlton C Barnett; Teresa S Jones; Thomas N Robinson; Edward L Jones Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-06-26 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Nicole T Townsend; Edward L Jones; Doug Overbey; Bruce Dunne; Jennifer McHenry; Thomas N Robinson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-11-18 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: P Fuchshuber; S Schwaitzberg; D Jones; S B Jones; L Feldman; M Munro; T Robinson; G Purcell-Jackson; D Mikami; A Madani; M Brunt; B Dunkin; C Gugliemi; L Groah; R Lim; J Mischna; C R Voyles Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Aristotelis Touloumtzidis; Björn Sostmann; Nicole Hilgers; Marc A Renter; Petra Kühn; Peter E Goretzki; Bernhard J Lammers Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2013-12-05 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Alexander Hendricks; Frank Schwandner; Franz Brinkmann; Ronny Hüttner; Philipp J Mehner; Konrad Henkel; Georgi Paschew; Moritz Herzog; Nora Martens; Andreas Richter; Sebastian Hinz; Justus Groß; Clemens Schafmayer; Jochen Hampe Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-10-27 Impact factor: 3.453