| Literature DB >> 22361346 |
Kia Homayounfar1, Johanna Meis, Klaus Jung, Bernd Klosterhalfen, Thilo Sprenger, Lena-Christin Conradi, Claus Langer, Heinz Becker.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ultrasonic scalpel (UC) and monopolar electrocautery (ME) are common tools for soft tissue dissection. However, morphological data on the related tissue alteration are discordant. We developed an automatic device for standardized sample excision and compared quality and depth of morphological changes caused by UC and ME in a pig model.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22361346 PMCID: PMC3305372 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2482-12-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Surg ISSN: 1471-2482 Impact factor: 2.102
Figure 1Automatic device for soft tissue dissection. Self-constructed apparatus fixed at the operating table and loaded with ultrasonic scalpel. The instrument can be moved engine-driven into two directions (aluminium tracks).
Figure 2Schematic illustration of tissue sample and excision planes. a) epidermal layer, b) corium, c) subcutaneous fatty tissue, d) vertical excision lines performed by steel scalpel, e) horizontal excision line performed by either ultrasonic scalpel (UC) or monopolar electrocautery (ME).
Figure 3Elastic-Van Gieson (EvG) staining. Representative EvG staining results with deep red necrosis (a), more superficial necrosis with closure of a capillary (b) and deep necrosis with closure of a larger vessel (c) all caused by UC and necrosis with closure of small vessels caused by ME (d) (magnification a and d ×200; c and d × 400).
Figure 4Morphometric measurement. Representative tissue section (HE staining) at ×100 magnification displaying the morphometric measurement with 7 different measuring points.
Median depth of coagulation necrosis in single tissue samples
| Ultrasonic scalpel | Monopolar electrocautery | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 416.1 | 543 | 1100 | n.a. | 220 | 374.5 | n.a. | 217.8 |
| 2 | 509.7 | 1346 | 1721.8 | n.a. | 196.7 | 331.2 | 302.2 | 185.6 |
| 3 | 868.7 | n.a. | 612.9 | n.a. | 240.4 | 324.1 | n.a. | 364.1 |
| 4 | 408.4 | 219.5 | 645.6 | 230.5 | 252.2 | 224.7 | 103.8 | 92.9 |
| 5 | 975.9 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 633 | 153.6 | 116.5 | n.a. |
| 6 | 581.8 | 375.2 | n.a. | 177.3 | 213.1 | 117.4 | 72.4 | 89.8 |
| 7 | 438.4 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 293.7 | 222.6 | 127.5 | 178.6 |
| 8 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 213.4 | n.a. | 101.7 | 190.1 |
| 9 | 268.2 | 244.2 | n.a. | n.a. | 116.1 | 253.1 | 112.6 | 100.7 |
| 10 | n.a. | 225.6 | n.a. | n.a. | ||||
| 11 | n.a. | 143.3 | 78 | 244.2 | ||||
| 12 | 283.8 | 151 | 95.3 | 140.1 | ||||
| 13 | n.a. | n.a. | 250.5 | 135.4 | ||||
| 14 | n.a. | 141.1 | 65.9 | 129.6 | ||||
| 15 | 213.2 | 163 | 101.7 | 153.6 | ||||
| 16 | n.a. | 496.5 | n.a. | 124 | ||||
Median Depth of coagulation necrosis in single tissue samples (A and B) measured in micrometer; n.a. = not adequate for morphometric analysis based on inappropriate resection plane
Figure 5Box-plot for correlation between depht of necrosis, method and device. Distribution of the depth of necrosis according to method and device.