Literature DB >> 23436084

Automatic smoke evacuation in laparoscopic surgery: a simplified method for objective evaluation.

Hidekazu Takahashi1, Makoto Yamasaki, Masashi Hirota, Yasuaki Miyazaki, Jeong Ho Moon, Yoshihito Souma, Masaki Mori, Yuichiro Doki, Kiyokazu Nakajima.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although its theoretical usefulness has been reported, the true value of automatic smoke evacuation system in laparoscopic surgery remains unknown. This is mainly due to the lack of objective evaluation. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of the automatic smoke evacuator in laparoscopic surgery, by real-time objective evaluation system using an industrial smoke-detection device.
METHODS: Six pigs were used in this study. Three surgical ports were placed and electrosurgical smoke was generated in a standard fashion, using either a high-frequency electrosurgical unit (HF-ESU) or laparosonic coagulating shears (LCS). The smoke was evacuated immediately in the evacuation group but not in the control nonevacuation group. The laparoscopic field-of-view was subjectively evaluated by ten independent surgeons. The composition of the surgical smoke was analyzed by mass spectrometry. The residual smoke in the abdominal cavity was aspirated manually into a smoke tester, and stains on a filter paper were image captured, digitized, and semiquantified.
RESULTS: Subjective evaluation indicated superior field-of-view in the evacuation group, compared with the control, at 15 s after activation of the HF-ESU (P < 0.05). The smoke comprised various chemical compounds, including known carcinogens. The estimated volume of intra-abdominal residual smoke after activation of HF-ESU was significantly lower in the evacuation group (47.4 ± 16.6) than the control (76.7 ± 2.4, P = 0.0018). Only marginal amount of surgical smoke was detected in both groups after LCS when the tissue pad was free from burnt tissue deposits. However, the amount was significantly lower in the evacuation group (21.3 ± 10.7) than the control (75 ± 39.9, P = 0.044) when the tissue pad contained tissue sludge.
CONCLUSIONS: Automatic smoke evacuation provides better field-of-view and reduces the risk of exposure to harmful compounds.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23436084     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-2821-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  11 in total

1.  Carboxyhemoglobinemia due to peritoneal smoke absorption from laser tissue combustion at laparoscopy.

Authors:  D E Ott
Journal:  J Clin Laser Med Surg       Date:  1998-12

2.  Surgical smoke management for minimally invasive (micro)endoscopy: an experimental study.

Authors:  Dietmar Mattes; Edah Silajdzic; Monika Mayer; Martin Horn; Daniel Scheidbach; Werner Wackernagel; Gerald Langmann; Andreas Wedrich
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Risks associated with exposure to surgical smoke plume: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Lorraine Bigony
Journal:  AORN J       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 0.676

4.  Preliminary study of electrocautery smoke particles produced in vitro and during laparoscopic procedures.

Authors:  J G DesCoteaux; P Picard; E C Poulin; M Baril
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Chemical composition of smoke produced by high-frequency electrosurgery in a closed gaseous environment. An in vitro study.

Authors:  C Hensman; D Baty; R G Willis; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Mutagenicity of smoke condensates induced by CO2-laser irradiation and electrocauterization.

Authors:  Y Tomita; S Mihashi; K Nagata; S Ueda; M Fujiki; M Hirano; T Hirohata
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1981-06       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 7.  Surgical smoke: a review of the literature. Is this just a lot of hot air?

Authors:  W L Barrett; S M Garber
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-03-19       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Airborne mutagens produced by frying beef, pork and a soy-based food.

Authors:  H P Thiébaud; M G Knize; P A Kuzmicky; D P Hsieh; J S Felton
Journal:  Food Chem Toxicol       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 6.023

9.  Smoke production and smoke reduction in endoscopic surgery: preliminary report.

Authors:  D Ott
Journal:  Endosc Surg Allied Technol       Date:  1993-08

10.  Chemical composition of smoke produced by high-frequency electrosurgery.

Authors:  O S Al Sahaf; I Vega-Carrascal; F O Cunningham; J P McGrath; F J Bloomfield
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2007-07-25       Impact factor: 1.568

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  A novel suction/coagulation integrated probe for achieving better hemostasis: development and clinical use.

Authors:  Hidekazu Takahashi; Naotsugu Haraguchi; Junichi Nishimura; Taishi Hata; Chu Matsuda; Hirofumi Yamamoto; Tsunekazu Mizushima; Masaki Mori; Yuichiro Doki; Kiyokazu Nakajima
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2018-02-17       Impact factor: 2.549

3.  Surgomics: personalized prediction of morbidity, mortality and long-term outcome in surgery using machine learning on multimodal data.

Authors:  Martin Wagner; Johanna M Brandenburg; Sebastian Bodenstedt; André Schulze; Alexander C Jenke; Antonia Stern; Marie T J Daum; Lars Mündermann; Fiona R Kolbinger; Nithya Bhasker; Gerd Schneider; Grit Krause-Jüttler; Hisham Alwanni; Fleur Fritz-Kebede; Oliver Burgert; Dirk Wilhelm; Johannes Fallert; Felix Nickel; Lena Maier-Hein; Martin Dugas; Marius Distler; Jürgen Weitz; Beat-Peter Müller-Stich; Stefanie Speidel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-09-28       Impact factor: 3.453

4.  Clinical significance of lipid droplets formed in the peritoneal fluid after laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer.

Authors:  Shin-Hoo Park; Seong-Woo Bae; Kyoung-Yun Jeong; Eun-Hee Koo; Jong-Ho Choi; Ji-Hyeon Park; Seong-Ho Kong; Won-Sil Choi; Do Joong Park; Hyuk-Joon Lee; Han-Kwang Yang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 3.453

5.  Simple smoke ventilation method for uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Yasushi Mizukami; Ryunosuke Maki; Hirofumi Adachi
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2022-07-09

6.  Chemicals in Surgical Smoke and the Efficiency of Built-in-Filter Ports.

Authors:  Hyeong In Ha; Min Chul Choi; Sang Geun Jung; Won Duk Joo; Chan Lee; Seung Hun Song; Hyun Park
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2019 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.