Alessandro Paniccia1, Marc Rozner2, Edward L Jones1, Nicole T Townsend1, Paul D Varosy3, James E Dunning4, Guillaume Girard5, Christopher Weyer6, Gregory V Stiegmann1, Thomas N Robinson7. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora. 2. Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine and Department of Cardiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 3. Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora. 4. Covidien, Boulder, CO. 5. Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN. 6. Dermatology and Plastic Surgery of Arizona, Sierra Vista, AZ. 7. Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora. Electronic address: thomas.robinson@ucdenver.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical energy-based devices emit energy, which can interfere with other electronic devices (eg, implanted cardiac pacemakers and/or defibrillators). The purpose of this study was to quantify the amount of unintentional energy (electromagnetic interference [EMI]) transferred to an implanted cardiac defibrillator by common surgical energy-based devices. METHODS: A transvenous cardiac defibrillator was implanted in an anesthetized pig. The primary outcome measure was the average maximum EMI occurring on the implanted cardiac device during activations of multiple different surgical energy-based devices. RESULTS: The EMI transferred to the implanted cardiac device is as follows: traditional bipolar 30 W .01 ± .004 mV, advanced bipolar .004 ± .003 mV, ultrasonic shears .01 ± .004 mV, monopolar Bovie 30 W coagulation .50 ± .20 mV, monopolar Bovie 30 W blend .92 ± .63 mV, monopolar instrument without dispersive electrode .21 ± .07 mV, plasma energy 3.48 ± .78 mV, and argon beam coagulator 2.58 ± .34 mV. CONCLUSION: Surgeons can minimize EMI on implanted cardiac defibrillators by preferentially utilizing bipolar and ultrasonic devices.
BACKGROUND: Surgical energy-based devices emit energy, which can interfere with other electronic devices (eg, implanted cardiac pacemakers and/or defibrillators). The purpose of this study was to quantify the amount of unintentional energy (electromagnetic interference [EMI]) transferred to an implanted cardiac defibrillator by common surgical energy-based devices. METHODS: A transvenous cardiac defibrillator was implanted in an anesthetized pig. The primary outcome measure was the average maximum EMI occurring on the implanted cardiac device during activations of multiple different surgical energy-based devices. RESULTS: The EMI transferred to the implanted cardiac device is as follows: traditional bipolar 30 W .01 ± .004 mV, advanced bipolar .004 ± .003 mV, ultrasonic shears .01 ± .004 mV, monopolar Bovie 30 W coagulation .50 ± .20 mV, monopolar Bovie 30 W blend .92 ± .63 mV, monopolar instrument without dispersive electrode .21 ± .07 mV, plasma energy 3.48 ± .78 mV, and argon beam coagulator 2.58 ± .34 mV. CONCLUSION: Surgeons can minimize EMI on implanted cardiac defibrillators by preferentially utilizing bipolar and ultrasonic devices.
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: Douglas M Overbey; Heather Carmichael; Krzysztof J Wikiel; Douglas A Hirth; Brandon C Chapman; John T Moore; Carlton C Barnett; Teresa S Jones; Thomas N Robinson; Edward L Jones Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Esther Lee; Amir Elzomor; Sameh Boulos; Olivia Silva; Luke J Pasick; Daniel A Benito; Jane Tong; Philip Zapanta; Arjun S Joshi; Joseph F Goodman; Punam G Thakkar Journal: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) Date: 2022-05-19