BACKGROUND: The THUNDERBEAT™ (TB) is a recently developed energy-based device. To date, there are no clinical studies comparing TB and other energy sources, such as standard electrosurgery (ES), ultrasonic coagulating shears (US) and electrothermal bipolar vessel sealers (EBVS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR). The aim of this study was to compare outcomes and costs in patients undergoing LCR with TB, US, EBVS, or ES for both benign and malignant colorectal diseases. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of patients undergoing LCR. Unselected consecutive patients who had the laparoscopic dissection conducted by using TB were compared with consecutive patients undergoing LCR with US, EBVS, or ES. RESULTS: Mean operative time did not significantly differ between the groups (P = .947). Estimated blood loss was significantly higher in the ES group (P < .001). Device-related complications occurred in 2.5% of ES patients, in 2.5% of US patients, and in 5% of EBVS patients, while no complications occurred in TB patients (P = .768). No significant differences were observed in postoperative complication rates between the groups. Mean postoperative hospital stay was similar in the groups. Cost analysis showed no significant differences between US (1519.1 ± 303 €), EBVS (1474.4 ± 372.8 €), and TB (1474.3 ± 176.3 €) (P = .737). CONCLUSION: This is the first clinical study comparing TB and other energy-based devices in LCR. They all appear to be equally safe and effective. Costs of surgery are very similar. Further large randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these data.
BACKGROUND: The THUNDERBEAT™ (TB) is a recently developed energy-based device. To date, there are no clinical studies comparing TB and other energy sources, such as standard electrosurgery (ES), ultrasonic coagulating shears (US) and electrothermal bipolar vessel sealers (EBVS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR). The aim of this study was to compare outcomes and costs in patients undergoing LCR with TB, US, EBVS, or ES for both benign and malignant colorectal diseases. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of patients undergoing LCR. Unselected consecutive patients who had the laparoscopic dissection conducted by using TB were compared with consecutive patients undergoing LCR with US, EBVS, or ES. RESULTS: Mean operative time did not significantly differ between the groups (P = .947). Estimated blood loss was significantly higher in the ES group (P < .001). Device-related complications occurred in 2.5% of ES patients, in 2.5% of US patients, and in 5% of EBVS patients, while no complications occurred in TBpatients (P = .768). No significant differences were observed in postoperative complication rates between the groups. Mean postoperative hospital stay was similar in the groups. Cost analysis showed no significant differences between US (1519.1 ± 303 €), EBVS (1474.4 ± 372.8 €), and TB (1474.3 ± 176.3 €) (P = .737). CONCLUSION: This is the first clinical study comparing TB and other energy-based devices in LCR. They all appear to be equally safe and effective. Costs of surgery are very similar. Further large randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these data.
Authors: M Charalambides; T Afxentiou; G Pellino; M P Powar; N S Fearnhead; R J Davies; J Wheeler; C Simillis Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 3.699
Authors: C Alston James; Gregory A Williams; Linda X Jin; Jingxia Liu; Dominic E Sanford; Ryan C Fields; Majella M B Doyle; Steven M Strasberg; William G Hawkins; Chet W Hammill Journal: Mo Med Date: 2020 Nov-Dec
Authors: N C Kuipers; B J de Kleijn; J Wedman; B F A M van der Laan; B E C Plaat; G B Halmos Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 2.503