A Comparative Study of an Integrated Ultrasonic/Bipolar Sealing Device Versus an Articulating Bipolar Sealing Device for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Sealing devices (SD) seal and cut tissue through different energy modalities, and are routinely used in laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS). The aim of this study is to compare the outcome of Thunderbeat (TB), an integrated ultrasonic/bipolar SD, versus Enseal (ES), an articulating bipolar SD, in LLS. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted in a single center from December 2013 to September 2020. The primary endpoint was difference in blood loss (BL) between ES and TB. Secondary endpoints were complications, operative time, hospital stay, and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: 352 patients were identified: TB (n = 105) and ES (n = 247). Median BL was significantly lower with TB (50 mL [20-120]) compared to ES (100 mL [50-250]) (p < 0.0001). Significant differences were identified for median operative time (TB 115 min [45-300]) vs. ES 140 min [40-370]; p = 0.0008) and median hospital stay (TB 2 days [1-4] vs. ES 4 days [3-6]; p < 0.0001). No major differences were encountered for postoperative bleeding (TB 0% vs. ES 1%; p = 0.5574), biliary leak (TB 1% vs. ES 2%; p = 1.0000), and 90-day mortality (TB 0% vs. ES 1%; p = 1.0000). CONCLUSION: The integrated ultrasonic/bipolar SD is superior to the articulating bipolar SD in LLS for intraoperative BL without an increase in complications.

The impact of type 1a endoleak on the long-term outcome after EVAR.

OBJECTIVE: Endoleaks remains a major determinant of outcome after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. The objective of this study is to evaluate the long-term impact of proximal type 1 endoleak encountered at the case end of the EVAR procedure or during follow-up. METHODS: All patients treated with EVAR between February 2001 and August 2017 in our institution were included. Data were collected retrospectively. A descriptive analysis of subgroups with type 1a endoleak at case end or with type 1a endoleak first encountered during follow-up was performed. RESULTS: In total, 468 patients were included for analysis. At the case end of the EVAR procedure, in 5.3% (25/468) of patients, a type 1a endoleak was seen. In 72% of cases (18/25) the type 1a endoleak spontaneously disappeared on the first follow-up computed tomography angiography and never recurred. At the end of the follow-up period, no patient in this subgroup died with a type 1a endoleak on follow-up. In 3.4% (16/468) of all cases, a type 1a endoleak was encountered for the first time during follow-up. In 87.5% (14/16) of these cases, reintervention was performed. Two patients died with a persisting type 1a endoleak during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should differentiate between the type 1a endoleak at the case end and the type 1a endoleak first occurring during follow-up. For type 1a endoleak at the case end, expectant management can be adopted. Delayed type 1a endoleak seen during follow-up rarely seals spontaneously and needs reintervention in the majority of cases.