Comparative study of in vivo lymphatic sealing capability of the porcine thoracic duct using laparoscopic dissection devices.

PURPOSE: Sealing the lymphatic vessels during abdominal and pelvic surgery is important to prevent the leakage of lymphatic fluid and its resultant sequelae. To our knowledge we compared for the first time the quality of lymphatic sealing by each of 4 commonly used laparoscopic dissection devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 12 domestic pigs were used to test dissecting devices, including monopolar scissors (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, Ohio), Harmonic ACE Scalpel, LigaSure V, EnSeal and Trissector. A midline incision was made from mid sternum to umbilicus, the diaphragm was divided and the porcine thoracic duct was isolated. In all animals each device was used to seal an area of the duct and each seal was placed at least 2 cm from the prior seal. In group 1 the thoracic duct of 6 pigs was cannulated with a 5Fr catheter and the seal was subjected to burst pressure testing using a burst pressure measuring device (Cole-Parmer, Vernon Hills, Illinois). In the 6 pigs in group 2 each seal was immediately sent for histopathological evaluation. Specimens were given a score for the extent of cautery damage, including 0-none, 1-minimal, 2-moderate, 3-severe and 4-extreme. RESULTS: A total of 64 seals were created, of which 35 were subjected to burst pressure testing. Mean size of the thoracic duct was 2.6 mm. No acute seal failures were observed with any bipolar device or the harmonic shears. However, 2 immediate failures (33%) were seen with monopolar scissors. Mean burst pressure for monopolar scissors, Harmonic ACE Scalpel, LigaSure V, EnSeal and Trissector was 46 (range 0 to 165), 540 (range 175 to 795), 258 (range 75 to 435), 453 (range 255 to 825) and 379 mm Hg (range 175 to 605), respectively (p <0.05). Trissector, Harmonic ACE Scalpel and EnSeal generated seals with significantly higher burst pressure than that of monopolar scissors (p <0.05). Histopathological evaluation revealed that LigaSure caused less thermal damage than Trissector and EnSeal (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Each device tested except monopolar scissors consistently produced a supraphysiological seal and should be suitable for sealing lymphatic vessels during laparoscopic surgery.

Evaluation of the outcomes of electrosurgical induced bowel injury treated with tissue glue/sealant versus sutured repair in a rabbit model.

INTRODUCTION: Bowel injury is an uncommon, although potentially devastating, intraoperative laparoscopic complication. Questions have been raised about the possible use of a tissue adhesive to repair injured bowel. We compared glued repair and sutured repair of both large bowel (LB) and small bowel (SB) electrosurgical injuries in a rabbit model. METHODS: Pneumoperitoneum was obtained, and four laparoscopic ports were placed in each of 48 New Zealand rabbits. The hook electrode was used in a specified manner to create an equal number of uniform full-thickness injuries to either the SB or the LB. Laparoscopic repair was performed with a 3-0 silk Lembert suture (LS), fibrin glue (FG), or BioGlue (BG), or repair was not performed (i.e., no repair, NR); the animals were monitored for 3 weeks. Adverse clinical outcomes and findings at laparotomy were recorded. Pathologic assessment included an objective scaled evaluation of the intensity of the inflammatory response and degree of healing. RESULTS: In the SB injury group, deteriorating clinical condition necessitated early euthanasia in one animal repaired with FG, one animal repaired with BG, and two animals with NR. LS repair animals had no adverse clinical outcomes. The LB injury group had no adverse clinical outcomes regardless of the method of repair, including the control group. Of the animals that survived for 3 weeks, the animals repaired with BG had more intraabdominal adhesions (100%) than LS (33%), FG (55%), and NR (50%) (p = 0.001). The pathologic assessment revealed that BG induced a more intense inflammatory response (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In the rabbit, suture repair of an electrosurgical SB injury appears to have improved outcomes when compared with a glued repair. In contrast, LB injury responded well to any form of treatment. The data suggest that suture is superior to biological glues when dealing with a laparoscopic electrosurgical bowel injury.