ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2016
Evaluation of the LigaSure(™) Vessel Sealing System for bowel transection and intestinal anastomosis-an experimental study in a porcine model.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ex-Vivo Evaluation of "First Tip Closing" Radiofrequency Vessel Sealing Devices for Swine Small Intestinal Transection.Veterinary sciences · 2022Article
- LigaSure Vessel Sealing System for Small Bowel Transection During Roux Limb Construction.Cureus · 2022Article
- Swine Small Intestine Sealing Performed by Different Vessel Sealing Devices: Ex-Vivo Test.Veterinary sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of the present study is to assess the value of the LigaSure™ Vessel Sealing System (LVSS) as a means for bowel transection and intestinal anastomosis.
methodsWe compared the LVSS for (1) transecting bowel and (2) creation of an intestinal anastomosis with standard methods such as stapler (S) and hand-sewn (HS) in a porcine model. For each study arm, i.e., bowel transection and anastomosis creation, both the small bowel and colon were examined. In total, ten transections and ten anastomoses were performed for each. Burst and anastomotic leak pressures were compared.
resultsIn the study arm 1, LVSS achieved lowest burst pressures in both small bowel (LVSS 39.8 ± 3.6 mmHg, S 81.9 ± 3.9, HS 111.9 ± 14.7 mmHg, p < 0.0001) and colon transections (LVSS 21.5 ± 2.6 mmHg, S 79.5 ± 4.9, HS 91.0 ± 5.2 mmHg, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in burst pressures between S and HS in both small bowel and colon transections. In the study arm 2, LVSS showed the lowest anastomotic leak pressures for small bowel (LVSS 26.4 ± 2.6 mmHg, S 52.1 ± 6.2, HS 87.4 ± 7.0 mmHg, p < 0.0001) and colonic anastomoses (LVSS 16.9 ± 1.3 mmHg, S 55.9 ± 4.3, HS 74.4 ± 4.4 mmHg, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, small bowel and colonic anastomoses using S demonstrated significantly lower leak pressures than HS anastomosis p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively.
conclusionsThe LVSS achieves significantly lower burst pressures and anastomotic leak pressures for bowel transection and intestinal anastomosis than S and HS techniques. However, due to the achieved pressure levels of 39.8 ± 3.6 mmHg, LVSS appears to be a sufficient stand-alone method for bowel transection. Whether it can be used to perform intestinal anastomosis warrants further research in a survival model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27007724What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.