Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: ultrasonic energy versus monopolar electrosurgical energy.

OBJECTIVE

Nowadays, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is undoubtedly considered the "gold standard" in the surgical treatment of symptomatic gallstones, gallbladder adenomas and acute cholecystitis. Among the alternative energy sources proposed (monopolar, bipolar electric scalpel, radiofrequency sealers) with the aim to dissect and/or seal, the ultrasonic energy has been frequently adopted, however without a widespread acceptance among surgeons for routine or emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This study investigates the possible beneficial aspects of ultrasonic dissection and its efficacy in the closure of the cystic artery and duct.

PATIENTS AND

METHODS

Patients were retrospectively divided into 2 groups according to the instruments used for division of the cystic artery and duct as well as for dissection of the liver bed: 121 patients in whom dissection and coagulation were performed using monopolar coagulation and 43 patients who were all treated with the ultrasonically activated scalpel harmonic ACE (Ethicon Endo-Surgery) as the sole instrument used in the whole procedure.

RESULTS

The mean operative time, was significantly shorter in the harmonic group than in the traditional group (35.36 + 10.15 min vs. 55.6+12.10 vs. respectively; p < 0.0001). The rate of gallbladder perforation was significantly higher in the traditional group than in the harmonic group 20.66% (25 patients) vs. 6.98% (3 patients), respectively; p < 0.05). Intraoperative volume blood loss was significantly more in the traditional group than in the HS group (29.32+14.21 vs. 12.41+8.22; p < 0.0001). The mean amount of postoperative drainage was not significantly different among the two group (18.41+6.54 vs. 15.96+8.69 ml, p > 0.05). No considerable visceral injury has been recorded in either group. The postoperative parameters observed included postoperative hospital stay and morbidity for each group. The hospital stay was not significantly shorter in harmonic group (48.15+4.29 vs. 49.06+2.94 h, p > 0.05). The overall morbidity rate was 14.02 % (not significant).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the harmonic scalpel shows some statistically significant advantages limited to a few intraoperative parameters. We conclude that a wider use of harmonic scalpel not offers such advantages to make it the reference technique.