Effectiveness of a bipolar vessel sealant device for sealing uterine horns and bodies from dogs

Jessica S. Barrera Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Search for other papers by Jessica S. Barrera in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
and
Eric Monnet Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Search for other papers by Eric Monnet in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD

Abstract

Objective—To compare the bursting strength of a vessel sealant device (VSD) with that of an encircling suture on uterine horns and bodies from dogs.

Sample—Uteri from 24 shelter dogs with unknown reproductive histories.

Procedures—Uterine horns and bodies were allocated to groups to be sealed with suture or a VSD. Uteri were then infused with saline (0.9% NaCl) solution until the seals burst or the uteri reached a maximal pressure of 300 mm Hg. Variables recorded included dog age, uterine body and horn diameter, and maximal pressure.

Results—The median (range) bursting pressure reached in sealed uterine horns was 300 (0 to 300) mm Hg for the VSD group and 300 (200 to 300) mm Hg for the suture group. Within the VSD group, seals of 2 of 3 uterine horns with a diameter ≥ 9 mm burst before intraluminal pressure reached 100 mm Hg, compared with 1 of 21 uterine horns with a diameter < 9 mm. The median bursting pressure for uterine bodies was 237 (0 to 300) mm Hg for the VSD group versus 300 (175 to 300) mm Hg for the suture group. Within the VSD group, seals in uterine bodies with a diameter ≥ 9 mm failed at a significantly lower pressure (125 [0 to 125]) mm Hg than those with a diameter < 9 mm (275 [125 to 300]) mm Hg.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The failure pressure for both sealing techniques was high, which indicated that the VSD may be a safe instrument for sealing the uterine horn in dogs. Given the low mean bursting pressure for seals in uterine bodies with large diameters, the VSD cannot be recommended for sealing uterine bodies ≥ 9 mm in diameter.

Abstract

Objective—To compare the bursting strength of a vessel sealant device (VSD) with that of an encircling suture on uterine horns and bodies from dogs.

Sample—Uteri from 24 shelter dogs with unknown reproductive histories.

Procedures—Uterine horns and bodies were allocated to groups to be sealed with suture or a VSD. Uteri were then infused with saline (0.9% NaCl) solution until the seals burst or the uteri reached a maximal pressure of 300 mm Hg. Variables recorded included dog age, uterine body and horn diameter, and maximal pressure.

Results—The median (range) bursting pressure reached in sealed uterine horns was 300 (0 to 300) mm Hg for the VSD group and 300 (200 to 300) mm Hg for the suture group. Within the VSD group, seals of 2 of 3 uterine horns with a diameter ≥ 9 mm burst before intraluminal pressure reached 100 mm Hg, compared with 1 of 21 uterine horns with a diameter < 9 mm. The median bursting pressure for uterine bodies was 237 (0 to 300) mm Hg for the VSD group versus 300 (175 to 300) mm Hg for the suture group. Within the VSD group, seals in uterine bodies with a diameter ≥ 9 mm failed at a significantly lower pressure (125 [0 to 125]) mm Hg than those with a diameter < 9 mm (275 [125 to 300]) mm Hg.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The failure pressure for both sealing techniques was high, which indicated that the VSD may be a safe instrument for sealing the uterine horn in dogs. Given the low mean bursting pressure for seals in uterine bodies with large diameters, the VSD cannot be recommended for sealing uterine bodies ≥ 9 mm in diameter.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Monnet (Eric.Monnet@ColoState.edu).
  • 1.

    De Bont MP, Wilderjans H, Simon O. Standing laparoscopic ovariectomy technique with intraabdominal dissection for removal of large pathologic ovaries in mares. Vet Surg 2010; 39:737741.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Hand R, Rakestraw P, Taylor T. Evaluation of a vessel-sealing device for use in laparoscopic ovariectomy in mares. Vet Surg 2002; 31:240244.

  • 3.

    Box GN, Lee HJ, Abraham JB, et al. Comparative study of in vivo lymphatic sealing capability of the porcine thoracic duct using laparoscopic dissection devices. J Urol 2009; 181:387391.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Elemen L, Yazir Y, Tugay M, et al. LigaSure compared with ligatures and endoclips in experimental appendectomy: how safe is it? Pediatr Surg Int 2010; 26:539545.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Nii A, Shimada M, Ikegami T, et al. Efficacy of vessel sealing system for major Glisson bundles and major bile ducts. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2008; 15:522527.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Lambert EH, Schachter LR, Altamar HO, et al. A sealed bladder cuff technique during laparoscopic nephroureterectomy utilizing the LigaSure electrosurgical device: laboratory and clinical experience. J Endourol 2010; 24:327332.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Schulze S, Damgaard B, Jorgensen LN, et al. Cystic duct closure by sealing with bipolar electrocoagulation. JSLS 2010; 14:2022.

  • 8.

    Yekeler E, Ulutas H, Becerik C, et al. The use of the LigaSure in esophagectomy. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2010; 11:1014.

  • 9.

    Mayhew PD, Brown DC. Comparison of three techniques for ovarian pedicle hemostasis during laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy. Vet Surg 2007; 36:541547.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Kennedy JS, Stranahan PL, Taylor KD, et al. High-burst-strength, feedback-controlled bipolar vessel sealing. Surg Endosc 1998; 12:876878.

  • 11.

    Harold KL, Pollinger H, Matthews BD, et al. Comparison of ultrasonic energy, bipolar thermal energy, and vascular clips for the hemostasis of small-, medium-, and large-sized arteries. Surg Endosc 2003; 17:12281230.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Newcomb WL, Hope WW, Schmelzer TM, et al. Comparison of blood vessel sealing among new electrosurgical and ultrasonic devices. Surg Endosc 2009; 23:9096.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Carbonell AM, Joels CS, Kercher KW, et al. A comparison of laparoscopic bipolar vessel sealing devices in the hemostasis of small-, medium-, and large-sized arteries. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2003; 13:377380.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Shamiyeh A, Vattay P, Tulipan L, et al. Closure of the cystic duct during laparoscopic cholecystectomy with a new feedback-controlled bipolar sealing system in case of biliary obstruction—an experimental study in pigs. Hepatogastroenterology 2004; 51:931933.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Moreno-Sanz C, Picazo-Yeste J, Seoane-Gonzales J, et al. Division of the small bowel with the LigaSure Atlas device during the right laparoscopic colectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2008; 18:99101.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Sorgato N, Bernante P, Pelizzo MR. Application of the LigaSure tissue sealing system to intestinal resection. Experimental and clinical trial. Ann Ital Chir 2008; 79:383388.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Salameh JR, Schwartz JH, Hildebrandt DA. Can LigaSure seal and divide the small bowel? Am J Surg 2006; 191:791793.

  • 18.

    Wheaton LG, Benson GJ, Tranquilli WJ, et al. The oxytocic effect of xylazine on the canine uterus. Theriogenology 1989; 31:911915.

Advertisement