Outcomes of conventional and advanced energy devices in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review

• Published in: Minimally invasive therapy and allied technologies 2024-02, Vol.33 (1), p.1-12
• Main Authors: Abi Antoun, Melissa, Etrusco, Andrea, Chiantera, Vito, Laganà, Antonio Simone, Feghali, Edwin, Khazzaka, Aline, Stabile, Guglielmo, Della Corte, Luigi, Dellino, Miriam, Sleiman, Zaki
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 1364-5706; 1365-2931
• DOI: 10.1080/13645706.2023.2274396

Hemostasis is an important step in all surgical procedures. Mechanical methods of hemostasis have been gradually abandoned in favor of electrosurgery. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of electrosurgical instruments utilized in minimally invasive gynecological procedures. We performed a systematic review, including randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective studies, comparing the outcomes of different energy devices (EDs) used in laparoscopic gynecologic surgeries. We extracted data about blood loss (BL), mean operative time, post-operative pain, hospital stay and complications associated with each electrosurgical device. We included 30 studies reporting comparative outcomes concerning conventional (bipolar and monopolar) and innovative EDs (Harmonic scalpel, LigaSure, Plasma kinetic gyrus, Thunderbeat, EnSeal, Marseal, Caiman and ALAN). New EDs were found to be more efficient in complex surgeries due to less intraoperative BL and shorter operative time. No significant decrease in hospital stay, post-operative pain or complications was found with the use of new energy instruments. Although new electrosurgical devices seem an appealing and safer option, there is still insufficient evidence for one vessel-sealing technology to be considered superior to another. Therefore, monopolar and conventional bipolar (CB) are still widely used in laparoscopic gynecology.