Monopolar electrocautery versus ultrasonic dissection of the gallbladder from the gallbladder bed in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial

• Published in: Canadian Journal of Surgery 2012-10, Vol.55 (5), p.307-311
• Main Authors: Mahabaleshwar, Varun, MS, Kaman, Lileswar, MS, Iqbal, Javid, MS, Singh, Rajinder, MS
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Analysis; Care and treatment; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - adverse effects; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - methods; Dissection - adverse effects; Dissection - methods; Electrocoagulation - adverse effects; Female; Gallbladder - injuries; Gallbladder - surgery; Gallstones; Humans; Laparoscopic surgery; Laparoscopy; Male; Medical treatment; Methods; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Studies; Surgery; Surgical outcomes; Surgical techniques; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonic Therapy
• ISSN: 0008-428X; 1488-2310
• DOI: 10.1503/cjs.000411

Background Ultrasonic dissection has been suggested as an alternative to monopolar electrocautery in laparoscopic cholecystectomy because it generates less tissue damage and may have a lower incidence of gallbladder perforation. We compared the 2 methods to determine the incidence of gallbladder perforation and its intraoperative consequences. Methods We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial between July 2008 and December 2009 involving adult patients with symptomatic gall stone disease who were eligible for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients were randomly assigned before administration of anesthesia to electrocautery or ultrasonic dissection. Both groups were compared for incidence of gallbladder perforation during dissection, bile leak, stones spillage, lens cleaning, duration of surgery and estimation of risk of gall-bladder in the presence of complicating factors. Results We included 60 adult patients in our study. The groups were comparable with respect to demographic characteristics, symptomatology, comorbidities, previous abdominal surgeries, preoperative ultrasonography findings and intraoperative complications. The overall incidence of gallbladder perforation was 28.3% (40.0% in the electrocautery v. 16.7% in the ultrasonic dissection group, p = 0.045). Bile leak occurred in 40.0% of patients in the electrocautery group and 16.7% of patients in ultrasonic group ( p = 0.045). Lens cleaning time ( p = 0.015) and duration of surgery ( p = 0.001) were longer in the electrocautery than the ultrasonic dissection group. There was no statistical difference in stone spillage between the groups ( p = 0.62). Conclusion Ultrasonic dissection is safe and effective, and it improves the operative course of laparoscopic cholecystectomy by reducing the incidence of gallbladder perforation.