Comparison of ultrasonic scalpel versus argon-beam and conventional electrocautery for internal thoracic artery dissection.

Abstract

We used an ultrasonic scalpel (USS) and an argon beam coagulator (ABC) to test their effectiveness and feasibility in comparison to conventional electrocautery for Internal Thoracic Artery (ITA) takedown, time for takedown, number of clips, thermal impact, along with morphological integrity assessed by histology. Ninety-three patients undergoing elective coronary bypass surgery were prospectively randomized into three groups. In thirty-one patients, either an ultrasonic scalpel (USS, group A), an argon-beam coagulator (ABC, group B) or conventional electrocautery (CEC, group C) was used for ITA harvesting. Harvest times for ITA takedown using CEC (16.7 +/- 6 min) was significantly faster compared to ABC (21.6 +/- 8.1 min; p = 0.02) and USS (24.1 +/- 8.1 min; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference comparing harvest times of USS and ABC (p = 0.1). The number of hemostatic clips used was significantly lower when using USS (5.5 +/- 4.6 clips) compared to both CEC (16.6 +/- 6.2 clips; p < 0.001) and ABC (20.4 +/- 6.5 clips; p < 0.001) and significantly lower using CEC compared to ABC (p < 0.007). There were no significant differences in bleeding points within the tissue bed among the groups (ABC 11/31 patients, CEC 11/31 patients and USS 12/31 patients). This study demonstrates that dissection of the ITA pedicle can be safely done with USS, ABC, and CEC. However, USS is associated with less hemostatic clip demand but prolonged harvest time compared it to ABC and CEC; histological assessment revealed no significant difference when comparing groups and equipment used. A variety in design of the hooks may probably ease ultracision practicability.