Abstract
Ultrasonic thermal energy is commonly used for dissection and vessel ligation. This study compared HARMONIC ACE and Sonicision Cordless Ultrasonic Dissector (SCUD). The devices were used in an in vivo porcine model to coagulate 189 arteries up to 5 mm. Seal times were similar: SCUD, 5.2 ± 1.7 s; ACE, 4.9 ± 1.5 s (P = .20). Burst pressures for SCUD and AVE were 578 ± 284 and 605 ± 288 mm Hg, respectively (P = .48). Stratification by vessel diameter yielded similar results. In all, 17 applications resulted in seal failure on either the proximal or distal side, with no difference between SCUD (4.4%) and ACE (6.6%; P = .37). Histological examination of 48 specimens showed similar thermal spreads: 1.06 ± 0.05 versus 1.08 ± 0.05 mm for SCUD and ACE, respectively (P = .82). In 41 timed mesenteric transections, SCUD required 24.8 ± 4.9 s, which was significantly less than the 33.8 ± 5.4 s for ACE (P < .0001), with no bleeding in either group. SCUD and ACE showed similar vessel seal times, burst pressures, thermal spreads, and seal failure rates. SCUD was more efficient than ACE in mesenteric transection.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
