Introduction - Energy sealing devices achieve hemostasis of blood vessels through sequential coagulation and tissue transection. The most frequently used ones are: Electrothermal Bipolar Tissue Sealing System (EB) and Harmonic Scalpel (HS). Both methods are based on denaturation and fusion of proteins of the vessel wall (mainly collagen and elastin) by controlled delivery of energy: electrothermal by radiofrequency and impedance feed-back (EB) or high frequency ultrasound vibration (HS). Although its use has been widely spread in multiple surgical fields, most vascular surgeons are not confident enough about its safety for sealing collaterals of autologous grafts during by-pass surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of EB and HS with conventional vessel ligation of saphenous vein (SV) collaterals in an experimental model. Methods - Twenty-five fragments of SV were extracted from cadaver donor (n=6) or from residual fragments during amputation or lower limb revascularization procedures (n=19). To simulate physiological conditions, a pulsatile flow circuit was performed with a roller pump, and intravascular pressure was recorded by a pressure gauge and a pressure monitor. In each fragment, two venous collateral seals were made, one by conventional ligation with 3/0 silk (control) and the other one with EB (N= 13) or HS (N= 12), after sequentially consecutive assignment. Each venous fragment was then incorporated into the pulsatile flow circuit, and the pressure was progressively increased until 300 mmHg (supraphysiological) was reached, or until sealing breakage occurred. Collateral vein diameter, burst pressures, and leakage points were recorded. A histological study with hematoxylin-eosin and Masson's trichrome stain was also performed for each energy-sealing device. A descriptive analysis and analytical statistical tests (U-Mann Whitney, Chi-square) were performed. Results - The mean diameter of the venous collaterals was 2.42±0.7mm and 2.38±0.6 mm, p = NS, for EB and HS, respectively. The mean burst pressure was slightly higher for EB than for HS (788.9±455.0 mmHg vs 602.5±363.1 mmHg, p = 0.268). In only one case (HS) the outbreak occurred in the sealing zone at pressures below 300 mmHg. In all cases for EB, the rupture occurred at supraphysiological pressures.The leakage point for HS occurred in sealed collateral in all cases (12/12). For EB, the leakage point occurred in its sealing zone in 8 of 13 fragments, and in the conventional ligation (control), in the remaining 5 fragments (p=0.016). The histological study showed no differences in the tissues coagulated by both devices. Conclusion - Vessel sealing devices are as effective and safe for the hemostasis of saphenous vein collaterals as conventional ligation. These devices may be useful given their fast sealing time and easy handling during surgical venous graft preparation for lower limb revascularization. In our study, the EB showed greater strength in the sealing of saphenous vein collaterals compared to HS, however the outbreak occurred at supraphysiological pressures, so this fact may not have clinical relevance. References-Toishi M, Yoshida K, Agatsuma H et al. Usefulness of vessel-sealing devices for <7mm diameter vessels: a randomized controlled trial for human thoracoscopic lobectomy in primary lung cancer. Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, 2014 (19): 448-55.-Rajbabu K, Baber NJ, Chol W et al. To knot or not to knot? Sutureless haemostasis compared to the surgeons's knot. Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 2007; 89: 359-62.-Lamberton GR, Hsi R, Jin D et al. Prospective comparision of four laparoscopic vessel ligation devices. Journal of endourology, 2008; 22: 1-6.-Lacin T, Batirel HF, Ozer K et al. Safety of a thermal vessel sealer on main pulmonary vessels. European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 2007; 31: 482-85.