Comparison of conventional ligatures and a vessel sealing device for haemostasis during open ovariohysterectomy in rabbits

Dumartinet, Caroline; Matres-Lorenzo, Luis; Linsart, A; Bernardé, Antoine; Bernard, Fabrice

doi:10.1080/00480169.2022.2079571

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At present, vessel sealing (VS) devices are widely used in human and veterinary medicine for vessel coagulation and incision [21][22][23]. Such devices fuse the vessel walls and create seals using a combination of electrical current and mechanical pressure [24], resulting in significantly shortened surgery time [25], excellent hemostasis [19], and less pain and surgical stress in OHE [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the efficacy and perioperative pain between vessel sealing and suture ligation for median celiotomy in canine ovariohysterectomy

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim: Vessel sealing (VS) is used widely in human medicine and veterinary practice during laparoscopic surgery; however, few studies have investigated VS in canine ovariohysterectomy (OHE) using the median celiotomy approach. This study aimed to compare the effect of VS and suture ligation (SL) on surgical time, blood loss, and perioperative pain in canine OHE through median celiotomy. Materials and Methods: Twenty-eight dogs were randomly and equally assigned into two groups that underwent surgery either by SL at both the ovarian pedicle and uterus or using a disposable VS device. The short form of the Glasgow composite pain scale (SF-GCPS) and the Colorado state university canine acute pain scale (CSU-CAP) were used to determine pain pre-operatively (baseline); at 30 min; and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 24, and 72 h post-operatively. Perioperative physiological parameters, surgical duration, and percentage of blood loss were recorded. Repeated measures analysis was performed to determine the differences in all parameters among time-related tasks and between both groups. A significant difference was defined at p < 0.05. Results: The duration from identification of the first ovary to uterus removal was shorter in VS than in SL (p < 0.05). No clinically relevant differences were found among physiological variables. Both groups showed higher SF-GCPS and CSU-CAP values after surgery compared with baseline. The SF-GCPS in SL at 1 h was higher than in VS (p < 0.05). Two dogs in the SL group required additional post-operative rescue analgesia. No differences were found between the groups in terms of blood loss. Conclusion: The use of a VS device in dogs undergoing OHE celiotomy decreased post-operative pain and shortened the perioperative time, making it an effective alternative technique for this common surgery. However, the VS device must be applied 2–3 times in the same location during the OHE procedure to prevent technical failure. This disposable device was reused up to 5 times for economic reasons without device failure. Soft tissue damage during OHE using the VS device should be investigated in a future prospective study.

show abstract