Instant Response^™electrosurgery generator for laparoscopy and endoscopy

Completeness and efficiency of prostate tissue removal: loop resection compared with a new operative technique of transurethral electrovaporization

“…Repeated applications of electrosurgical energy to a desiccated tissue bed produces carbonization instead of vaporization and results in wasted time, incomplete tissue removal and bothersome irritative symptoms for the patient. Desiccation during TUEVAP is caused by an inefficient vaporization electrode which fails to achieve sufficient power density at surface prominences, or has too large a surface contact area [ 2], an inefficient generator with a large discrepancy between the dial setting and actual power output as impedance rises [ 17], or a poor operative technique where too much coagulation current is applied to tissue to be vaporized.…”

Role Redesign

“…It also improves generator performance at lower voltages, which helps to reduce the risk of patient injury. The instant response to changing patient conditions represents improved performance over that of conventional generators, and just as with quality contact monitoring, was a tremendous advancement in patient safety 8 …”

Transurethral electrovaporization and vapour‐resection of the prostate: an appraisal of possible electrosurgical alternatives to regular loop resection

“…the impedance of fresh tissue. They and others [8] showed power output differences between conventional generators and the newer generation of microprocessor-controlled impedance-independent units. Hypothetical concerns that electrovaporization was associated with a greater risk of deep tissue heating than during TURP were dispelled by the ®nding that neither treatment produced histological thermal damage deeper than 1 mm with pure cutting current [3].…”