A miniature, rechargeable, cordless electrocautery for neurosurgery

Schmidt, Robert S.; Hudson, W. R.

doi:10.1016/0165-0270(90)90073-o

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This can be cumbersome because cables can make the operating room more crowded and tangle with other wires or instruments, resulting in limited mobility of the endoscope, inconvenience of manipulation for surgeons, and increased chances of device failure, and safety hazards. The development of cordless technology has been funded by the National Institutes of Health since the late 1980s [ 17 ]. There is no doubt that a cable‐free design would improve the ergonomics of laparoscopic surgeries, it could save the preoperative setup time and operating room space, thus improving the efficiency of operations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fabrication and application of a wireless high‐definition endoscopic system in urological surgeries

Xu²,

et al. 2022

BJU International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To introduce a wireless high‐definition endoscopic system (WHES) and compare it with a Storz high‐definition (HD) system for image resolution, colour resolution, weight, and costs. Materials and Methods The WHES incorporated a portable light‐emitting diode light source and a wireless camera module, which can be compatible with different types of endoscopes. Images were wirelessly transmitted to a monitor or mobile platform such as smartphone through a receiver. The International Standards Organization 12233 resolution chart image was used for the comparison of image resolution and Munsell Colour Checker Chart for colour resolution. In all, 38 endourologists used a Likert questionnaire to blindly evaluate cystoscopic images from a patient with haematuria. The surgical team was asked about the overall performance of the WHES in 20 laparoscopic adrenalectomies using a unvalidated subjective survey. Results There was no difference in image resolution between the two systems (5.82 vs 5.89 line pairs/mm). Without lens and respective light sources, there were better purple (ΔE = 21.48 vs 28.73), blue (ΔE = 34.88 vs 38.6) and red colour resolution (ΔE = 29.01 vs 35.45) for the WHES camera (P < 0.05), but orange (ΔE = 43.45 vs 36.52) and yellow (ΔE = 52.7 vs 35.93) resolutions were better for the Storz HD camera (P < 0.05). Comparing the WHES to a Storz laparoscopic system, the Storz system still had better resolution of orange and yellow, while the resolution of purple, blue, and red was similar for the two systems. The expert comments on resolution, brightness, and colour for cystoscopy were not statistically different, but the ergonomics score for the WHES was higher (3.7 vs 3.33, P = 0.038). The overall cost of the WHES was $23 000–25 000 compared with $45 000–50 000 for a Storz system. There were 100% general satisfaction for the WHES in the survey. Conclusion We developed a new WHES that provides the same resolution images as a Storz laparoscopic system and acceptable colour resolution with the advantages of wireless connection, small volume, low cost, portability, and high‐speed wireless transmission.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fabrication and application of a wireless high‐definition endoscopic system in urological surgeries

Xu²,

et al. 2022

BJU International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8 Eliminating cords would unquestionably improve the ergonomics of laparoscopic and open surgery. Like the benefits of using LCD monitors closer to the surgical field, a cordless design would improve the space in the OR, the mobility of the instrument, and thus the efficiency of the laparoscopic procedure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Use of a Cordless Laparoscopic Ultrasonic Device

Kim

Sehrt

Molina

et al. 2014

JSLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:On April 25, 2012, the first laparoscopic cordless ultrasonic device (Sonicision, Covidien, Mansfield, Massachusetts) was used in a clinical setting. We describe our initial experience.Methods:The cordless device is assembled with a reusable battery and generator on a base hand-piece. It has a minimum and maximum power setting controlled by a single trigger for both coagulation and cutting. A laparoscopic radical nephrectomy was performed on a 56-year-old man with a 7-cm right renal mass. A laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed in a 51-year-old man with high-risk prostate cancer. Data on surgical team satisfaction, operative time, number of activations, and times the laparoscope was removed as a result of plume were collected.Results:The surgical technician successfully assembled the device at the beginning of the cases with verbal instructions from the surgeon. Operative time for nephrectomy was 77 minutes, with 143 total activations (minimum = 86, maximum = 57). The operative time for the pelvic lymphadenectomy was 27 minutes, with 38 total activations (minimum = 27, maximum = 11). One battery was used in each case. The laparoscope was removed twice during the nephrectomy and once during the lymphadenectomy. Surgical staff satisfaction survey results revealed easier and faster assembly, more space in the operating room, ergonomic handle, and comparable cutting/coagulation, weight, and plume generation with other devices (Table 1).Table 1.Survey of Operating Room StaffaEasy/YesDifficult/NoAbility to assemble the device7 (100%)0Ability to hand the device over to other members of the surgical team7 (100%)0Efficiency in saving space in the operating room7 (100%)0Overall satisfactionUnsatisfactoryIndifferentSatisfactory007 (100%)aOperating staff consisted of 4 surgeons and 3 scrub technicians and/or registered nurses.Conclusion:The first clinical application of the pioneering cordless dissector was successfully performed, resulting in surgeons' perceptions of comparable results with other devices of easier and safer use and faster assembly.

show abstract