Stray energy injury during robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial

Wikiel, Krzysztof J.; Bollinger, Daniel; Montero, Paul M.; Jones, Teresa S.; Robinson, Thomas N.; Jones, Edward L.

doi:10.1007/s00464-023-10331-3

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(1) DPSWE does not have thermal damage. The energy of electrolytic dissection can lead to thermal damage, abdominal organ perforation, and even a risk of death [ 22 , 23 ]. There is no thermal damage to the tissues in DPSWE.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical application of the dissection of the preperitoneal space without electrocoagulation in laparoscopic transperitoneal inguinal hernia repair throughout of the whole process

Xu,

Wang,

Mao

2024

Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The dissection of the preperitoneal space is performed using a monopolar instrument to prevent bleeding in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair (TAPP). It may also cause energy injuries and nerve damage. Aim: To assess the effectiveness and safety of dissection of the preperitoneal space without electrocoagulation (DP-SWE) in TAPP throughout the process. Material and methods: A retrospective analysis of data of 134 patients was made. The electrocoagulation group (EG) relied on monopolar instruments. In the non-electrocoagulation group (NEG) mainly scissors were used without electrocoagulation. The patients were followed for up for 3 months. Intraoperative and postoperative conditions and other complications were observed. Results: The VAS scores in the NEG were lower than those in the EG (p < 0.05). The operation time in the NEG was shorter than that in the EG (p < 0.05). Hospitalization expenses, scrotal seroma formation, and rupture of hernia sac in the NEG were lower than those in the EG (p < 0.05). The intraoperative bleeding volume above 20 ml in the NEG was higher than that in the EG. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative bleeding, vas deferens injury, intestinal injury, surgical site infection, length of hospital stay, urinary retention and hernia recurrence in the NEG and the EG (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) in the NEG and the EG. Conclusions: DPSWE is effective and safe. DPSWE may reduce postoperative pain and have no significant increase in postoperative bleeding.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical application of the dissection of the preperitoneal space without electrocoagulation in laparoscopic transperitoneal inguinal hernia repair throughout of the whole process

Xu,

Wang,

Mao

2024

Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Liposuction Port-Site Protection: Necessity or Needless Expense?

Moyer,

Sisson

2024

Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Liposuction is the most common cosmetic plastic surgery procedure in the United States, and lipo-aspiration for fat grafting is gaining in popularity. Results are effective, but complications include seroma, contour irregularities, skin necrosis, and even death. Scarring, dehiscence and infection at the port site, although minor, are a common and less discussed problem. To date, no study has examined the local complication profile of patients treated with and without port-site protection. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy of silicone port protectors to decrease local complications after liposuction. Methods A retrospective review was performed on sixty consecutive patients treated for cosmetic liposuction or autologous fat transfer between August 2022 and March 2024. The first thirty patients underwent tumescent based lipo-aspiration without port site protectors and the following thirty with placement of a segment of suction tubing to protect the skin. Records were reviewed to determine patient demographics, amount of tumescent and aspirate, and complications at the port-site. Results Sixty patients completed the study. There were no significant differences in patient demographics and surgical data between groups. Ten patients in the unprotected group and two in the protected group experienced port-site complications (33.3% versus 6.7%, p = 0.0093). Significantly more patients in the unprotected group experienced wound dehiscence (p = 0.0095), and there was a trend toward more patients requiring steroid injections and excisions and re-closures (p = 0.088 and 0.167 respectively). Conclusions In this cohort, patients treated with a port protection device suffered fewer local complications requiring less wound management, steroid injections and revisions.

show abstract

Stray energy injury during robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial

Cited by 2 publications

References 23 publications

Clinical application of the dissection of the preperitoneal space without electrocoagulation in laparoscopic transperitoneal inguinal hernia repair throughout of the whole process

Clinical application of the dissection of the preperitoneal space without electrocoagulation in laparoscopic transperitoneal inguinal hernia repair throughout of the whole process

Liposuction Port-Site Protection: Necessity or Needless Expense?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About