Effect of Monopolar Cutting Mode against Bipolar Diathermy on Surgical Dissection of Microvessels

Abstract

Background An ideal vessel dissection will be to maximize bleeding control through coagulation while minimizing vessel damage. Among the diathermy methods, there has been no report comparing the effect on vessels. This study aims to verify the effect of bipolar diathermy against monopolar diathermy cutting mode for vessel dissection.

Methods A total of 18 Sprague–Dawley rats were divided into three groups according to the method of pedicle dissection for 6 × 6 cm sized abdominal flap; (group 0) surgical scissors, (group 1) monopolar diathermy cutting mode and (group 2) bipolar diathermy. They were evaluated for the temperature of device tip and the radiating heat to the surrounding tissue, change in vessel diameter, flow velocity, and perfusion to the skin flap during dissection. Final flap survival rate and pathology of the vessels were also evaluated.

Results Significantly higher radiating heat was observed using bipolar diathermy (average: 37.5°C) compared with group using monopolar diathermy (average: 34.4°C) (p value 0.045). However, there were no differences in vessel diameter, skin flap perfusion, flow velocity, and flap survival rate among the groups.

Conclusions Both monopolar diathermy cutting mode and bipolar diathermy are safe to use to dissect the pedicle vessels when used adequately. Although it has no significant difference in relations to flap survival, vessel spasm, and perfusion/velocity to the flap, the extent of histologic damage may be less in monopolar diathermy cutting mode. Using monopolar diathermy cutting mode may provide efficiency to achieve ligation in small vessels during pedicle dissection but requires finesse technique and a learning curve.

Keywords

diathermy - vascular coagulation - pedicle dissection - microsurgery - perforator flap

• References

• 1 Advincula AP, Wang K. The evolutionary state of electrosurgery: where are we now?. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2008; 20 (04) 353-358
• 2 Mun GH, Lee SH. Efficient dissection of an intramuscular perforator using bipolar forceps. Ann Plast Surg 2007; 58 (05) 591
• 3 Kim JY, Moon KH, Yoon CJ, Park TC. Bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a comparative study with monopolar transurethral resection. Korean J Urol 2006; 47: 493
• 4 Jones EL, Dunn CL, Townsend NT. , et al. Blend mode reduces unintended thermal injury by laparoscopic monopolar instruments: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2013; 27 (11) 4016-4020
• 5 Chehrazi B, Collins Jr WF. A comparison of effects of bipolar and monopolar electrocoagulation in brain. J Neurosurg 1981; 54 (02) 197-203
• 6 Yoshida H, Wu MHD, Kouchi Y, Onuki Y, Shi Q, Sauvage LR. Comparison of the effect of monopolar and bipolar cauterization on skeletonized, dissected internal thoracic arteries. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1995; 110 (02) 504-510
• 7 Donzelli J, Leonetti JP, Wurster RD, Lee JM, Young MR. Neuroprotection due to irrigation during bipolar cautery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 126 (02) 149-153
• 8 Smith TL, Smith JM. Electrosurgery in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery: principles, advances, and complications. Laryngoscope 2001; 111 (05) 769-780
• 9 Lantis JC II, Durville FM, Connolly R, Schwaitzberg SD. Comparison of coagulation modalities in surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 1998; 8 (06) 381-394
• 10 Yang SJ, Song PH, Kim HT. Comparison of deep biopsy tissue damage from transurethral resection of bladder tumors between bipolar and monopolar devices. Korean J Urol 2011; 52 (06) 379-383
• 11 Diamantis T, Kontos M, Arvelakis A. , et al. Comparison of monopolar electrocoagulation, bipolar electrocoagulation, Ultracision, and Ligasure. Surg Today 2006; 36 (10) 908-913
• 12 Hirota Y, Tsukada K, Nishio E, Yoshida M, Tada S, Udagawa Y. Postoperative adhesion formation after laparoscopic uterine horn resection in a porcine model: comparison of five instruments. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2005; 15 (06) 581-585
• 13 Pillai K, Akhter J, Chua TC. , et al. Heat sink effect on tumor ablation characteristics as observed in monopolar radiofrequency, bipolar radiofrequency, and microwave, using ex vivo calf liver model. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015; 94 (09) e580
• 14 Al-Alem I, Pillai K, Akhter J, Chua TC, Morris DL. Heat sink phenomenon of bipolar and monopolar radiofrequency ablation observed using polypropylene tubes for vessel simulation. Surg Innov 2014; 21 (03) 269-276
• 15 Khan F, Rodriguez E, Finley DS, Skarecky DW, Ahlering TE. Spread of thermal energy and heat sinks: implications for nerve-sparing robotic prostatectomy. J Endourol 2007; 21 (10) 1195-1198
• 16 Vilos GA, Rajakumar C. Electrosurgical generators and monopolar and bipolar electrosurgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013; 20 (03) 279-287
• 17 Tirelli G, Camilot D, Bonini P, Del Piero GC, Biasotto M, Quatela E. Harmonic scalpel and electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing system in head and neck surgery: a prospective study on tissue heating and histological damage on nerves. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2015; 124 (11) 852-858
• 18 Vilos GA, Rajakumar C. Electrosurgical generators and monopolar and bipolar electrosurgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013; 20 (03) 279-287
• 19 Livaditis GJ. Comparison of monopolar and bipolar electrosurgical modes for restorative dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86 (04) 390-399
• 20 Tallitsch RB, Guastaferri R. Histology: An Identification Manual. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby Elsevier Inc; 2009