PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2019; 36(07): 742-750
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1673664
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

An Early Investigation into Possible Alternatives to Stapled Hysterotomy in Open Fetal Surgery

Joseph T. Church
1   Extracorporeal Life Support Laboratory, Department of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Jennifer S. McLeod
1   Extracorporeal Life Support Laboratory, Department of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Megan A. Coughlin
1   Extracorporeal Life Support Laboratory, Department of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Ingrid L. Bergin
2   Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Elena M. Perkins
1   Extracorporeal Life Support Laboratory, Department of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Hayley R. Hoffman
1   Extracorporeal Life Support Laboratory, Department of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Mark Bilger
1   Extracorporeal Life Support Laboratory, Department of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Alvaro Rojas-Peña
1   Extracorporeal Life Support Laboratory, Department of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Marjorie C. Treadwell
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Deborah R. Berman
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Marcus D. Jarboe
4   Department of Surgery, Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
George B. Mychaliska
4   Department of Surgery, Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Erin E. Perrone
4   Department of Surgery, Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
› Institutsangaben Funding Funding for this project was made possible by Jack L. Berman, MD, and Barbara A. Berman, PhD, Fetal Diagnosis Research Fund at the University of Michigan.
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

30. November 2017

24. August 2018

Publikationsdatum:
29. Oktober 2018 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Purpose We hypothesized that surgical energy could be used to create hysterotomies in open fetal surgery.

Study Design Initial studies compared the LigaSure Impact and Harmonic ACE + 7 Shears in the efficiency of hysterotomy and thermal damage. Pregnant ewes at an estimated gestational age (EGA) of 116 to 120 days (term = 145; n = 7) underwent hysterotomy using either device. Hysterotomy edges were resected, and thermal injury extent was determined by histopathological assessment. Upon determining a superior device, subsequent studies compared this to the AutoSuture Premium Poly CS*-57 Stapler in uterine healing. Pregnant ewes (n = 6) at an EGA of 87 to 93 days underwent 6-cm hysterotomy in each gravid horn with either the stapler (n = 5) or Harmonic (n = 5) followed by closure and animal recovery. After 37 to 42 days, uterine healing was assessed by evaluating tensile strength and histopathology.

Results Thermal damage was more extensive with the LigaSure (n = 11 hysterotomies) than with the Harmonic (n = 11; 5.6 ± 1 vs. 3.1 ± 0.6 mm; p < 0.0001);therefore, the Harmonic was selected for healing studies. Gross scar appearance and tensile strength were the same between the Harmonic and stapler. The stapler caused more fibrosis (4/7 samples with “moderate” fibrosis vs. 0/8 with the Harmonic; p = 0.02).

Conclusion The Harmonic ACE + 7 caused less thermal injury than the LigaSure Impact and performed similar to the CS*-57 Stapler in uterine healing with continued gestation.

Keywords

hysterotomy - prenatal - Harmonic - LigaSure - AutoSuturePremium Poly CS*-57 Stapler - surgical energy
 

  • References

  • 1 Wenstrom KD, Carr SR. Fetal surgery: principles, indications, and evidence. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124 (04) 817-835
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Kabagambe SK, Jensen GW, Chen YJ, Vanover MA, Farmer DL. Fetal surgery for myelomeningocele: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in fetoscopic versus open repair. Fetal Diagn Ther 2018; 43 (03) 161-174
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Peiró JL, Sbragia L, Scorletti F, Lim FY, Shaaban A. Management of fetal teratomas. Pediatr Surg Int 2016; 32 (07) 635-647
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Longaker MT, Golbus MS, Filly RA, Rosen MA, Chang SW, Harrison MR. Maternal outcome after open fetal surgery. A review of the first 17 human cases. JAMA 1991; 265 (06) 737-741
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Zamora IJ, Ethun CG, Evans LM. , et al. Maternal morbidity and reproductive outcomes related to fetal surgery. J Pediatr Surg 2013; 48 (05) 951-955
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Wilson RD, Johnson MP, Flake AW. , et al. Reproductive outcomes after pregnancy complicated by maternal-fetal surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191 (04) 1430-1436
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Golombeck K, Ball RH, Lee H. , et al. Maternal morbidity after maternal-fetal surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194 (03) 834-839
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Wilson RD, Johnson MP, Crombleholme TM. , et al. Chorioamniotic membrane separation following open fetal surgery: pregnancy outcome. Fetal Diagn Ther 2003; 18 (05) 314-320
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Adzick NS, Harrison MR, Glick PL. , et al. Fetal surgery in the primate. III. Maternal outcome after fetal surgery. J Pediatr Surg 1986; 21 (06) 477-480
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Gilson GJ, Kephart WH, Izquierdo LA, Joffe GM, Qualls CR, Curet LB. Comparison of absorbable uterine staples and traditional hysterotomy during cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87 (03) 384-388
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Wilkinson C, Enkin MW. Absorbable staples for uterine incision at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (02) CD000005
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Nieboer TE, Steller CJ, Hinoul P. , et al. Clinical utility of a novel ultrasonic vessel sealing device in transecting and sealing large vessels during laparoscopic hysterectomy using advanced hemostasis mode. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 201: 135-139
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Qi SH, Liu P, Xie JL. , et al. Experimental study on repairing of nude mice skin defects with composite skin consisting of xenogeneic dermis and epidermal stem cells and hair follicle dermal papilla cells. Burns 2008; 34 (03) 385-392
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Schaffer CJ, Reinisch L, Polis SL, Stricklin GP. Comparisons of wound healing among excisional, laser-created, and standard thermal burns in porcine wounds of equal depth. Wound Repair Regen 1997; 5 (01) 52-61
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Sowa DE, Masterson BJ, Nealon N, von Fraunhofer JA. Effects of thermal knives on wound healing. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 66 (03) 436-439
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Zaidi N, Glover AR, Sidhu SB. The Covidien LigaSure Maryland Jaw Device. Expert Rev Med Devices 2015; 12 (02) 151-155
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Macario A, Dexter F, Sypal J, Cosgriff N, Heniford BT. Operative time and other outcomes of the electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing system (LigaSure) versus other methods for surgical hemostasis: a meta-analysis. Surg Innov 2008; 15 (04) 284-291
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Targarona EM, Balague C, Marin J. , et al. Energy sources for laparoscopic colectomy: a prospective randomized comparison of conventional electrosurgery, bipolar computer-controlled electrosurgery and ultrasonic dissection. Operative outcome and costs analysis. Surg Innov 2005; 12 (04) 339-344
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Shabahang H, Maddah G, Tavassoli A. , et al. Laparoscopic splenectomy: ligasure or clip ligation?. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2012; 22 (02) 136-138
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Družijanić N, Pogorelić Z, Perko Z, Mrklić I, Tomić S. Comparison of lateral thermal damage of the human peritoneum using monopolar diathermy, Harmonic scalpel and LigaSure. Can J Surg 2012; 55 (05) 317-321
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Ecker T, Carvalho AL, Choe JH, Walosek G, Preuss KJ. Hemostasis in thyroid surgery: harmonic scalpel versus other techniques–a meta-analysis. Head Neck Surg 2010; 143 (01) 17-25
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Mushaya CD, Caleo PJ, Bartlett L, Buettner PG, Ho YH. Harmonic scalpel compared with conventional excisional haemorrhoidectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Tech Coloproctol 2014; 18 (11) 1009-1016
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Msika S, Deroide G, Kianmanesh R. , et al. Harmonic scalpel in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 2001; 44 (03) 432-436
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Rimonda R, Arezzo A, Garrone C, Allaix ME, Giraudo G, Morino M. Electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing system vs. harmonic scalpel in colorectal laparoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized study. Dis Colon Rectum 2009; 52 (04) 657-661
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Sartori PV, De Fina S, Colombo G. , et al. Ligasure versus Ultracision in thyroid surgery: a prospective randomized study. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2008; 393 (05) 655-658
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Diamantis T, Kontos M, Arvelakis A. , et al. Comparison of monopolar electrocoagulation, bipolar electrocoagulation, Ultracision, and Ligasure. Surg Today 2006; 36 (10) 908-913
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Ethicon. Harmonic ACE +7 Endoshears with Advanced Hemostasis Technology. Product Guide. 2016 . Available at: https://www.ethicon.com/na/system/files/2017-08/010305-160209%20_Energy_Updts_ACE_Plus_7_SalesAid_r9_CF.pdf . Accessed May 14, 2019
    PubMed
  • 28 Bond SJ, Harrison MR, Slotnick RN, Anderson J, Flake AW, Adzick NS. Cesarean delivery and hysterotomy using an absorbable stapling device. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 74 (01) 25-28
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Jancelewicz T, Harrison MR. A history of fetal surgery. Clin Perinatol 2009; 36 (02) 227-236
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Botelho RD, Imada V, Rodrigues da Costa KJ. , et al. Fetal myelomeningocele repair through a mini-hysterotomy. Fetal Diagn Ther 2017; 42 (01) 28-34
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Barry JS, Anthony RV. The pregnant sheep as a model for human pregnancy. Theriogenology 2008; 69 (01) 55-67
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Kabagambe SK, Lee CJ, Goodman LF, Chen YJ, Vanover MA, Farmer DL. Lessons from the barn to the operating suite: a comprehensive review of animal models for fetal surgery. Annu Rev Anim Biosci 2018; 6: 99-119
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Durnwald CP, Mercer BM. Myometrial thickness according to uterine site, gestational age and prior cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2008; 21 (04) 247-250
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar