Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jul-Sep;18(3):e2014.00269.
doi: 10.4293/JSLS.2014.00269.

Significance of surgical plume obstruction during laparoscopy

Rodrigo Donalisio da Silva  1 , David Sehrt  1 , Wilson R Molina  1 , Jake Moss  1 , Sang Hyun Park  2 , Fernando J Kim  3
Affiliations

Significance of surgical plume obstruction during laparoscopy

Rodrigo Donalisio da Silva et al. JSLS. 2014 Jul-Sep.

Abstract

With the advent of laparoscopic surgery, the need of optimal visualization and efficient instrumentation has created a need for better understanding of the characteristics of the surgical plume. Despite the technological advances of digital imaging and dissector technology (ultrasonic, radiofrequency electrical, and bipolar), the inconvenient and sometimes harmful generation of a surgical plume decreases visualization, often requiring the surgeon to remove the scope from the surgical field and remove the obstructing particles. If visualization is suboptimal or lost during bleeding, the outcome can be deadly. Therefore, we reviewed the available reports in the literature focused on the quantification of surgical plumes.

Keywords: Laparoscopy; Robotic-assisted procedures; Surgical plume.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: Dr. Kim is a principal investigator for Olympus, Covidien, and Healthtronics. Dr. Molina has a fellowship grant with Boston Scientific.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Detection of plume from the laparoscopic field of view. A. Laparoscopic recording of plume. B. Detection of plume.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Flow of information through the different phases of the systematic review.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kim FJ, Sehrt D, Pompeo A, Molina WR. Comparison of surgical plume among laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors using a real-time digital quantitative technology. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(12):3408–3412. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. - PMC - PubMed
    1. DesCoteaux JG, Picard P, Poulin EC, Baril M. Preliminary study of electrocautery smoke particles produced in vitro and during laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc. 1996;10(2):152–158. - PubMed
    1. Barrett WL, Garber SM. Surgical smoke: a review of the literature. Is this just a lot of hot air? Surg Endosc. 2003;17(6):979–987. - PubMed
    1. Ott DE, Moss E, Martinez K. Aerosol exposure from an ultrasonically activated (harmonic) device. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1998;5(1):29–32. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources