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
. 2018 Jan 18;10(1):e2084.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.2084.

Harmonic Scalpel-Assisted Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy - A Non-randomized Control Trial

Affiliations

Harmonic Scalpel-Assisted Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy - A Non-randomized Control Trial

Kumar Rajnish et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

Introduction Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the most commonly done, minimally invasive surgical procedure. Routinely used electrocautery produces more smoke, which masks the operating field, thereby prolongs the surgery and posing an increased risk of gallbladder (GB) perforation. The titanium clips used for clipping the cystic artery and cystic duct have a risk of slippage, which may lead to bleeding, and an increased risk for bile leakage. In addition, it may act as a nidus for stone formation. Advanced energy sources, such as the harmonic scalpel, though expensive, may provide the advantage of shorter operating time by reducing smoke, bloodless dissection in the GB bed, lower risk of bleeding from the cystic artery due to secure vessel sealing, and avoiding the use of a larger number of titanium clips. However, evidence to substantiate this advantage is limited. Aim To compare the operating time and perioperative complications between conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) and harmonic scalpel assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy (HLC). Methodology All consecutive patients who underwent elective LC were included. Patients with acute infection, impaired liver function tests, concomitant common bile duct calculi, chronic liver disease/cirrhosis, suspected GB carcinoma, and pregnant women were excluded from the study. Patients were allocated into two groups. In the CLC group, both the cystic duct and the cystic artery were divided after conventional titanium clip application and electrocautery was used for thermal energy. In the HLC group, the cystic duct was clipped with a titanium clip and the rest of the procedure was carried out using Harmonic Ace (Ethicon, New Jersey, United States) and Harmonic Hook (Ethicon, New Jersey, United States). Outcome parameters analyzed were operating time in minutes, post-operative pain using visual analogue scale (VAS) scoring, frequency and route of analgesic requirement after 24 hours, and intraoperative complications, including bleeding, bile duct injury, GB perforation, and surgical site infection (SSI) in the postoperative period, per the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) criteria. Results Both the groups were comparable with respect to age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and the presence of comorbidity and an indication of cholecystectomy. The duration of surgery did not significantly differ between the groups (67.3 vs. 64.3 mins; p = 0.30). Other parameters, such as analgesic required on postoperative Day 1 (3.2 vs. 3; p = 0.67), VAS scores on Day 0 (4.55 vs. 4.65; p = 0.59), VAS scores on Day 1 (2.3 vs. 2.2; p = 0.84), superficial SSI (15% vs. 10%; p = 0.63), intraoperative GB perforation (30% vs. 20%; p = 0.71), and intraperitoneal drain (30% vs. 20%; p = 0.71) did not significantly differ between the groups. Conclusion HLC has no significant advantage over CLC with respect to operating time, postoperative pain, and perioperative complications.

Keywords: conventional cholecystectomy; electrocautery; harmonic scalpel; laparoscopic cholecystectomy; morbidity; operating time.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. A prospective randomized study of comparison of clipless cholecystectomy with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Jain SK, Tanwar R, Kaza RCM, Agarwal PN. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2011;21:203–208. - PubMed
    1. Monopolar electrocautery versus ultrasonic dissection of the gallbladder from the gallbladder bed in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Mahabaleshwar V, Kaman L, Iqbal J, Singh R. Can J Surg. 2012 ;55:307–311. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Choledochoduodenal fistula caused by migration of endoclip after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hong T, Xu X-Q, He X-D, Qu Q, Li B-L, Zheng C-J. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;28:4827–4829. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dissection by ultrasonic energy versus monopolar electrosurgical energy in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Sasi W. JSLS. 2010;1:23–34. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Single-working-instrument, double-trocar, clipless cholecystectomy using harmonic scalpel: a feasible, safe, and less invasive technique. Redwan AA. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2010;20:597–603. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources