Journal of Veterinary Clinics (한국임상수의학회지)

The Korean Society of Veterinary Clinics (한국임상수의학회)
권호 표지

Comparison of $LigaSure^{TM}$ and Bipolar Vessel Sealing System for Laparoscopic Ovariectomy in Cats

복강경을 이용한 고양이의 난소 절제술에서 지혈기구인 $LigaSure^{TM}$와 양극 전기 응고 장치(bipolar)의 비교

  • Jin, So-Young (Laboratory of Veterinary Surgery and Behavior, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Lee, Seung-Yong (Laboratory of Veterinary Surgery and Behavior, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Park, Se-Jin (Laboratory of Veterinary Surgery and Behavior, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Kim, Young-Ki (Haeundae Animal Medical Center) ;
  • Seok, Seong-Hoon (Laboratory of Veterinary Surgery and Behavior, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Hwang, Jae-Min (Laboratory of Veterinary Surgery and Behavior, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Yeon, Seong-Chan (Laboratory of Veterinary Surgery and Behavior, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gyeongsang National University)
  • 진소영 (경상대학교 수의과대학 수의외과.행동학 연구실) ;
  • 이승용 (경상대학교 수의과대학 수의외과.행동학 연구실) ;
  • 박세진 (경상대학교 수의과대학 수의외과.행동학 연구실) ;
  • 김영기 (해운대 동물 메디컬 센터) ;
  • 석성훈 (경상대학교 수의과대학 수의외과.행동학 연구실) ;
  • 황재민 (경상대학교 수의과대학 수의외과.행동학 연구실) ;
  • 연성찬 (경상대학교 수의과대학 수의외과.행동학 연구실)
  • Accepted : 2014.12.08
  • Published : 2014.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate and compare technique, surgical time, and complications of laparoscopic ovariectomy using $LigaSure^{TM}$ and bipolar vessel sealing system in cats. Laparoscopic ovariectomy was performed under general anesthesia on 10 healthy female cats admitted for elective ovariectomy. Surgery was performed through three midline portals. Each ovary was randomly-assigned to removal by use of either $LigaSure^{TM}$ or bipolar vessel sealing system. Duration of predetermined surgery intervals and complications were compared. Bipolar OVE ($2:16{\pm}1:14$ minutes) took significantly longer surgical time compared to the $LigaSure^{TM}$ OVE ($1:24{\pm}0:59$ minutes, P = 0.021). The ovarian pedicle fat and obesity did not influence surgery duration. Intraoperative hemorrhage occurred with bipolar OVE in three cats, but had no significant influence on surgical time. The results suggest that both $LigaSure^{TM}$ and bipolar devices appear to be effective, but $LigaSure^{TM}$ can be used as a stand-alone device that decreases surgical time and complication compared with bipolar vessel sealing system.

본 연구에서는 복강경을 이용한 고양이의 난소절제술에서 지혈 장치로서 $LigaSure^{TM}$와 양극 전기 응고 장치(bipolar)의 효과를 수술시간, 부작용에 대하여 비교해 보고자 하였다. 10마리의 고양이를 각각 5 마리씩 A군과 B군으로 무작위로 나누었고, A군은 좌측 난소는 $LigaSure^{TM}$로, 우측 난소는 양극 전기 응고 장치(bipolar)로 절제하였다. 반대로 B군은 좌측 난소는 양극 전기 응고 장치(bipolar)로, 우측 난소는 $LigaSure^{TM}$로 절제하였다. 수술은 three midline portals로 하였으며, 수술시간, Body Condition Score, ovarian pedicle fat과 부작용 등을 체크하였다. 그 결과, 총 수술시간은 평균 $24:18{\pm}6:36$분 이었으며, $LigaSure^{TM}$ ($1:24{\pm}0:59$ 분)가 양극 전기 응고 장치(bipolar) ($2:16{\pm}1:14$ 분, p = 0.021)에 비하여 난소절제에 유의적으로 더 짧은 시간이 걸렸다. BCS와 ovarian pedicle fat은 수술시간에 유의적인 영향을 미치지 않았으며, 부작용으로는 미약한 출혈, 복벽 손상, smoke 발생 등이 있었는데 수술시간에 유의적인 영향을 미치지 않았다. 이러한 결과들은 $LigaSure^{TM}$가 비교적 고가의 수술장비라는 단점이 있음에도 불구하고 복강경을 이용한 고양이의 난소절제술에 유용한 수술적 활용 방법이 될 수 있을 것이라는 것을 보여준다.

Keywords

References

  1. Arnold S, Arnold P, Hubler M, et al: Urinary incontinence in spayed female dogs: frequency and breed disposition. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd 1989; 131: 259-263.
  2. Culp WT, Mayhew PD, Brown DC: The effect of laparoscopic versus open ovariectomy on postsurgical activity in small dogs. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 811-817. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2009.00572.x
  3. Devitt CM, Cox RE, Hailey JJ: Duration, complications, stress, and pain of open ovariohysterectomy versus a simple method of laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005; 227: 921-927. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2005.227.921
  4. Dupre G, Fiorbianco V, Skalicky M, et al: Laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs: comparison between single portal and two-portal access. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 818-824.
  5. Gamal EM, Metzger P, Szabo G, et al: The influence of intraoperative complications on adhesion formation during laparoscopic and conventional cholecystectomy in an animal model. Surg Endosc 2001; 15: 873-877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004640000358
  6. Hancock RB, Lanz OI, Waldron DR, et al: Comparison of postoperative pain after ovariohysterectomy by harmonic scalpel-assisted laparoscopy compared with median celiotomy and ligation in dogs. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 273-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950x.2005.00041.x
  7. Heniford BT, Matthews BD, Sing RF, et al: Initial results with an electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer. Surg Endosc 2001; 15: 799-801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004640080025
  8. Kennedy JS, Stranahan PL, Taylor KD, et al: High-burststrength, feedback-controlled bipolar vessel sealing. Surg Endosc 1998; 12: 876-878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649900733
  9. Marcovich R, Williams AL, Seifman BD, et al: A canine model to assess the biochemical stress response to laparoscopic and open surgery. J Endourol 2001; 15: 1005-1008. https://doi.org/10.1089/089277901317203100
  10. Matsumoto ED, Margulis V, Tunc L, et al: Cytokine response to surgical stress: comparison of pure laparoscopic, handassisted laparoscopic, and open nephrectomy. J Endourol 2005; 19: 1140-1145. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2005.19.1140
  11. Mayhew PD, Brown DC: Comparison of three techniques for ovarian pedicle hemostasis during laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy. Vet Surg 2007; 36: 541-547. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2007.00280.x
  12. Ohlund M, Hoglund O, Olsson U, et al: Laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs: a comparison of the LigaSure and the SonoSurg systems. J Small Anim Pract 2011; 52: 290-294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2011.01060.x
  13. Okkens AC, Kooistra HS, Nickel RF: Comparison of longterm effects of ovariectomy versus ovariohysterectomy in bitches. J Reprod Fertil Suppl 1997; 51: 227-231.
  14. Schippers E, Tittel A, Ottinger A, et al: Laparoscopy versus laparotomy: comparison of adhesion-formation after bowel resection in a canine model. Dig Surg 1998; 15: 145-147. https://doi.org/10.1159/000018608
  15. van Goethem B, Schaefers-Okkens A, Kirpensteijn J: Making a rational choice between ovariectomy and ovariohysterectomy in the dog: a discussion of the benefits of either technique. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 136-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2006.00124.x
  16. van Goethem B, Rosenveldt KW, Kirpensteijn J: Monopolar versus bipolar electrocoagulation in canine laparoscopic ovariectomy: a nonrandomized, prospective, clinical trial. Vet Surg 2003; 32: 464-470. https://doi.org/10.1053/jvet.2003.50052
  17. van Nimwegen SA, Kirpensteijn J: Comparison of Nd:YAG surgical laser and Remorgida bipolar electrosurgery forceps for canine laparoscopic ovariectomy. Vet Surg 2007; 36: 533-540. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2007.00304.x
  18. van Nimwegen SA, Kirpensteijn J: Laparoscopic ovariectomy in cats: comparison of laser and bipolar electrocoagulation. J Feline Med Surg 2007; 9: 397-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfms.2007.03.007
  19. van Nimwegen SA, Van Swol CF, Kirpensteijn J: Neodymium: yttrium aluminum garnet surgical laser versus bipolar electrocoagulation for laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 353-357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2005.00054.x