CLINICAL USE OF LIGASURE™ DEVICES IN HYSTERECTOMY

Highlighted are countries of origin for publications demonstrating the successful use of LigaSure™ technology in clinical settings across all types of hysterectomy.

Product Portfolio

  • *. Other energy devices have included conventional and advanced energy bipolar, and harmonic scalpel. 

  • 1. Rhou, Y. J. J. et al. Direct hospital costs of total laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with fast-trackopen hysterectomy at a tertiary hospital: A retrospective case-controlled study. Aust. New Zeal. J.Obstet. Gynaecol. 55, 584–587 (2015). 

  • 2. Nouri, K. et al. Bipolar vessel sealing increases operative safety in laparoscopic-assisted vaginalhysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obs. 283, 91–95 (2009). (PMID: 20039049)

  • 3. Silva-Filho, A. L. et al. Randomized study of bipolar vessel sealing system versus conventional sutureligature for vaginal hysterectomy. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 146, 200–203 (2009). (PMID:19380188) 

  • 4. Iwanicki, S., Cenaiko, D. & Robert, M. Retrospective review of vaginal salpingectomies: Success ratesand complications. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 25, S165–S166 (2014). 

  • 5. Labib, K., El-Mansy, H. & Ibrahim, M. Laparoscopic Hysterectomy of a 20 weeks uterus weighting 1 Kgwith extensive adhesions. Gynecol. Surg. 13, S173–S173 (2016). 

  • 6. Wattiez, A., Vazquez, A., Maia, S. & Alcocer, J. Total laparoscopic removal of huge uterus using theligasureTM device, classical bipolar and barbed V-locTM suture. Gynecol. Surg. 8, S81–S81 (2011). 

  • 7. Fleisch, M. C., Nestle-Kramling, C., Benthin, M., Stoff-Khalili, M. A. & Dall, P. Initial experience with a Abipolar blood vessel sealing system (LigasureTM) for gynecologic oncology surgery. GeburtshilfeFrauenheilkd. 63, 555–559 (2003). 

  • 8. Kriplani, A., Garg, P., Sharma, M., Lal, S. & Agarwal, N. A review of total laparoscopic hysterectomy usingLigaSure uterine artery-sealing device: AIIMS experience. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. A 18, 825–9(2008). (PMID: 18999973) 

  • 9. Bina, I. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. Iran. J. Reprod. Med. 9, 39–40 (2011). 

  • 10. Nevin-Maguire, D. et al. Laparoscopic resection of a rudimentary uterine horn in a patient with multiplecongenital anomalies. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 185, S232 (2016). (PMID: 72342005) 

  • 11. Rossetti, D. et al. Usefulness of vessel-sealing devices for peripartum hysterectomy: a retrospectivecohort study. Updat. Surg 67, 301–304 (2015). (PMID: 25813428) 

  • 12. Bani-Irshaid, I. & Nussair, B. Ligasure vessel sealing system versus conventional suture ligation methodin vaginal hysterectomy. J. R. Med. Serv. 21, 25–31 (2014).

  • 13. Kyo, S. et al. Experience and efficacy of a bipolar vessel sealing system for radical abdominalhysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 19, 1658–1661 (2009). (PMID: 19955955) 

  • 14. Essadi, F., Elmehashi, M., Sharkasi, A. & Ataweel, S. M. Ligasure versus traditional suture ligature inabdominal hysterectomy. Fertil. Steril. 92, S124–S124 (2009). 

  • 15. Leal, C., Ceron, R., Rubio, V. & Unda, M. E. Ultrasonic Energy (Harmonic Ace) Versus Advanced BipolarEnergy (Ligasure) in a Laparoscopic Hyterectomies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22, S166 (2015). (PMID:27678920) 

  • 16. Lakeman, M. M. E. et al. Electrosurgical bipolar vessel sealing versus conventional clamping and suturingfor vaginal hysterectomy: A randomised controlled trial. BJOG An Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 119, 1473–1482 (2012). (PMID: 22925365) 

  • 17. Suisted P., C. B. Perioperative outcomes of total laparoscopic hysterectomy at a regional hospital inNew Zealand. Aust. New Zeal. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 57, 81–86 (2017). (PMID: 28251631) 

  • 18. Hagen, B., Eriksson, N. & Sundset, M. Randomised controlled trial of LigaSure versus conventionalsuture ligature for abdominal hysterectomy. BJOG An Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 112, 968–970 (2005).(PMID: 15958001) 

  • 19. Ferreira, H. C., Soares, S., Caldas, R., Morgado, A. & Tome, A. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilabilateral adnexectomy using a ligasure maryland jaw instrument. Gynecol. Surg. 13, S166–S166 (2016).

  • 20. Plekhanov A, Shishkina I & Gamolin, V. How sils-port use makes laparoscopic subtotal hysterectomyfaster and safer procedure? Gynecol Surg 11, 304 (2014).

  • 21. Cronjé, H. S. & De Coning, E. C. Electrosurgical bipolar vessel sealing during vaginal hysterectomy. Int. J.Gynecol. Obstet. 91, 243–245 (2005). (PMID: 16243338) 

  • 22. Yang, Y. S., Kim, S. Y., Hur, M. H. & Oh, K. Y. Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery-assistedVersus Single-port Laparoscopic-assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy: A Case-matched Study. J. Minim.Invasive Gynecol. 21, 624–631 (2014). (PMID: 24462594) 

  • 23. Gilabert-Estelles, J., Castello, J. M. & Gilabert-Aguilar, J. Transumbilical single-port laparoscopichysterectomy: Feasibility of the technique. Gynecol. Surg. 6, S55–S56 (2009). 

  • 24. Han, C. M. et al. Feasibility of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy using conventionalinstruments. Gynecol. Minim. Invasive Ther. 3, 47–49 (2014). (PMID: 2014454127)

  • 25. Aytan, H., Nazik, H., Narin, R., Api, M. & Tok, E. C. Comparison of the Use of LigaSure, HALO PKS CuttingForceps, and ENSEAL Tissue Sealer in Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Randomized Trial. J. Minim.Invasive Gynecol. 21, 650–655 (2014). (PMID: 24462850) 

  • 26. Vanga, P., Padma, V. & Mohammed, A. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy: Our first experience. Gynecol.Surg. 10, S100–S101 (2013). 

  • 27. Holloran-Schwartz, M. B., Gavard, J. A., Martin, J. C., Blaskiewicz, R. J. & Yeung, P. P. Single-Use EnergySources and Operating Room Time for Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J.Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 23, 72–77 (2016). (PMID: 26318400)

  • 28. Rivero, J., Sotelo, R., Rivero, J., Oswaldo, C. & Monish, A. Laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) simplehysterectomy. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 107, S408–S409 (2009). 

  • 29. Lakeman M, Kruitwagen RF, Vos MC, Roovers JP. Electrosurgical bipolar vessel sealingversus conventional clamping and suturing for total abdominal hysterectomy: a randomizedtrial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(5):547-53. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2008.05.011.PMID:18619923

  • 30. Janssen PF, Brolmann HA, van Kesteren PJ, Bongers MY, et al. Perioperative outcomes usingLigaSure compared with conventional bipolar instruments in laparoscopic hysterectomy: arandomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2011;118(13):1568-75. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03089.x. PMID:21895949

  • 31. Elhao M, Abdallah K, Serag I, El-Laithy M, et al. Efficacy of using electrosurgical bipolar vesselsealing during vaginal hysterectomy in patients with different degrees of operative difficulty:a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;147(1):86-90.doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.07.011. PMID:19729238

  • 32. Gizzo S, Burul G, Di Gangi S, Lamparelli L, et al. LigaSure vessel sealing system in vaginalhysterectomy: safety, efficacy and limitations. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288(5):1067-74.doi:10.1007/s00404-013-2857-1. PMID:23625333

  • 33. Demirturk F, Aytan H, Caliskan AC. Comparison of the use of electrothermal bipolar vesselsealer with harmonic scalpel in total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Journal of Obstetrics andGynaecology Research. 2007;33(3):341-345. PMID:17578364