Nonstick nano-coating technology enhances the performance of the LigaSure™ Maryland jaw device.
The multifunctional LigaSure™ Maryland jaw device now delivers even greater procedural efficiency.1,2,§
Because — compared to the legacy device — the new nonstick nano-coated jaws:
So you get these benefits in addition to the performance you expect from the LigaSure™ Maryland jaw device.
We engineered our multifunctional LigaSure™ Maryland jaw device to provide efficiency throughout the procedure.([FOOTNOTE=Based on internal test report #RE00071598, Maryland validation labs: Independent surgeon feedback collected during porcine labs in Houston and Los Angeles. April 16 to 18 and April 30 to May 3, 2013.],[ANCHOR=],[LINK=]),§§ Now, we’ve taken that efficiency to the next level — by putting nonstick nano-coating on the jaws.2,§
With the LigaSure™ Maryland jaw device you get the benefits of:
The LigaSure™ Maryland jaw device delivers5:
The LigaSure™ Maryland jaw device is available in three lengths:
The new LigaSure™ Maryland jaw device is designed to help you treat patients — reliably and efficiently.2,§
Because we combined the benefits of nonstick nano-coating technology with the predictable performance of LigaSure™ vessel-sealing technology.
Nano-coating is a highly controlled, thin-film coating with uniform thickness. It covers the entire jaws of a LigaSure™ device without impacting the intelligent vessel-sealing algorithms of Valleylab™ energy platforms.([FOOTNOTE=Based on internal test report #RE00070396 Rev A, Verification of the LF1923/LF1937/LF1944 Maryland devices in a renal bench burst study: iterations Maryland. Nov. 7–10, 2016.],[ANCHOR=],[LINK=])
For the LigaSure™ Maryland jaw device, compared to its uncoated counterpart, that means:
The net benefit is smoother, more efficient procedures.2,§
LigaSure™ technology has been setting the standard of care for vessel sealing for nearly two decades.
LigaSure™ technology uses the body’s own collagen and elastin to create a permanent seal that can withstand three times normal systolic blood pressure.([FOOTNOTE=Based on internal test report #R0064457, LigaSure™ device renal bench burst pressure evaluation of the Valleylab™ FT10 energy platform. May 3, 2015.],[ANCHOR=],[LINK=]) It’s been used in more than 19 million procedures worldwide.([FOOTNOTE=Based on internal report #US161132(1), Sales data from FY01 to FY17. July 2017.],[ANCHOR=],[LINK=]),§§§ And is supported by an ever-growing body of clinical evidence.
With an average seal cycle of one to four seconds in most surgical situations,([FOOTNOTE=Based on internal test report #RE00025819 Rev A, LigaSure™ device data sources for VLFT10 white papers. September 2015.],[ANCHOR=],[LINK=]) LigaSure™ technology can seal vessels up to and including 7 mm, lymphatics, and tissue bundles. It also eliminates the guesswork — and minimises thermal spread([FOOTNOTE=Based on internal test report #RE00005503, Verification report: GLP acute animal lab: LigaSure™ device preclinical evaluation of Valleylab™ FT10 energy platform. May 19, 2015.],[ANCHOR=],[LINK=]) — by automatically discontinuing energy delivery when the seal cycle is complete.9
The LigaSure™ Maryland jaw portfolio works great when powered by the ForceTriad™ energy platform with 3.6 software and higher. For optimal performance, use it with the Valleylab™ FT10 energy platform.
The Valleylab™ FT10 energy platform makes LigaSure™ devices better than ever.9,([FOOTNOTE=Based on internal test report #RE00005401 Rev A, Product validation of Valleylab™ FT10 energy platform: surgeon and nurse evaluation in simulated use. Jan. 27 to 30, 2015 and Feb. 24 to 27, 2015.],[ANCHOR=],[LINK=])
† Eschar buildup assessed using optical imaging analysis after 60 seal and divide cycles.
‡ Instances of tissue sticking to jaws measured over 110 seals per device.
§ Cleaning effectiveness assessed after each of two cleaning cycles.
Ω When compared to the surgeon’s primary device, 23 out of 32 surveyed agreed.
†† 31 out of 33 surgeons surveyed agreed.
§§ 32 out of 32 surgeons surveyed agreed.
ΩΩ 33 out of 33 surgeons surveyed agreed.
†† 21 out of 32 surgeons surveyed agreed.
‡‡‡ 30 out of 33 surgeons surveyed agreed.
‡‡‡ Based on data from 2001 through FY17.