Advertisement

Thermal effects of a novel electrosurgical device for focused preparation in breast surgery tested in a specified porcine tissue ex vivo breast model using infrared measurement

  • S. M. HoffmannEmail author
  • D. Kappel
  • A. Fech
  • M. D. Enderle
  • M. Weiss
  • M. Hahn
  • S. Y. Brucker
  • B. Kraemer
General Gynecology
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

This article investigates the qualities and thermal effects of a novel electrosurgical device (PT) which has been designed by ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH, Germany, for the preparation of critical locations such as in skin-sparing or nipple-sparing techniques and compares it to a standard device (SD) in a porcine ex vivo breast model using an heat map generated by infrared thermography.

Methods

In total, 42 abdominal wall specimens of porcine tissue consisting of the skin and the underlying subcutaneous and muscle layer were alternately dissected using one of the devices and pre-settings. During the preparation with the two devices, the epicutaneous temperature was measured by an infrared camera (VarioCam, Jenoptik, Germany) and the maximum temperature as well as the slope of the temperature rise was analysed.

Results

The use of PT shows significantly lower values for \( \overline{{\Delta T_{\text{max} } }} \) compared to SD. This effect was independent from the chosen mode. Using the same instrument in different modes, the use of AutoCut mode showed a significant reduction of \( \overline{{\Delta T_{\text{max} } }} \) at all indicated time points (SD: p < 0.0001 and PT: p < 0.0001). In summary, the combination of AutoCut + PT showed the lowest rise in temperature, whereas the combination of DryCut + SD led to the highest rise in temperature. The temperature difference between these two settings was 13.84 °C, which means a possible temperature reduction of 67% can be achieved by the right choice of device and its tailored mode.

Conclusions

The novel PT shows a significant reduction in epicutaneous temperature and a significant reduction of the slope of temperature rise most probably by a more focused application of energy compared to SD.

Keywords

Mastectomy Electrosurgery Porcine model Infrared thermography 

Notes

Author contribution

DK and AF carried out the experiments. SMH wrote the manuscript with support from MW and in consultation with MH and SYB. MDE and BK conceived the original idea and supervised the whole process.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Markus Enderle is president of research at ERBE GmbH. Andreas Fech is employed engineer at ERBE GmbH. The other authors declare to have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Rhiem K, Schmutzler RK (2015) Risk factors and prevention of breast cancer. Der Onkologe 21(3):202–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schott S, Vetter L, Keller M, Bruckner T, Golatta M, Eismann S, Dikow N, Evers C, Sohn C, Heil J (2017) Women at familial risk of breast cancer electing for prophylactic mastectomy: frequencies, procedures, and decision-making characteristics. Arch Gynecol Obstet 295(6):1451–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Murthy V, Chamberlain RS (2013) Defining a place for nipple sparing mastectomy in modern breast care: an evidence based review. Breast J 19(6):571–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Alcantara Filho P, Capko D, Barry JM, Morrow M, Pusic A, Sacchini VS (2011) Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk-reducing surgery: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience. Ann Surg Oncol 18(11):3117–3122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Didier F, Radice D, Gandini S, Bedolis R, Rotmensz N, Maldifassi A, Santillo B, Luini A, Galimberti V, Scaffidi E, Lupo F, Martella S, Petit JY (2009) Does nipple preservation in mastectomy improve satisfaction with cosmetic results, psychological adjustment, body image and sexuality? Breast Cancer Res Treat 118(3):623–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schmidt JL, Wetzel CM, Lange KW, Heine N, Ortmann O (2017) Patients’ experience of breast reconstruction after mastectomy and its influence on postoperative satisfaction. Arch Gynecol Obstet 296(4):827–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jud SM, Hatko R, Maihöfner C, Bani MR, Schrauder MG, Lux MP, Beckmann MW, Bani G, Eder I, Fasching PA, Loehberg CR, Rauh C, Hein A (2014) Comprehensive visualization of paresthesia in breast cancer survivors. Arch Gynecol Obstet 290(1):135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wendt-Nordahl G, Häcker A, Fastenmeier K, Knoll T, Reich O, Alken P, Michel MS (2005) New bipolar resection device for transurethral resection of the prostate: first ex vivo and in vivo evaluation. J Endourol 19(10):1203–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Michel MS, Köhrmann KU, Weber A, Krautschick AW, Alken P (1996) Rotoresect: new technique for resection of the prostate: experimental phase. J Endourol 10(5):473–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Szyrach MN, Tolba RH, Voigtländer M, Neugebauer A, Enderle MD (2010) Evaluation of the hemostatic and coagulation effects of AUTO CUT and DRY CUT using a computer-controlled cutting system. Urology 75(5):1217–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ng EY, Tan HM, Ooi EH (2010) Prediction and parametric analysis of thermal profiles within heated human skin using the boundary element method. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 368(1912):655–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weiss R, Weiss M, Beasley K, Vrba J, Bernardy J (2013) Operator independent focused high frequency ISM band for fat reduction: porcine model. Lasers Surg Med 45(4):235–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rothmund R, Schoeller D, Neugebauer A, Scharpf M, Fend F, Schenk M, Wallwiener D, Kraemer B (2012) Evaluation of thermal damage in a pig model. J Invest Surg 25(1):43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rothmund R, Kraemer B, Neis F, Brucker S, Wallwiener M, Reda A, Hausch A, Scharpf M, Szyrach MN (2012) Efficacy and safety of the novel electrosurgical vessel sealing and cutting instrument BiCision. Surg Endosc 26(11):3334–3343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    El-Brawany MA, Nassiri DK, Terhaar G, Shaw A, Rivens I, Lozhken K (2009) Measurement of thermal and ultrasonic properties of some biological tissues. J Med Eng Technol 33(3):249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. M. Hoffmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • D. Kappel
    • 1
  • A. Fech
    • 2
  • M. D. Enderle
    • 2
  • M. Weiss
    • 1
  • M. Hahn
    • 1
  • S. Y. Brucker
    • 1
  • B. Kraemer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.ERBE Elektromedizin GmbHTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations