Analysis of Pancreatic Tissue Injury Caused by Ultrasonically Activated Devices

Conference paper


Pancreatic fistula has been reported to occur more frequently in laparoscopic surgery than conventional open surgery. An ultrasonically activated device (USAD) has been raised as one of the cause of that, because of its frequent usage in laparoscopic surgeries and allegedly harmful side effect such as cavitation and/or lateral thermal effect. This research has been conducted to determine whether USAD could be the direct cause of pancreatic fistula using an animal model. The pancreas of a 3-month-old domestic pig weighing 30 kg was exposed under general anesthesia. USADs were activated in contact with the pancreas with various activation times and locations of the blades, and histopathological analyses of the specimens were performed. As a result, coagulation necrosis was observed at activation sites in all specimens. However, much less protein clotting covering the damaged sites was observed with USADs compared with electric scalpels. These data suggest that USADs are more likely to cause pancreatic tissue damage which leads to pancreatic fistula compared with conventional electric scalpels.


Laparoscopic Surgery Pancreatic Fistula Pancreatic Tissue Activation Duration Coagulation Necrosis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Obama K et al (2011) Feasibility of laparoscopic gastrectomy with radical lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: from a viewpoint of pancreas-related complications. Surgery 149(1):15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jiang X, Hiki N, Nunobe S, Kumagai K, Nohara K, Sano T, Yamaguchi T (2012) Postoperative pancreatic fistula and the risk factors of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 19:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nduka CC, Poland N, Kennedy M, Dye J, Darzi A (1998) Does the ultrasonically activated scalpel release viable airborne cancer cells? Surg Endosc 12:1031–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hashimoto S et al (2012) Analysis of tissue damage caused by ultrasonically activated device. JSES 15(2):175–181Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hachiya H et al (2012) Verification of generated cavitation of an ultrasonically activated scalpel. Jpn J Med Ultrason 39(2):101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ogura G et al (2009) Development of an articulating ultrasonically activated device for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23(9):2138–2142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kinoshita T et al (1999) Experimental study on heat production by a 23.5-kHz ultrasonically activated device for endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 13:621–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maxwell C (1892) A treatise on electricity and magnetism, vol 2, 3rd edn. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 68–73Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate school of EngineeringChiba UniversityChibaJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of MedicineChiba UniversityChibaJapan
  3. 3.Research Center for Frontier Medical EngineeringChiba UniversityChibaJapan

Personalised recommendations