A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that compared ultrasonic energy and monopolar electrosurgical energy in laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Junjie Xiong,Kiran Altaf,Wei Huang,Muhammad A Javed,Rajarshi Mukherjee,Gang Mai,Weiming Hu,Robert Sutton,Xubao Liu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2012.0157
Abstract:Background: Currently, monopolar electrical energy is still widely used as the main source of energy for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). However, some studies have suggested that the use of ultrasonic energy is more advantageous. This meta-analysis pooled the currently published randomized controlled trials comparing the safety and efficacy of ultrasonic energy and monopolar electrical energy in LC. Materials and methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant articles published between January 1985 to February 2012 by using the search terms "laparoscopic cholecystectomy," "electrocoagulation," "electrosurgery," "ultrasonics," "ultrasonic therapy," and "dissection." Intraoperative and postoperative measures and complications were evaluated. Results: Eight high-quality randomized controlled trials with 1056 patients were included. Differences in mean operation time, mean blood loss, mean hospital stay, gallbladder perforation, and postoperative abdominal pain score at 24 hours were statistically significant between the two groups, in favor of the use of ultrasonic energy. However, there were no differences in operation conversion, bile leakage, intra-abdominal collections, and postoperative nausea at 24 hours. Conclusions: Ultrasonic energy is as safe and effective as electrosurgical energy and potentially might be safer in LC. However, the financial implications of this technical modality need to be established in cost-effectiveness analysis.