Search

Introduction: The SAGES Fundamental Use of Surgical Energy (FUSE) program accompanied by a bench-top simulation has shown to improve knowledge of the safe use of energy devices. However, there are significant barriers and costs associated with delivering an effective structured simulation curriculum to a widespread international audience. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if bench-top simulation FUSE curriculum through telementoring is as effective as a live-in house proctor for electrosurgical training., Methods: A two-armed multi-institutional randomized controlled trial was designed, including a 1-h didactic electrosurgery course (FUSE curriculum), followed by a structured 1-h bench-top simulation training session. For the simulation, participants were randomized to either a live proctor who delivered the course on-site (LIVE group), or a proctor from a remote location using videoconferencing platform (TELEM group). Pre- and post-curriculum (immediate and 6 months) knowledge and self-perceived comfort and competence were assessed. Data are expressed as median [interquartile range], *p < 0.05., Results: Sixty-five (35 LIVE; 30 TELEM) surgical trainees from three institutions participated. Baseline characteristics were similar. Total score on the exam improved from 47% [40-54] to 78% [71-84]* amongst all participants, with similar immediate post-curriculum scores in the LIVE group compared to the TELEM group (77% [69-83] vs 80% [75-85]). At 6 months, performance on the exam declined significantly for both groups, but remained similar between the two (LIVE: 59% [51-71] vs TELEM: 71% [57-77]). Participants in both groups reported feeling greater comfort and competence post-curriculum (immediate and at 6 months) compared to baseline, with no difference between the two groups., Conclusion: A bench-top simulation FUSE course delivered via a telementoring platform seems to improve surgical trainees' knowledge and comfort in the safe use of electrosurgical devices as effectively as when it is delivered by a live proctor, despite long-term decay for both methods.

Surgical smoke evacuators may reduce the concentration of alcohol vapors from skin preparations at the site of electrosurgical device activation, decreasing operating room fire risk. Our aim was to compare the incidence of flames with and without smoke evacuation in a porcine ex vivo model. A monopolar device was activated after application of either 70% isopropyl alcohol/2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG-IPA) or 74% isopropyl alcohol/0.7% iodine povacrylex (iodine-IPA) skin preparations. No suction was compared with standard wall suction and 2 monopolar devices with built-in smoke evacuators. Flames were generated in 60% of CHG-IPA and 47% of iodine-IPA tests without suction. Wall suction did not significantly reduce fires (CHG-IPA 43% vs. 60%, P=0.30; iodine-IPA 57% vs. 47%, P=0.61). Use of both smoke evacuation devices reduced fires for CHG-IPA (17% vs. 60%, P=0.001 and 20% vs. 60%, P=0.004) but not for iodine-IPA. Smoke evacuation devices reduce fire risk when used with a chlorhexidine-alcohol skin preparation.

Background: Energy-based devices are used in nearly every laparoscopic operation. Radiofrequency energy can transfer to nearby instruments via antenna and capacitive coupling without direct contact. Previous studies have described inadvertent energy transfer through bundled cords and nonelectrically active wires. The purpose of this study was to describe a new mechanism of stray energy transfer from the monopolar instrument through the operating surgeon to the laparoscopic telescope and propose practical measures to decrease the risk of injury., Methods: Radiofrequency energy was delivered to a laparoscopic L-hook (monopolar "bovie"), an advanced bipolar device, and an ultrasonic device in a laparoscopic simulator. The tip of a 10-mm telescope was placed adjacent but not touching bovine liver in a standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy setup. Temperature increase was measured as tissue temperature from baseline nearest the tip of the telescope which was never in contact with the energy-based device after a 5-s open-air activation., Results: The monopolar L-hook increased tissue temperature adjacent to the camera/telescope tip by 47 ± 8°C from baseline (P < 0.001). By having an assistant surgeon hold the camera/telescope (rather than one surgeon holding both the active electrode and the camera/telescope), temperature change was reduced to 26 ± 7°C (P < 0.001). Alternative energy devices significantly reduced temperature change in comparison to the monopolar instrument (47 ± 8°C) for both the advanced bipolar (1.2 ± 0.5°C; P < 0.001) and ultrasonic (0.6 ± 0.3°C; P < 0.001) devices., Conclusions: Stray energy transfers from the monopolar "bovie" instrument through the operating surgeon to standard electrically inactive laparoscopic instruments. Hand-to-hand coupling describes a new form of capacitive coupling where the surgeon's body acts as an electrical conductor to transmit energy. Strategies to reduce stray energy transfer include avoiding the same surgeon holding the active electrode and laparoscopic camera or using alternative energy devices., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) places multiple instruments in close, parallel proximity, an orientation that may have implications in the production of stray current from the monopolar "Bovie" instrument. The purpose of this study was to compare the energy transferred during SILS compared to traditional four-port laparoscopic surgery (TRD)., Method: In a laparoscopic simulator, instruments were inserted via SILS or TRD setup. The monopolar generator delivered energy to a laparoscopic L-hook instrument for 5-s activations on 30-Watts coag mode. The primary outcome (stray current) was quantified by measuring the heat of liver tissue held adjacent to the non-electrically active 10-mm telescope tip and Maryland grasper in both the SILS and TRD setups. To control for the potential confounder of stray energy coupling via wires outside the surgical field, the camera cord and active electrode wires were oriented parallel or completely separated., Results: SILS and TRD setups create similar amounts of stray current as measured by increased tissue temperature at the non-electrically active telescope tip (41 ± 12 vs. 39 ± 10 °C; p = 0.71). Stray current was greater in SILS compared to TRD at the tip of the non-electrically active Maryland forceps (38 ± 9 vs. 20 ± 10 °C; p < 0.01). Separation of the active electrode and camera cords did not change the amount of stray energy in the SILS orientation for either telescope (39 ± 10 °C bundled vs. 36 ± 10 °C separated; p = 0.40) or grasper (38 ± 9 °C bundled vs. 34 ± 11 °C separated; p = 0.19) but did in the TRD orientation (41 ± 12 bundled vs. 24 ± 10 separated; p < 0.01). When SILS was compared to TRD with the cords separated, SILS increased stray energy at both the telescope tip and grasper tip (36 ± 10 vs. 24 ± 10 °C; p < 0.01 and 34 ± 11 vs. 17 ± 8 °C; p < 0.01)., Conclusion: SILS increases stray energy transfer nearly twice as much as TRD with the use of the monopolar instrument. Strategies to mitigate the amount of stray energy in the TRD setup such as separation of the active electrode and camera cords are not effective in the SILS setup. These practical findings should enhance surgeons using the SILS approach of increased stray energy that could result in injury.

Background: Insulation defects are observed in 3-39 % of laparoscopic instruments. Electrosurgical injuries due to insulation defects or capacitive coupling remain an issue in laparoscopic surgery with a prevalence of 0.6-5 per thousand cases. Shielded instruments with active electrode monitoring (AEM) have been postulated to prevent these injuries. The benefit of these instruments has not been quantified. Most bowel injuries are unrecognized intra-operatively. Injury is revealed only after the patient exhibits peritonitis symptoms and surgical intervention to repair the bowel is required. These injuries may result in devastating and costly complications or mortality. The extent of bowel injury possible with commonly used generator settings and associated energy output has never been histologically defined. Our objectives in this experimental study were: quantify and compare the energy released through insulation defects or capacitive coupling with standard unshielded monopolar versus shielded instruments with (AEM), determine energy required to cause a visible burn, and relate the histological burn depth to a given amount of energy., Methods: Ex vivo porcine jejunum was used for tissue testing. An oscilloscope measured energy output from three common electrosurgical generators at recommended power settings with standard or AEM instruments with insulation defects and in capacitive coupling scenarios. Presence of a visible burn was noted, and depth of tissue damage for a given amount of energy was measured histologically., Results: All samples that received ≥3.8 J of energy had visible burns. As little as 10 J caused full wall thickness burns. 3.8 J was exceeded at the 30- and 50-W power settings in every experimental scenario using standard monopolar instruments; AEM instruments never approached this much energy., Conclusions: Serious burn injury results from small amounts of energy leaked from standard instruments. AEM instruments appeared protective and did not leak sufficient energy to cause burn injuries to the bowel.

Introduction: The Fundamental Use of Surgical Energy (FUSE) program includes a Web-based didactic curriculum and a high-stakes multiple-choice question examination with the goal to provide certification of knowledge on the safe use of surgical energy-based devices. The purpose of this study was (1) to set a passing score through a psychometrically sound process and (2) to determine what pretest factors predicted passing the FUSE examination., Methods: Beta-testing of multiple-choice questions on 62 topics of importance to the safe use of surgical energy-based devices was performed. Eligible test takers were physicians with a minimum of 1 year of surgical training who were recruited by FUSE task force members. A pretest survey collected baseline information., Results: A total of 227 individuals completed the FUSE beta-test, and 208 completed the pretest survey. The passing/cut score for the first test form of the FUSE multiple-choice examination was determined using the modified Angoff methodology and for the second test form was determined using a linear equating methodology. The overall passing rate across the two examination forms was 81.5%. Self-reported time studying the FUSE Web-based curriculum for a minimum of >2 h was associated with a passing examination score (p < 0.001). Performance was not different based on increased years of surgical practice (p = 0.363), self-reported expertise on one or more types of energy-based devices (p = 0.683), participation in the FUSE postgraduate course (p = 0.426), or having reviewed the FUSE manual (p = 0.428). Logistic regression found that studying the FUSE didactics for >2 h predicted a passing score (OR 3.61; 95% CI 1.44-9.05; p = 0.006) independent of the other baseline characteristics recorded., Conclusion(s): The development of the FUSE examination, including the passing score, followed a psychometrically sound process. Self-reported time studying the FUSE curriculum predicted a passing score independent of other pretest characteristics such as years in practice and self-reported expertise.

Background: Energy devices can result in devastating complications to patients. Yet, they remain poorly understood by trainees and surgeons. A single-institution pilot study suggested that structured simulation improves knowledge of the safe use of electrosurgery (ES) among trainees (Madani et al. in Surg Endosc 28(10):2772-2782, 2014). The purpose of this study was to estimate the extent to which the addition of this structured bench-top simulation improves ES knowledge across multiple surgical training programs., Methods: Trainees from 11 residency programs in Canada, the USA and UK participated in a 1-h didactic ES course, based on SAGES' Fundamental Use of Surgical Energy™ (FUSE) curriculum. They were then randomized to one of two groups: an unstructured hands-on session where trainees used ES devices (control group) or a goal-directed hands-on training session (Sim group). Pre- and post-curriculum (immediately and 3 months after) knowledge of the safe use of ES was assessed using separate examinations. Data are expressed as mean (SD) and N (%), *p < 0.05., Results: A total of 289 (145 control; 144 Sim) trainees participated, with 186 (96 control; 90 Sim) completing the 3-month assessment. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Total score on the examination improved from 46% (10) to 84% (10)* for the entire cohort, with higher post-curriculum scores in the Sim group compared with controls [86% (9) vs. 83% (10)*]. All scores declined after 3 months, but remained higher in the Sim group [72% (18) vs. 64% (15)*]. Independent predictors of 3-month score included pre-curriculum score and participation in a goal-directed simulation., Conclusions: This multi-institutional study confirms that a 2-h curriculum based on the FUSE program improves surgical trainees' knowledge in the safe use of ES devices across training programs with various geographic locations and resident volumes. The addition of a structured interactive bench-top simulation component further improved learning.

Background: Surgical energy-based devices emit energy, which can interfere with other electronic devices (eg, implanted cardiac pacemakers and/or defibrillators). The purpose of this study was to quantify the amount of unintentional energy (electromagnetic interference [EMI]) transferred to an implanted cardiac defibrillator by common surgical energy-based devices., Methods: A transvenous cardiac defibrillator was implanted in an anesthetized pig. The primary outcome measure was the average maximum EMI occurring on the implanted cardiac device during activations of multiple different surgical energy-based devices., Results: The EMI transferred to the implanted cardiac device is as follows: traditional bipolar 30 W .01 ± .004 mV, advanced bipolar .004 ± .003 mV, ultrasonic shears .01 ± .004 mV, monopolar Bovie 30 W coagulation .50 ± .20 mV, monopolar Bovie 30 W blend .92 ± .63 mV, monopolar instrument without dispersive electrode .21 ± .07 mV, plasma energy 3.48 ± .78 mV, and argon beam coagulator 2.58 ± .34 mV., Conclusion: Surgeons can minimize EMI on implanted cardiac defibrillators by preferentially utilizing bipolar and ultrasonic devices., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare histologic evidence of thermal injury at the epigastric and umbilical incisions after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed using the monopolar "Bovie" instrument set on the higher voltage coag mode versus the lower voltage blend mode. We hypothesized that the higher voltage coag mode would create more unintended thermal tissue injury at the epigastric trocar's incision., Methods: A prospective blinded randomized controlled trial of patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed. Patients were randomized to have their operation performed with the monopolar instrument set at 30 W on either the coag mode or the blend mode. Immediately at the end of the operation, a biopsy sample of skin was obtained from the lower edge of the epigastric incision (through which the monopolar instrument was inserted) and the umbilical incision (through which the camera/telescope was inserted). The outcomes measured were histologic evidence of thermal injury at the epigastric and umbilical incisions (determined by a blinded pathologist)., Results: Forty patients were randomized (20 per group). Baseline demographics in the two groups were similar for age, gender, body mass index, preoperative diagnosis, operative time, and blood loss. Unintentional thermal injury was found at 20 % of epigastric incisions and 35 % of umbilical incisions in the total group. The incidence of thermal injury was higher after operations using the coag mode compared to the blend mode at both the epigastric (35 vs. 5 %; p = 0.044) and umbilical (55 vs. 15 %; p = 0.019) trocar incisions., Conclusions: Radiofrequency energy from the monopolar Bovie instrument causes unintentional thermal injury to skin adjacent to the epigastric and umbilical trocar incisions. The incidence of thermal injury was reduced by using the lower voltage blend mode compared to the coag mode at both the epigastric and umbilical trocar incisions., Registration Number: NCT016648060 ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ).

Objectives: (1) To determine if antenna coupling occurs in common operating room scenarios. (2) To define modifiable clinical variables that reduce the magnitude of antenna coupling., Background: Mechanisms of electrosurgical burns where monitoring devices contact the surgical patient are unclear. Antenna coupling occurs when the "bovie" active electrode (electrically active transmitting antenna) emits energy, which is captured by a nonelectrically active wire (electrically inactive receiving antenna) in close proximity without direct contact., Methods: Monopolar radiofrequency energy was delivered to a laparoscopic instrument (electrically active transmitting antenna), whereas other nonelectrically active wires (electrically inactive receiving antenna) including electrocardiogram (EKG) lead, nonactive "bovie" pencil, and nerve electrode monitor were placed in proximity. Temperature changes of tissue placed adjacent to the electrically inactive receiving antennae were measured., Results: Nonelectrically active wires (receiving antenna) increase tissue temperature when lying parallel to the active electrode cord: EKG pad 2.4°C ± 1.2°C (P = 0.002), "bovie" pencil tip 90°C ± 9°C (P < 0.001), and nerve electrode monitor 106°C ± 12°C (P < 0.001). Factors that reduced the heat generated by antenna coupling included the following: increasing angulation between transmitting and receiving antennae (parallel = 90°C ± 9°C; 45° angle = 53°C ± 10°C; perpendicular = 35°C ± 11°C; P < .001), increasing separation distance between parallel transmitting and receiving antenna (<1 cm = 90°C ± 9°C; 15 cm = 44°C ± 18°C; 30 cm = 39°C ± 2°C; P < .001); and decreasing generator power setting (15 W = 59°C ± 11°C; 30 W = 90°C ± 9°C; 45 W = 98°C ± 8°C; P < .001)., Conclusions: Antenna coupling occurs in common operating room scenarios. Simple, practical measures by the surgeon, such as orienting the receiving antenna at a greater angle and with greater separation to the active electrode cord, or lowering the generator power setting reduce antenna coupling.

Purpose: To determine the factors that can be modified by the surgeon to reduce monopolar electrosurgery capacitive coupling during laparoscopy. Specific aims were to determine the capacitive coupling energy using different generator power settings, mode settings (cut vs. coagulation), and surgical techniques (desiccation vs. fulguration vs. open air activation)., Methods: An oscilloscope determined the cumulative energy (Joules) of capacitive coupling occurring using laparoscopic monopolar electrosurgery ex vivo., Results: Higher power settings increased capacitive coupling energy (Joules): 25 Watts (1.1±0.7) versus 50 Watts (2.4±0.5; P<0.05). Coagulation mode created greater capacitive coupling energy (2.2±1.0) in comparison with cut mode (1.1±0.5; P<0.05). Open air activation (3.3±0.6) and fulguration (3.3±1.0) had higher capacitive coupling energy in comparison with desiccation (0.6±0.2; P<0.05)., Conclusions: Surgeons can minimize capacitive coupling energy during laparoscopy by lowering the power setting, using cut mode (instead of coagulation), and using the surgical technique of desiccation (instead of open air activation or fulguration).

Background: Electrosurgery is used in virtually every laparoscopic operation. In the early days of laparoscopic surgery, capacitive coupling, associated with hybrid trocars, was thought to be the major cause of laparoscopic electrosurgery injuries. Modern laparoscopy has reduced capacitive coupling, and now insulation failure is thought to be the main cause of electrosurgical complications. The aim of this study was (1) to determine the incidence of insulation failures, (2) to compare the incidence of insulation failure in reusable and disposable instruments, and (3) to determine the location of insulation failures., Methods: At four major urban hospitals, reusable laparoscopic instruments were checked for insulation failure using a high-voltage porosity detector. Disposable L-hooks were collected following laparoscopic cholecystectomy and similarly evaluated for insulation failure. Instruments were determined to have insulation failure if 2.5 kV crossed the instrument's insulation to create a closed loop circuit. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact or chi(2) analysis (*denotes significance set at p < 0.05)., Results: Two hundred twenty-six laparoscopic instruments were tested (165 reusable). Insulation failure occurred more often in reusable (19%; 31/165) than in disposable instruments (3%; 2/61; *p < 0.01). When reusable sets were evaluated, 71% (12/17) were found to have at least one instrument with insulation failure. Insulation failure incidence in reusable instruments was similar between hospitals that routinely checked for insulation failure (19%; 25/130) and hospitals that do not routinely check for insulation failures (33%; 7/21; p = 0.16). Insulation failure was most common in the distal third of the instruments (54%; 25/46) compared to the middle or proximal third of the instruments (*p < 0.05)., Conclusion: One in five reusable laparoscopic instruments has insulation failure; a finding that is not altered by whether the hospital routinely checks for insulation defects. Disposable instruments have a lower incidence of insulation failure. The distal third of laparoscopic instruments is the most common site of insulation failure.

Operating room (OR) safety has become a major concern in patient safety since the 1990s. Improvement of team communication and behavior is a popular target for safety programming at the institutional level. Despite these efforts, essential safety gaps remain in the OR and procedure rooms. A prime example is the use of energy-based devices in ORs and procedural areas. The lack of fundamental understanding of energy device function, design, and application contributes to avoidable injury and harm at a rate of approximately 1 to 2 per 1000 patients in the US. Hundreds of OR fires occur each year in the US, some causing severe injury and even death. Most of these fires are associated with the use of energy-based surgical devices.In response to this safety issue, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) developed the Fundamental Use of Surgical Energy (FUSE) program. This program includes a standardized curriculum targeted to surgeons, other physicians, and allied health care professionals and a psychometrically designed and validated certification test. A successful FUSE certification documents acquisition of the basic knowledge needed to safely use energy-based devices in the OR. By design FUSE fills a void in the curriculum and competency assessment for surgeons and other procedural specialists in the use of energy-based devices in patients.

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) places multiple instruments in close, parallel proximity, an orientation that may have implications in the production of stray current from the monopolar "Bovie" instrument. The purpose of this study was to compare the energy transferred during SILS compared to traditional four-port laparoscopic surgery (TRD).Method: In a laparoscopic simulator, instruments were inserted via SILS or TRD setup. The monopolar generator delivered energy to a laparoscopic L-hook instrument for 5-s activations on 30-Watts coag mode. The primary outcome (stray current) was quantified by measuring the heat of liver tissue held adjacent to the non-electrically active 10-mm telescope tip and Maryland grasper in both the SILS and TRD setups. To control for the potential confounder of stray energy coupling via wires outside the surgical field, the camera cord and active electrode wires were oriented parallel or completely separated.Results: SILS and TRD setups create similar amounts of stray current as measured by increased tissue temperature at the non-electrically active telescope tip (41 ± 12 vs. 39 ± 10 °C; p = 0.71). Stray current was greater in SILS compared to TRD at the tip of the non-electrically active Maryland forceps (38 ± 9 vs. 20 ± 10 °C; p < 0.01). Separation of the active electrode and camera cords did not change the amount of stray energy in the SILS orientation for either telescope (39 ± 10 °C bundled vs. 36 ± 10 °C separated; p = 0.40) or grasper (38 ± 9 °C bundled vs. 34 ± 11 °C separated; p = 0.19) but did in the TRD orientation (41 ± 12 bundled vs. 24 ± 10 separated; p < 0.01). When SILS was compared to TRD with the cords separated, SILS increased stray energy at both the telescope tip and grasper tip (36 ± 10 vs. 24 ± 10 °C; p < 0.01 and 34 ± 11 vs. 17 ± 8 °C; p < 0.01).Conclusion: SILS increases stray energy transfer nearly twice as much as TRD with the use of the monopolar instrument. Strategies to mitigate the amount of stray energy in the TRD setup such as separation of the active electrode and camera cords are not effective in the SILS setup. These practical findings should enhance surgeons using the SILS approach of increased stray energy that could result in injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Operating room fires are "never events" that remain an under-reported source of devastating complications. One common set-up that promotes fires is the use of surgical skin preparations combined with electrosurgery and oxygen. Limited data exist examining the incidence of fires and surgical skin preparations.Study Design: A standardized, ex vivo model was created with a 15 × 15 cm section of clipped porcine skin. An electrosurgical "Bovie" pencil was activated for 2 seconds on 30 Watts coagulation mode in 21% oxygen (room air), both immediately and 3 minutes after skin preparation application. Skin preparations with and without alcohol were tested, and were applied with and without pooling. Alcohol-based skin preparations included 70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate, 74% IPA with 0.7% iodine povacrylex, and plain 70% IPA.Results: No fires occurred with nonalcohol-based preparations (p < 0.001 vs alcohol-based preparations). Alcohol-based preparations caused flash flames at 0 minutes in 22% (13 of 60) and at 3 minutes in 10% (6 of 60) of tests. When examining pooling of alcohol-based preparations, fires occurred in 38% (23 of 60) at 0 minutes and 27% (16 of 60) at 3 minutes.Conclusions: Alcohol-based skin preparations fuel operating room fires in common clinical scenarios. Following manufacturer guidelines and allowing 3 minutes for drying, surgical fires were still created in 1 in 10 cases without pooling and more than one-quarter of cases with pooling. Surgeons can decrease the risk of an operating room fire by using nonalcohol-based skin preparations or avoiding pooling of the preparation solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]