Academic Journal
Comparative Clinical Effectiveness and Operating Efficiency of Different Ultrasonic Devices for Performance of Sleeve Gastrectomy.
| Title: | Comparative Clinical Effectiveness and Operating Efficiency of Different Ultrasonic Devices for Performance of Sleeve Gastrectomy. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Misra M; Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. monali.misra@cshs.org., Pan IW; Surgical OU, Clinical Medical Affair and HEPR, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA., Siddiqui ZA; Surgical OU, Clinical Medical Affair and HEPR, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA., Bisceglie F; Surgical OU, Clinical Medical Affair and HEPR, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA., Kroh M; Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA.; Surgical OU, Core Surgical Innovations, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA. |
| Source: | Obesity surgery [Obes Surg] 2026 Oct; Vol. 36 (10), pp. 5173-5182. Date of Electronic Publication: 2026 Aug 18. |
| Publication Type: | Journal Article; Comparative Study |
| Language: | English |
| Journal Info: | Publisher: Springer Science + Business Media Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 9106714 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1708-0428 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 09608923 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Obes Surg Subsets: MEDLINE |
| Imprint Name(s): | Publication: 2006- : New York : Springer Science + Business Media Original Publication: Oxford, OX, UK : Rapid Communications of Oxford, [1991- |
| MeSH Terms: | Gastrectomy*/instrumentation , Gastrectomy*/methods , Obesity, Morbid*/surgery , Ultrasonic Surgical Procedures*/instrumentation, Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data ; Humans ; Female ; Male ; Adult ; Middle Aged ; Operative Time ; Treatment Outcome |
| Abstract: | Introduction: This study aims to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes of using different ultrasonic energy devices in patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Methods: The patient cohort was extracted from PINC AI™ Healthcare Data 2019-2023, including individuals aged ≥ 18 who underwent primary elective gastric sleeve procedures using either corded (CD) or cordless (CL) ultrasonic devices (UD). Two analysis groups were evaluated: total SG regardless of the - stapler brand used in the operation (Cohort I), and UD used with an identifiable same-brand stapler in the operation (Cohort II). A propensity score matching (PSM) method with a caliper of 0.2 and 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching was performed for patients who used CD and CL. We applied multivariable generalized linear model (GLM) analyses for sensitivity analyses. Results: 24160 and 18906 patients were included for cohorts I (82.3% CD and 17.7% CL; 4268 PSM paired) and II (81.7% CD and 18.3% CL; 3282 PSM paired), respectively. CD had higher operating-room time (minutes) than CL in both Cohort I (mean difference: 27 (95% confidence interval (CI): (24, 29), p < 0.001) and II (27 (24, 30), p < 0.001). There is no difference in incidence rates of blood transfusion, bleeding, and 30-day readmission, and total inpatient cost and length of stay between CD and CL. The sensitivity analyses showed similar results. Conclusions: The study shows that CL had similar clinical and economic outcomes to CD, and CL was more efficient in patients treated with sleeve gastrectomy. Key Points: • Cordless ultrasonic devices were more efficient when used in sleeve gastrectomy. • Outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy used cordless/corded ultrasonic device were similar. • Resource use of cordless/corded ultrasonic device was similar in sleeve gastrectomy. (© 2026. The Author(s).) |
| Competing Interests: | Declarations. Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate: The PHD is de-identified by the HIPAA Privacy Rule. This study was determined exempt from full board review by Sterling IRB. Consent for Publication: Not applicable. Competing Interest: MM received consulting fees from Medtronic, plc. IP, ZAS, and FB are Medtronic employees and stockholders. MK is CMO of Medtronic, Advisory Board for Endolumik and Kintsugi. |
| Comments: | Erratum in: Obes Surg. 2026 Oct;36(10):5183. doi: 10.1007/s11695-026-08911-y.. (PMID: 42629478) Erratum in: Obes Surg. 2026 Oct 27. doi: 10.1007/s11695-026-08988-5.. (PMID: 42945024) |
| References: | Raj AD, BCR, Fatima SA. An update of electro surgery devices options in minimal invasive surgery a review. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2023 May. 2023;5(12):1521–31. (PMID: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20231258) Greenberg JA. Soncision Cordless Ultrasonic Dissection Device. Reviews Obsterics Gynecol. 2013;6(2):100–1. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC3848668. Shabbir A, Dargan D. Advancement and benefit of energy sealing in minimally invasive surgery. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2014;7(2):95–101. PubMed PMID: 24754878. (PMID: 10.1111/ases.1210124754878) Devassy R, Gopalakrishnan S, De Wilde RL. Surgical Efficacy Among Laparoscopic Ultrasonic Dissectors: Are We Advancing Safely? A Review of Literature. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2015;65(5):293–300. PubMed PMID: 26405398. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC4579153. Epub 20150914. (PMID: 10.1007/s13224-015-0774-x264053984579153) Sutton PA, Awad S, Perkins AC, Lobo DN. Comparison of lateral thermal spread using monopolar and bipolar diathermy, the Harmonic Scalpel and the Ligasure. Br J Surg. 2010;97(3):428–33. PubMed PMID: 20101674. (PMID: 10.1002/bjs.690120101674) Sankaranarayanan G, Resapu RR, Jones DB, Schwaitzberg S, De S. Common uses and cited complications of energy in surgery. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(9):3056–72. PubMed PMID: 23609857. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC3755039. Epub 20130423. (PMID: 10.1007/s00464-013-2823-9236098573755039) Weld KJ, Dryer S, Ames CD, Cho K, Hogan C, Lee M, et al. Analysis of surgical smoke produced by various energy-based instruments and effect on laparoscopic visibility. J Endourol. 2007;21(3):347–51. PubMed PMID: 17444785. (PMID: 10.1089/end.2006.999417444785) van Rutte PW, Lup SL, Luyer MD, Jakimowicz JJ, Goossens RH, Nienhuijs SW. Comparative Study of Performance in Ultrasonic Tissue Dissection for Sleeve Gastrectomy: Wired versus Cordless. Surg Technol Int. 2016;28:111–6. PubMed PMID: 27175810. (PMID: 27175810) Kim SJ, Gadah A, Song KY. Comparison of Medisonic with Harmonic HD 1000i and Sonicision ultrasonic energy device in laparoscopic gastrectomy: a pilot randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2023;105(2):91–8. PubMed PMID: 37564942. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC10409633. Epub 20230801. (PMID: 10.4174/astr.2023.105.2.913756494210409633) PINC AI™ Applied Sciences, Premier Inc. PINC AI™ healthcare database: data that informs and performs (white paper). Premier Inc. 2024 [updated December 2024; cited 2025 Jan 03 2025]. Available from: https://offers.pinc-ai.com/PINC-AI-Healthcare-Database-White-Paper-LP.html. Kloosterman R, Wright GWJ, Salvo-Halloran EM, Ferko NC, Mennone JZ, Clymer JW, et al. An umbrella review of the surgical performance of Harmonic ultrasonic devices and impact on patient outcomes. BMC Surg. 2023;23(1):180. PubMed PMID: 37386399. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC10308659. Epub 20230629. (PMID: 10.1186/s12893-023-02057-93738639910308659) Abi Antoun M, Etrusco A, Chiantera V, Lagana AS, Feghali E, Khazzaka A, et al. Outcomes of conventional and advanced energy devices in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2024;33(1):1–12. PubMed PMID: 38164811. Epub 20240202. (PMID: 10.1080/13645706.2023.227439638164811) Lee E, Tong JY, Pasick LJ, Benito DA, Joshi A, Thakkar PG, et al. Complications associated with energy-based devices during thyroidectomy from 2010–2020. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023;9(1):35–44. PubMed PMID: 37006740. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC10050967. Epub 20220428. (PMID: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2021.04.00837006740) Consumer price index for hospital services in the US. In. Statistics UBoL, editor Washing D.C.: US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2024. Glasheen WP, Cordier T, Gumpina R, Haugh G, Davis J, Renda A. Charlson comorbidity index: icd-9 update and icd-10 translation. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2019;12(4):188–97. (PMID: 314282366684052) Lewis KH, Callaway K, Argetsinger S, Wallace J, Arterburn DE, Zhang F, et al. Concurrent hiatal hernia repair and bariatric surgery: outcomes after sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2021;17(1):72–80. PubMed PMID: 33109444. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC8116048. Epub 20200903. (PMID: 10.1016/j.soard.2020.08.03533109444) Clapp B, Liggett E, Barrientes A, Aguirre K, Marwaha V, Tyroch A. Concomitant hiatal hernia repair with sleeve gastrectomy: a 5-year analysis. JSLS. 2020;24(4). Clapp B, Ponce J, Corbett J, Ghanem OM, Kurian M, Rogers AM, et al. American society for metabolic and bariatric surgery 2022 estimate of metabolic and bariatric procedures performed in the United States. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2024;20(5):425–31. (PMID: 10.1016/j.soard.2024.01.01238448343) Alsuhibani A, Thompson JR, Wigle PR, Guo JJ, Lin AC, Rao MB, et al. Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Utilization Trends in the United States: Evidence From 2012 to 2021 National Electronic Medical Records Network. Ann Surg Open. 2023;4(4):e317. PubMed PMID: 38144499. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC10735086. Epub 20231204. (PMID: 10.1097/AS9.00000000000003173814449910735086) Cheng H, Hsiao CW, Clymer JW, Schwiers ML, Tibensky BN, Patel L, et al. Gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis comparing the harmonic scalpel to conventional techniques. Int J Surg Oncol. 2015;2015:397260. (PMID: 260750904446499) Yamazaki Y, Kanaji S, Kudo T, Takiguchi G, Urakawa N, Hasegawa H, et al. Quantitative Comparison of Surgical Device Usage in Laparoscopic Gastrectomy Between Surgeons’ Skill Levels: an Automated Analysis Using a Neural Network. J Gastrointest Surg. 2022;26(5):1006–14. PubMed PMID: 34755310. Epub 20211109. (PMID: 10.1007/s11605-021-05161-434755310) Kang B, Keum H, Park HY, Jung JH, Kim WW, Lee J. Usefulness of cordless ultrasonic cutting energy devices in endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy: a retrospective study. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2024;106(3):147–54. PubMed PMID: 38435493. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC10902625. Epub 20240222. (PMID: 10.4174/astr.2024.106.3.1473843549310902625) Kim FJ, Sehrt D, Pompeo A, Molina WR. Comparison of surgical plume among laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors using a real-time digital quantitative technology. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(12):3408–12. PubMed PMID: 22660839. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC3505554. Epub 20120604. (PMID: 10.1007/s00464-012-2351-z226608393505554) |
| Contributed Indexing: | Keywords: Advanced energy devices; Operating room time; Sleeve gastrectomy |
| Entry Date(s): | Date Created: 20260818 Date Completed: 20261007 Latest Revision: 20261027 |
| Update Code: | 20261027 |
| PubMed Central ID: | PMC13645881 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11695-026-08892-y |
| PMID: | 42608501 |
| Database: | MEDLINE |
| ISSN: | 1708-0428 |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11695-026-08892-y |