Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 14, 2026
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Longitudinal Incision for Endoscopic Submucosal Excavation of Gastric Subepithelial Lesions
Published on: April 28, 2026
Ultrasonic versus standard electric dissection in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a prospective randomized clinical
Mario Morino1, Roberto Rimonda, Marco Ettore Allaix
1Department of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, University of Turin, Corso A.M. Dogliotti 14, 10126 Turin, Italy. mario.morino@unito.it
Objective:
To assess the safety and efficacy of the ultrasonic dissection (UC) compared with standard electrosurgery (ES) in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
Background Data:
High-frequency ultrasound energy was introduced in laparoscopic surgery to improve dissection and coagulation. Very limited data have been published on its use in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
Methods:
Patients eligible for elective laparoscopic right or left hemicolectomy (RH and LH), sigmoidectomy (SG), or low anterior resection (LAR) were randomized to either UC or ES. The following data were collected and analyzed: preoperative data (individual patient data, indication for surgery), intraoperative data (conversion to open surgery, conversion ES to UC, operative time, blood loss, complication rate), and postoperative data (morbidity and mortality, volume of drainage, hospital stay).
Results:
Between January 2002 and December 2003, 171 patients underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal resection. Twenty-5 patients did not satisfy the inclusion criteria and were excluded. The diagnosis of the remaining 146 patients was diverticulitis (44), colonic adenoma (31), adenocarcinoma (70), or epidermoid carcinoma (1). These patients underwent laparoscopic RH (28), LH (31), SG (47), or LAR (40). There were no differences in preoperative data. The overall conversion rate to open surgery was 11.6%, with no differences between the two groups; 20.8% undergoing ES were converted to UC, more frequently during right hemicolectomy or low anterior resection. Operative time, the primary endpoint of this study, did not differ between the two groups: UC 93 minutes versus ES 102.6 minutes (P = 0.46). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in UC 140.8 mL versus ES 182.6 mL (P = 0.032). No differences were observed in postoperative morbidity or other preoperative or postoperative parameters.
Conclusions:
UC is a useful device in laparoscopic colorectal surgery that facilitates completion of difficult cases and reduces intraoperative blood loss. Nevertheless, the majority of laparoscopic procedures can be completed with ES. Therefore, selective use of UC appears to be the most cost-effective policy.