Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 13, 2025
Laparoscopic Extracorporeal Knot-Tying for Uterine Vessel Occlusion during Hysterectomy with Cervical Cerclage in Large Uteri
Published on: September 12, 2025
Comparison of surgical outcomes using Gyrus PKS™ vs LigaSure™ in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: A randomised
Clare Wong1,2, Amy Goh1,3, Harry Merkur1,2,4
1Sydney West Advanced Pelvic Surgery Unit, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Background:
Advanced vessel sealing devices are widely used in laparoscopic surgery. However, there remains a lack of adequately powered trials comparing laparoscopic advanced vessel sealing devices in the clinical setting, especially in gynaecology.
Aims:
This single-blinded randomised controlled trial aims to compare the surgical outcomes of total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) using either the Gyrus PKS™ LYONS dissecting forceps or the LigaSure™ Maryland jaw vessel sealer/divider.
Materials And Methods:
Women who required TLHs for benign indications were randomised to having their surgeries performed using either Gyrus PKS™ or LigaSure™. Time to haemostasis (from initial skin incision to detachment of the uterus with secured haemostasis) was the primary outcome; a 20% difference in time was considered clinically significant. Secondary outcomes measured were intra-operative blood loss, complications, conversions, post-operative analgesia use, and length of stay. This study was registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12615000639516.
Results:
Sixty-four women were included in the study - 33 and 31 in the Gyrus PKS™ and LigaSure™ arms, respectively. TLHs performed by LigaSure™ had statistically significantly shorter time to haemostasis compared to Gyrus PKS™ by 10.6 min (95% CI 1.3-2.0, P = 0.03). There were no differences in any of the other secondary outcomes measured.
Conclusions:
This trial suggests there is no difference between using either device. TLHs performed using LigaSure™ have statistically significantly shorter time to haemostasis than those using Gyrus PKS™; however, the difference is not considered clinically significant as it was only 14.2%. No other differences in surgical outcomes were detected.
