Comparison of Electrosurgical Devices for Cervical Conization: Novel Monopolar Scalpel (VIO) Versus Ultrasonic Scalpel. Issue 1 (January 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Akazawa, Munetoshi; Saito, Toshiaki; Okadome, Masao; Ariyoshi, Kazuya
• Is Part Of: Journal of lower genital tract disease. Volume 23:Issue 1(2019:Jan.)
• Publication Date: 2019-01
• Subjects: cervical conization -- cervical intraepithelial neoplasia -- monopolar system -- VIO -- ultrasonic scalpel; Generative organs, Female -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Cervix uteri -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Generative organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Sexually transmitted diseases -- Periodicals; 618.1
• DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000439
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1089-2591

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes associated with the use of a novel monopolar scalpel with those associated with the use of an ultrasonic scalpel for cervical conization of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study in patients treated in our institute between April 2010 and March 2017. We used either the VIO monopolar scalpel (VIO) or Harmonic ultrasonic scalpel (HS) for cervical conization. We analyzed operative outcomes, postoperative complications, and pathological findings associated with the use of the 2 devices. Results: In 500 patients treated with cervical conization, VIO and HS were used in 249 and 251 patients, respectively. No significant difference in patient background was found between the groups. The mean operative time was shorter with VIO than with HS (18.2 min vs. 27.4 min). The mean estimated blood loss was greater with VIO (7.2 g vs. 3.1 g), but the postoperative bleeding rate was higher with HS (5% vs. 20%). Regarding other complications, cervical stenosis was only noted with VIO (4 cases, 1.6%). The positive margin (11% vs. 16%) and positive endocervical curettage rates (7% vs 10%) were not significantly different between the groups. No significant differences were also found in the pathological results and need for additional treatment (the rate of the additional treatment: 20% vs. 23%). Conclusions: Considering short operating time and less postoperative bleeding, VIO was preferred to HS. However, the excessive coagulation in VIO is considered to lead to cervical stenosis.