Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 4/2016

01-04-2016

Unintended stray energy from monopolar instruments: beware the dispersive electrode cord

Authors: Nicole T. Townsend, Nicole A. Nadlonek, Edward L. Jones, Jennifer R. McHenry, Bruce Dunne, Gregory V. Stiegmann, Thomas N. Robinson

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 4/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The monopolar instrument emits stray radiofrequency energy from its cord when activated. This is a source of unintended thermal injury to patients. Stray energy emitted from the dispersive electrode cord has not been studied. The purpose of this study was to determine whether, and to what extent, the dispersive electrode cord contributes to unintentional energy transfer and describe practical steps to minimize risk.

Methods

In a laparoscopic simulator, a monopolar generator delivered radiofrequency energy to an L-hook. Thermal imaging quantified the change in tissue temperature nearest to the tip of a non-electrical instrument following activation. The orientation of the dispersive electrode cord was varied relative to other instruments.

Results

When the dispersive electrode cord is parallel to the camera cord, tissue temperature increased at the telescope tip by 46 ± 6 °C from baseline (p < 0.001). Similar heat was generated when the camera cord was oriented parallel to the active electrode cord (46 ± 6 vs. 48 ± 7 °C, respectively, p = 0.48). Adding a second dispersive electrode decreased the temperature change (46 ± 6 vs. 25 ± 9 °C, p < 0.001). Temperature increase was greater with coagulation versus cut mode (33 ± 7 vs. 22 ± 6 °C, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Stray energy emitted from the dispersive electrode cord heats tissue >40 °C via antenna coupling; the same magnitude as the active electrode cord. Practical steps to minimize stray energy transfer include avoiding orienting the dispersive electrode cord in parallel with other cords, adding a second dispersive electrode, and using low-voltage cut mode.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Feder B (2006) Surgical device poses a rare but serious peril. The New York Times, New York Feder B (2006) Surgical device poses a rare but serious peril. The New York Times, New York
2.
go back to reference Hulka JF et al (1997) Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists’ 1995 membership survey. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 4(2):167–171CrossRefPubMed Hulka JF et al (1997) Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists’ 1995 membership survey. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 4(2):167–171CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Nduka CC et al (1994) Cause and prevention of electrosurgical injuries in laparoscopy. J Am Coll Surg 179(2):161–170PubMed Nduka CC et al (1994) Cause and prevention of electrosurgical injuries in laparoscopy. J Am Coll Surg 179(2):161–170PubMed
4.
go back to reference Wu MP et al (2000) Complications and recommended practices for electrosurgery in laparoscopy. Am J Surg 179(1):67–73CrossRefPubMed Wu MP et al (2000) Complications and recommended practices for electrosurgery in laparoscopy. Am J Surg 179(1):67–73CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Govekar HR et al (2011) Residual heat of laparoscopic energy devices: how long must the surgeon wait to touch additional tissue? Surg Endosc 25(11):3499–3502CrossRefPubMed Govekar HR et al (2011) Residual heat of laparoscopic energy devices: how long must the surgeon wait to touch additional tissue? Surg Endosc 25(11):3499–3502CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Montero PN et al (2010) Insulation failure in laparoscopic instruments. Surg Endosc 24(2):462–465CrossRefPubMed Montero PN et al (2010) Insulation failure in laparoscopic instruments. Surg Endosc 24(2):462–465CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Voyles CR, Tucker RD (1992) Education and engineering solutions for potential problems with laparoscopic monopolar electrosurgery. Am J Surg 164(1):57–62CrossRefPubMed Voyles CR, Tucker RD (1992) Education and engineering solutions for potential problems with laparoscopic monopolar electrosurgery. Am J Surg 164(1):57–62CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Robinson TN et al (2010) Surgeon-controlled factors that reduce monopolar electrosurgery capacitive coupling during laparoscopy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 20(5):317–320CrossRefPubMed Robinson TN et al (2010) Surgeon-controlled factors that reduce monopolar electrosurgery capacitive coupling during laparoscopy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 20(5):317–320CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Robinson TN et al (2012) Antenna coupling–a novel mechanism of radiofrequency electrosurgery complication: practical implications. Ann Surg 256(2):213–218CrossRefPubMed Robinson TN et al (2012) Antenna coupling–a novel mechanism of radiofrequency electrosurgery complication: practical implications. Ann Surg 256(2):213–218CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Jones EL et al (2012) Radiofrequency energy antenna coupling to common laparoscopic instruments: practical implications. Surg Endosc 26(11):3053–3057CrossRefPubMed Jones EL et al (2012) Radiofrequency energy antenna coupling to common laparoscopic instruments: practical implications. Surg Endosc 26(11):3053–3057CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Abu-Rafea B et al (2011) Monopolar electrosurgery through single-port laparoscopy: a potential hidden hazard for bowel burns. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18(6):734–740CrossRefPubMed Abu-Rafea B et al (2011) Monopolar electrosurgery through single-port laparoscopy: a potential hidden hazard for bowel burns. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18(6):734–740CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Jones EL et al (2013) Blend mode reduces unintended thermal injury by laparoscopic monopolar instruments: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 27(11):4016–4020CrossRefPubMed Jones EL et al (2013) Blend mode reduces unintended thermal injury by laparoscopic monopolar instruments: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 27(11):4016–4020CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference ESU burns from poor dispersive electrode site preparation. Health Devices 22(8–9):422–423 (1993) ESU burns from poor dispersive electrode site preparation. Health Devices 22(8–9):422–423 (1993)
14.
go back to reference Feldman LS et al (2013) Rationale for the fundamental use of surgical energy (FUSE) curriculum assessment: focus on safety. Surg Endosc 27(11):4054–4059CrossRefPubMed Feldman LS et al (2013) Rationale for the fundamental use of surgical energy (FUSE) curriculum assessment: focus on safety. Surg Endosc 27(11):4054–4059CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Raders JL (1999) Dispersive pad injuries associated with hysteroscopic surgery. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 6(3):363–367CrossRefPubMed Raders JL (1999) Dispersive pad injuries associated with hysteroscopic surgery. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 6(3):363–367CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Sanders SM et al (2009) Third-degree burn from a grounding pad during arthroscopy. Arthroscopy 25(10):1193–1197CrossRefPubMed Sanders SM et al (2009) Third-degree burn from a grounding pad during arthroscopy. Arthroscopy 25(10):1193–1197CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Fuchshuber PR et al (2014) The SAGES FUSE program: bridging a patient safety gap. Bull Am Coll Surg 99(9):18–27PubMed Fuchshuber PR et al (2014) The SAGES FUSE program: bridging a patient safety gap. Bull Am Coll Surg 99(9):18–27PubMed
Metadata
Title
Unintended stray energy from monopolar instruments: beware the dispersive electrode cord
Authors
Nicole T. Townsend
Nicole A. Nadlonek
Edward L. Jones
Jennifer R. McHenry
Bruce Dunne
Gregory V. Stiegmann
Thomas N. Robinson
Publication date
01-04-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4388-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Surgical Endoscopy 4/2016 Go to the issue