Gynecologic and dermatologic electrosurgical units

A comparative review

Daron Gale Ferris, S. Saxena, B. L. Hainer, J. R. Searle, J. L. Powell, J. N. Gay

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Electrosurgery is a popular surgical technique in which high-frequency, low-voltage electrical energy produced by an electrosurgical unit is used to excise abnormal tissue with hemostasis. In this study, electrosurgical units were critically evaluated for safety, electrical specifications, design, and performance characteristics. Quantitative electrical specification and histologic thermal artifact measurements and qualitative observations were recorded for 13 electrosurgical units representing 11 manufacturers. The Aspen Sabre 180 and Laserscope e10 were considered exemplary units based on safety criteria alone. Cut-mode thermal artifact was less than 10 μm for the Cooper Leep 6000, Laserscope e10, and Utah Finesse. A maximum fulguration distance of greater than 0.5 mm was demonstrated by the Gyne-Tech Autolepe 2000 and 4000, Laserscope e10, and the Elmed ESU 30. For gynecologic electrosurgery, the Aspen Sabre 180 and Laserscope e10 were rated best, followed closely by the Utah Finesse and Finesse II and the Gyne-Tech Autolepe 4000. Dermatologic electrosurgery may be well accomplished with many of the electrosurgical units, except as noted.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)160-169
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Family Practice
Volume39
Issue number2
StatePublished - Jan 1 1994

Fingerprint

Electrosurgery
Artifacts
Hot Temperature
Safety
Hemostasis
finesse

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Family Practice

Cite this

Ferris, D. G., Saxena, S., Hainer, B. L., Searle, J. R., Powell, J. L., & Gay, J. N. (1994). Gynecologic and dermatologic electrosurgical units: A comparative review. Journal of Family Practice, 39(2), 160-169.

Gynecologic and dermatologic electrosurgical units : A comparative review. / Ferris, Daron Gale; Saxena, S.; Hainer, B. L.; Searle, J. R.; Powell, J. L.; Gay, J. N.

In: Journal of Family Practice, Vol. 39, No. 2, 01.01.1994, p. 160-169.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Ferris, DG, Saxena, S, Hainer, BL, Searle, JR, Powell, JL & Gay, JN 1994, 'Gynecologic and dermatologic electrosurgical units: A comparative review', Journal of Family Practice, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 160-169.
Ferris DG, Saxena S, Hainer BL, Searle JR, Powell JL, Gay JN. Gynecologic and dermatologic electrosurgical units: A comparative review. Journal of Family Practice. 1994 Jan 1;39(2):160-169.
Ferris, Daron Gale ; Saxena, S. ; Hainer, B. L. ; Searle, J. R. ; Powell, J. L. ; Gay, J. N. / Gynecologic and dermatologic electrosurgical units : A comparative review. In: Journal of Family Practice. 1994 ; Vol. 39, No. 2. pp. 160-169.
@article{5f5c9fe6bd384f3da978f51fec137d2a,
title = "Gynecologic and dermatologic electrosurgical units: A comparative review",
abstract = "Electrosurgery is a popular surgical technique in which high-frequency, low-voltage electrical energy produced by an electrosurgical unit is used to excise abnormal tissue with hemostasis. In this study, electrosurgical units were critically evaluated for safety, electrical specifications, design, and performance characteristics. Quantitative electrical specification and histologic thermal artifact measurements and qualitative observations were recorded for 13 electrosurgical units representing 11 manufacturers. The Aspen Sabre 180 and Laserscope e10 were considered exemplary units based on safety criteria alone. Cut-mode thermal artifact was less than 10 μm for the Cooper Leep 6000, Laserscope e10, and Utah Finesse. A maximum fulguration distance of greater than 0.5 mm was demonstrated by the Gyne-Tech Autolepe 2000 and 4000, Laserscope e10, and the Elmed ESU 30. For gynecologic electrosurgery, the Aspen Sabre 180 and Laserscope e10 were rated best, followed closely by the Utah Finesse and Finesse II and the Gyne-Tech Autolepe 4000. Dermatologic electrosurgery may be well accomplished with many of the electrosurgical units, except as noted.",
author = "Ferris, {Daron Gale} and S. Saxena and Hainer, {B. L.} and Searle, {J. R.} and Powell, {J. L.} and Gay, {J. N.}",
year = "1994",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "160--169",
journal = "Journal of Family Practice",
issn = "0094-3509",
publisher = "Appleton-Century-Crofts",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Gynecologic and dermatologic electrosurgical units

T2 - A comparative review

AU - Ferris, Daron Gale

AU - Saxena, S.

AU - Hainer, B. L.

AU - Searle, J. R.

AU - Powell, J. L.

AU - Gay, J. N.

PY - 1994/1/1

Y1 - 1994/1/1

N2 - Electrosurgery is a popular surgical technique in which high-frequency, low-voltage electrical energy produced by an electrosurgical unit is used to excise abnormal tissue with hemostasis. In this study, electrosurgical units were critically evaluated for safety, electrical specifications, design, and performance characteristics. Quantitative electrical specification and histologic thermal artifact measurements and qualitative observations were recorded for 13 electrosurgical units representing 11 manufacturers. The Aspen Sabre 180 and Laserscope e10 were considered exemplary units based on safety criteria alone. Cut-mode thermal artifact was less than 10 μm for the Cooper Leep 6000, Laserscope e10, and Utah Finesse. A maximum fulguration distance of greater than 0.5 mm was demonstrated by the Gyne-Tech Autolepe 2000 and 4000, Laserscope e10, and the Elmed ESU 30. For gynecologic electrosurgery, the Aspen Sabre 180 and Laserscope e10 were rated best, followed closely by the Utah Finesse and Finesse II and the Gyne-Tech Autolepe 4000. Dermatologic electrosurgery may be well accomplished with many of the electrosurgical units, except as noted.

AB - Electrosurgery is a popular surgical technique in which high-frequency, low-voltage electrical energy produced by an electrosurgical unit is used to excise abnormal tissue with hemostasis. In this study, electrosurgical units were critically evaluated for safety, electrical specifications, design, and performance characteristics. Quantitative electrical specification and histologic thermal artifact measurements and qualitative observations were recorded for 13 electrosurgical units representing 11 manufacturers. The Aspen Sabre 180 and Laserscope e10 were considered exemplary units based on safety criteria alone. Cut-mode thermal artifact was less than 10 μm for the Cooper Leep 6000, Laserscope e10, and Utah Finesse. A maximum fulguration distance of greater than 0.5 mm was demonstrated by the Gyne-Tech Autolepe 2000 and 4000, Laserscope e10, and the Elmed ESU 30. For gynecologic electrosurgery, the Aspen Sabre 180 and Laserscope e10 were rated best, followed closely by the Utah Finesse and Finesse II and the Gyne-Tech Autolepe 4000. Dermatologic electrosurgery may be well accomplished with many of the electrosurgical units, except as noted.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028146772&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028146772&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

VL - 39

SP - 160

EP - 169

JO - Journal of Family Practice

JF - Journal of Family Practice

SN - 0094-3509

IS - 2

ER -