Review of Efficacy of Used ultraSonic Energy Device

Safety Issues Clinical Trial

— REUSED  

Official title:

Comparison of Lateral Thermal Damage and Clinical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Appendectomy With New Versus Reused Ultrasonic Scalpel in Patients With Acute Appendicitis - Randomized Clinical Trial

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT04226482
• Other study ID #: REUSED2019
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: May 27, 2019
• Est. completion date: May 14, 2020

Study information

• Verified date: May 2020
• Source: University of Split, School of Medicine
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

Single-use medical instruments are intended by the manufacturers for single-use only or for single-patient-use only. Nevertheless, single-use instruments are being reused more than once in many countries around the world. The reasons are mainly economic in developing countries and environmental in developed countries. Concerns are being raised regarding reused instruments sterility and efficacy. Since there is paucity of evidence on safety of multiple use of single-use instruments in surgery, we decided to conduct a clinical study comparing the same surgical procedure performed with new versus reused surgical instrument. We decided to study laparoscopic appendectomy which is a simple and the most common emergency surgery. Instrument under the scrutiny is ultrasonic scalpel which uses high-frequency ultrasound vibration for coagulating and cutting tissue. In the studied period of time, all eligible patients with acute appendicitis will be randomized in two groups, first having surgery with new device and the second having surgery with reused device. Removed appendix will be analyzed for lateral thermal damage and the patients will be followed-up for one month for potential differences in clinical outcomes like pain-killers consumption, length of stay and postoperative complications.

Description:

Laparoscopic appendectomy provides enhanced recovery at increased costs due to a need for a specific sophisticated equipment. Currently many of the commonly used devices are labeled by manufacturers as single-use only. This trend has stronghold in concerns about patient safety, especially about prevention of cross-infections and other safety-related issues. On the other hand, surgery costs are increased exponentially. There is paucity of evidence on safety of reusing single-use devices (SUD) in surgery. Reuse of SUD which may include refurbishing or reprocessing and resterilization is a complex issue with moral, technical, economical and environmental repercussions. There are several papers discussing the ethical dilemmas involved. The reprocessed instruments are generally deemed equally safe as new one. However there are only few experimental and clinical studies on this topic. Most of them are influenced by sponsors or manufacturers and therefore biased. What's more their conclusions are sometimes highly controversial. Goal of this study is to provide solid evidence on safety of reuse of SUD and to discover differences in in-vitro and clinical outcomes. One of the most common SUD for laparoscopic surgery is ultrasonic scalpel which uses high-frequency jaw vibration which simultaneously coagulates and divides structures with minimal thermal damage to surrounding tissue. One of the best known ultrasonic shears intended for single-use is harmonic scalpel (Ultracision® Ethicon EndoSurgery, Johnson&Johnson Company). Ultrasonic shears are being refurbished and/or resterilized for repetitive use in limited number of cycles or until become dysfunctional or disintegrate. Routine depends on local regulations and variations in practice. To encourage or to ban aforementioned practice we need solid evidence based on properly conducted clinical trial. Therefore we have designed a single-blind randomised clinical trial depending on virginity of instrument used for tissue dissection. Since Ultracision device is the most commonly used ultrasonic sealing device we decided to study outcomes of surgery performed with the new (unused) instrument versus resterilized reused instrument.

All of the patients with clinical and radiological suspicion of having acute appendicitis will be blindly allocated in two arms according to the predefined random sequence provided by independent statistician. Eligible patients will sign an informed consent form. First arm will have laparoscopic appendectomy with new ultrasonic device. The patient will be blinded for the allocation, but the surgeon can not be blinded since packing of the new and reused instruments differ. Even if the scrub nurse would give surgeon instruments without packing, some minor damage might be seen on the plastic coating of the instrument jaws. The second arm will have laparoscopic appendectomy with reused ultrasonic device. All other treatment including surgical technique, postoperative management and follow-up will be unchanged or within the standard of care. Surgical technique is standardised three-trocar approach in general anesthesia. All other details of the surgery are variable depending on local findings, extent of inflammation, anatomy variations etc. Removed specimens will be analyzed routinely with addition of measurement of lateral thermal damage of mesoappendix and appendiceal base. Patients will be screened for antibiotic therapy length, analgesics consumption, early surgical complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification and length of stay. Additionally one month follow-up will be conducted to pick-up possible late complications or readmissions. Study will be conducted in two centers for a period of time until sufficient number of participants are recruited.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 100
• Est. completion date: May 14, 2020
• Est. primary completion date: April 13, 2020
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 5 Years to 65 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis confirmed during surgery

• Laparoscopic appendectomy

• Operated with UltraCision harmonic scalpel.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Finding of innocent (white) appendix

• Pregnancy

• Significant co-morbidity (ASA III-IV)

• Open appendectomy

• Laparoscopic appendectomy using instruments other than Ultracision harmonic scalpel.

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Appendicitis
• Appendicitis Acute
• Complication of Surgical Procedure
• Device Induced Injury
• Safety Issues

Intervention

Device:
• New Device
Laparoscopic appendectomy using new ultrasonic shears.
• Used Device
Laparoscopic appendectomy using reprocessed ultrasonic shears.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Croatia	Clinical Hospital Split	Split
Croatia	General Hospital Zadar	Zadar

Sponsors (3)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
University of Split, School of Medicine	General Hospital Zadar, University Hospital of Split

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Croatia, 

References & Publications (40)

Brady JT, Bhakta A, Steele SR, Trunzo JA, Senagore AJ, Holmgren K, Schillero A, Champagne BJ. Reprocessed bipolar energy for laparoscopic colectomy: Is it worth it? Am J Surg. 2017 Jul;214(1):59-62. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.02.012. Epub 2017 Feb 20. — View Citation

Bruning LM. Disposables v. reusables in OR practice: Part I, Weighing contributions to patient care. Nurs Manage. 1992 Feb;23(2):80J-80K, 80N, 80P. — View Citation

Bruning LM. Disposables v. reusables in or practice: Part II, Weighing costs, risks and wastes. Nurs Manage. 1992 Mar;23(3):72I-72K, 72N, 72P. — View Citation

Chan AC, Ip M, Koehler A, Crisp B, Tam JS, Chung SC. Is it safe to reuse disposable laparoscopic trocars? An in vitro testing. Surg Endosc. 2000 Nov;14(11):1042-4. — View Citation

Chu T, Chandhoke RA, Smith PC, Schwaitzberg SD. The impact of surgeon choice on the cost of performing laparoscopic appendectomy. Surg Endosc. 2011 Apr;25(4):1187-91. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1342-1. Epub 2010 Sep 11. — View Citation

Colak T, Ersoz G, Akca T, Kanik A, Aydin S. Efficacy and safety of reuse of disposable laparoscopic instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc. 2004 May;18(5):727-31. Epub 2004 Mar 19. — View Citation

Collier R. Reprocessing single-use devices: an international perspective. CMAJ. 2011 Aug 9;183(11):1244. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-3906. Epub 2011 Jul 4. — View Citation

Collier R. The ethics of reusing single-use devices. CMAJ. 2011 Aug 9;183(11):1245. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-3907. Epub 2011 Jul 11. — View Citation

DesCôteaux JG, Tye L, Poulin EC. Reuse of disposable laparoscopic instruments: cost analysis. Can J Surg. 1996 Apr;39(2):133-9. — View Citation

Družijanic N, Pogorelic Z, Perko Z, Mrklic I, Tomic S. Comparison of lateral thermal damage of the human peritoneum using monopolar diathermy, Harmonic scalpel and LigaSure. Can J Surg. 2012 Oct;55(5):317-21. — View Citation

Dunn D. Reprocessing single-use devices--the ethical dilemma. AORN J. 2002 May;75(5):989-99; quiz 1000-4. Review. — View Citation

Emam TA, Cuschieri A. How safe is high-power ultrasonic dissection? Ann Surg. 2003 Feb;237(2):186-91. — View Citation

Fengler TW, Pahlke H, Bisson S, Kraas E. The clinical suitability of laparoscopic instrumentation. A prospective clinical study of function and hygiene. Surg Endosc. 2000 Apr;14(4):388-94. — View Citation

Gärtner D, Münz K, Hückelheim E, Hesse U. [Ultrasonic scissors. New vs resterilized instruments]. Chirurg. 2008 Feb;79(2):175-9. doi: 10.1007/s00104-007-1420-7. German. — View Citation

Gärtner D, Münz K, Hückelheim E, Hesse U. Ultrasound scissors: new single-use instruments vs. resterilised single-use instruments - a prospective randomised study. GMS Krankenhhyg Interdiszip. 2008 Sep 3;3(3):Doc20. — View Citation

Hailey D, Jacobs PD, Ries NM, Polisena J. Reuse of single use medical devices in Canada: clinical and economic outcomes, legal and ethical issues, and current hospital practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008 Fall;24(4):430-6. doi: 10.1017/S0266462308080562. Review. — View Citation

Hussain M, Balsara KP, Nagral S. Reuse of single-use devices: looking back, looking forward. Natl Med J India. 2012 May-Jun;25(3):151-5. Review. — View Citation

Jacobs P, Akpinar I. Single-use medical devices: economic issues. Heart Asia. 2018 Nov 9;10(2):e011034. doi: 10.1136/heartasia-2018-011034. eCollection 2018. — View Citation

Jacobs P, Polisena J, Hailey D, Lafferty S. Economic analysis of reprocessing single-use medical devices: a systematic literature review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;29(4):297-301. doi: 10.1086/529587. Review. — View Citation

Kadesky KM, Schopf B, Magee JF, Blair GK. Proximity injury by the ultrasonically activated scalpel during dissection. J Pediatr Surg. 1997 Jun;32(6):878-9. — View Citation

Kinoshita T, Kanehira E, Omura K, Kawakami K, Watanabe Y. Experimental study on heat production by a 23.5-kHz ultrasonically activated device for endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 1999 Jun;13(6):621-5. — View Citation

Klar M, Haberstroh J, Timme S, Fritzsch G, Gitsch G, Denschlag D. Comparison of a reusable with a disposable vessel-sealing device in a sheep model: efficacy and costs. Fertil Steril. 2011 Feb;95(2):795-8. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.09.014. Epub 2010 Oct 16. — View Citation

Laustsen G. Reduce--recycle--reuse: guidelines for promoting perioperative waste management. AORN J. 2007 Apr;85(4):717-22, 724, 726-8. — View Citation

Lester BR, Miller K, Boers A, Harris DC, Gamble WG. Comparison of in vivo clinical performance and shaft temperature and in vitro tissue temperature and transection times between new and reprocessed harmonic scalpels. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2010 Oct;20(5):e150-9. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e3181eff973. — View Citation

Lopes Cde L, Graziano KU, Pinto Tde J. Evaluation of single-use reprocessed laparoscopic instrument sterilization. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2011 Mar-Apr;19(2):370-7. English, Portuguese, Spanish. — View Citation

Magetsari R, van der Houwen EB, Bakker MT, van der Mei HC, Verkerke GJ, Rakhorst G, Hilmy CR, van Horn JR, Busscher HJ. Biomechanical and surface physico-chemical analyses of used osteosynthesis plates and screws--potential for reuse in developing countries? J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2006 Nov;79(2):236-44. — View Citation

Manatakis DK, Georgopoulos N. Reducing the Cost of Laparoscopy: Reusable versus Disposable Laparoscopic Instruments. Minim Invasive Surg. 2014;2014:408171. doi: 10.1155/2014/408171. Epub 2014 Jul 22. — View Citation

Martins et al. Reprocessing of single-use medical devices: clinical and financial results. Port J Public Health. 2019.

Mues AC, Haramis G, Casazza C, Okhunov Z, Badani KK, Landman J. Prospective randomized single-blinded in vitro and ex vivo evaluation of new and reprocessed laparoscopic trocars. J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Dec;211(6):738-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.08.003. Epub 2010 Oct 30. — View Citation

Pogorelic Z, Katic J, Mrklic I, Jeroncic A, Šušnjar T, Jukic M, Vilovic K, Perko Z. Lateral thermal damage of mesoappendix and appendiceal base during laparoscopic appendectomy in children: comparison of the harmonic scalpel (Ultracision), bipolar coagulation (LigaSure), and thermal fusion technology (MiSeal). J Surg Res. 2017 May 15;212:101-107. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.01.014. Epub 2017 Jan 28. — View Citation

Popp W, Rasslan O, Unahalekhaka A, Brenner P, Fischnaller E, Fathy M, Goldman C, Gillespie E. What is the use? An international look at reuse of single-use medical devices. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2010 Jul;213(4):302-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2010.04.003. Epub 2010 May 13. — View Citation

Ramshaw BJ. Reusing disposal laparoscopic instruments. Surg Endosc. 2004 Aug;18(8):1161-2. Epub 2004 Jul 7. — View Citation

Renton D, Denk P, Varban O. Reprocessed single-use devices in laparoscopy: assessment of cost, environmental impact, and patient safety. Surg Endosc. 2018 Oct;32(10):4310-4313. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6275-0. Epub 2018 Jun 15. — View Citation

Roth K, Heeg P, Reichl R. Specific hygiene issues relating to reprocessing and reuse of single-use devices for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2002 Jul;16(7):1091-7. Epub 2002 Apr 9. — View Citation

Siu J, Hill AG, MacCormick AD. Systematic review of reusable versus disposable laparoscopic instruments: costs and safety. ANZ J Surg. 2017 Jan;87(1-2):28-33. doi: 10.1111/ans.13856. Epub 2016 Nov 23. Review. — View Citation

Sloan TW. Safety-cost trade-offs in medical device reuse: a Markov decision process model. Health Care Manag Sci. 2007 Feb;10(1):81-93. — View Citation

Uyeno et al. Experimental study on the analysis of sterility in the reuse of harmonic scalpels. Revista Brasileira de Ciencias Medicas e da Saude (Brazilian J Medical Science and Health). 2015.

Weld KJ, Dryer S, Hruby G, Ames CD, Venkatesh R, Matthews BD, Landman J. Comparison of mechanical and in vivo performance of new and reprocessed harmonic scalpels. Urology. 2006 May;67(5):898-903. — View Citation

Yung E, Gagner M, Pomp A, Dakin G, Milone L, Strain G. Cost comparison of reusable and single-use ultrasonic shears for laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2010 Apr;20(4):512-8. doi: 10.1007/s11695-008-9723-4. Epub 2008 Nov 18. — View Citation

Zilberstein. Reprocessamento de pincas de alta resolucao para corte e coagulacao. ABCD Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2013.

* Note: There are 40 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Lateral Thermal Damage of Mesoappendix	Microscopically measured distance of lateral thermal damage of mesoappendix	Through study completion, an average of 1 year.
Primary	Lateral Thermal Damage of Appendiceal Base	Microscopically measured distance of lateral thermal damage of appendiceal base	Through study completion, an average of 1 year.
Secondary	Clinical outcome - Postoperative complications	Clavien Dindo classification of postoperative complications	Postoperative 30 days follow-up
Secondary	Clinical outcome - Length of stay	In-hospital stay in days	Through study completion, an average of 1 year.
Secondary	Time to transect appendiceal base	Speed of transection of appendiceal base regarding its diameter in seconds	During the surgery
Secondary	Rating Device Functionality	Rating of Surgeon's satisfaction with ultrasonic shears' performance using Performance Evaluation Scale (PES) where: 1 is unacceptable, 2 is acceptable, 3 is optimal.; PES has 5 categories: 1. Hemostasis, 2. Coagulation effect, 3. Cutting effect, 4. Instrument activation force, 5. Disturbing sounds.	Immediately after surgery

External Links

•   Croatian Law on Medical Products 2017/745 (2018) - Article in Croatian
•   Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities (2008)
•   Newspaper article in Croatian part 1
•   Newspaper article in Croatian part 2
•   Safety and performance evaluation of remanufactured harmonic scalpels (2010)
•   The Reprocessing and Reuse of Single-Use Medical Devices in Newfoundland & Labrador (2010)