Application of Ice Cold Irrigation During Vascular Pedicle Control of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: EnSeal Instrument Cooling to Reduce Collateral Thermal Tissue Damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Energy-based hemostasis of the prostatic vascular pedicles (PVP) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) may cause collateral thermal injury to adjacent neural tissue and has been shown to negatively impact sexual function recovery. The unique engineering design of the EnSeal(®) (Ethicon, Cincinnati, OH) has been demonstrated to limit collateral thermal tissue damage to <1.0 mm. Use of tissue and instrument cooling before and during device activation may potentially further reduce thermal spread. As such, we sought to evaluate the collateral tissue effects of EnSeal with or without cold saline irrigation (CSI) during PVP control. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The EnSeal Trio device was used for PVP control in 20 consecutive men undergoing bilateral, non-nerve-sparing RARP. Ipsilateral vascular pedicles were randomly selected to EnSeal plus CSI (<4 °C) application to the tissue before and during device activation or EnSeal alone. The primary end point was the distance of thermal injury from the inked margin using both hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and terminal transferase uridyl nick end-labeling (TUNEL) apoptosis staining. A mean of three measurements was taken for each pedicle. Pathologic analysis was performed by a single, blinded uropathologist. RESULTS: Mean distance of thermal injury from the inked margin using H&E staining was 0.31 mm (range 0.15-0.40 mm) and 0.98 mm (range 0.7-1.2 mm) for the EnSeal plus CSI and EnSeal alone, respectively (P < 0.0001). TUNEL staining also demonstrated lateral tissue damage of 0.39 mm (range 0.2-0.5 mm) and 1.12 mm (range 0.9-1.3 mm), respectively (P < 0.001). No complications related to hemostasis or postoperative bleeding were observed in the study. CONCLUSIONS: The hemostatic properties of EnSeal work effectively when submerged in CSI. Adjacent thermal tissue damage is significantly minimized with the addition of CSI. This may have a beneficial impact on nerve preservation and sexual function outcomes after RARP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".