Evaluation of the performance of an endoscopic 3‐mm electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing device intended for single use after multiple use‐and‐resterilization cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of an endoscopic 3-mm electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing device (EBVS) intended for single use after multiple use-and-resterilization cycles. STUDY DESIGN: Ex vivo study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Eight 3-mm EBVS handpieces. METHODS: Handpieces were subjected to a maximum of 15 cycles of testing, including simulated surgery, sealing and burst pressure testing of porcine carotid arteries, reprocessing, and hydrogen peroxide plasma resterilization. Failure was defined as two sequential vascular seal leakage events occurring at <250 mm Hg. Histological evaluation, maximum external temperature of the jaws, sealing time, tissue adherence, jaw surface characterization, and mechanical deterioration were studied. Failure rate was analyzed by using a Kaplan-Meier curve. Linear and ordinal logistic mixed models were used to analyze sealing time, handpiece jaw temperature, and adherence score. RESULTS: Mean ± SD diameter of arteries was 3.22 ± 0.35 mm. Failure was observed starting at cycle 10 and going up to cycle 13 in 37.5% (3/8) of the handpieces. Tissue adherence increased after each cycle (P < .001). Maximum external temperature (79.8°C ± 13.9°C) and sealing time (1.8 ± 0.5 seconds) were not significantly different throughout cycles up to failure. A flatter surface and large scratches were observed microscopically throughout the jaw surface after repeated use and resterilization. CONCLUSION: The 3-mm EBVS handpiece evaluated in this study can be considered safe to use for up to nine reuse-and-resterilization cycles. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: These data provide the basis for establishing preliminary guidelines for the reuse and hydrogen peroxide plasma resterilization of an endoscopic 3-mm EBVS handpiece.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".