AzTrials
AzTrials

Colonic DiseasesNCT00487409

Random Comparison of LigaSure and Disposable Staples for Laparoscopic Surgery

A study testing Bipolar electrosurgical generator and instruments and Disposable stapling instruments in people with Colonic Diseases and Rectal Diseases, run by University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center at 1 site in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The purpose of this research is to compare two different standard of care surgical methods for the following large bowel (colon) procedures: laparoscopic right colectomy, total colectomy, and left colectomy. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 80 years
Conditions the study is for
Colonic Diseases, Rectal Diseases
What is being tested?
Bipolar electrosurgical generator and instruments and Disposable stapling instruments
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
100 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
Dec 2006to Nov 2010
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 80 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Subjects who have benign or malignant colonic or rectal disease that mandate resection and are approached laparoscopically. Potential indications or conditions include ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, colorectal polyps, colorectal malignancy, endometriosis, diverticulitis, and colonic inertia
  • Subjects who are 18 years of age and older
  • Subjects of either sex
  • Subjects who are willing and able to adhere to protocol requirements, agree to participate in the study program and provide written and informed consent

Who cannot join

  • Subjects who undergo conversion to the open approach before mobilization of the colon or pedicle ligation will be excluded from the analysis
  • Subjects who are pregnant
  • Subjects who have undergone a previous colectomy
  • Subjects with a medical condition that may interfere with the evaluation of safety or effectiveness of the study device
  • Subjects who have another condition that in the opinion of the investigator precludes further participation in the study

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • University Hospitals of Cleveland Case Medical Center

    Cleveland, Ohio, 44106

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: A Randomized Trial Comparing Outcomes for the LigaSure and Disposable Stapling Instruments for Laparoscopic Surgery

The purpose of this research is to compare two different standard of care surgical methods for the following large bowel (colon) procedures: laparoscopic right colectomy, total colectomy, and left colectomy. The study will compare electrocautery, used with surgical clips and/or surgical staplers, and the Ligasure vessel sealer. The investigators will be looking at which procedure is faster and more cost efficient and the investigators will calculate hospital expenses for the two groups to make comparisons.

Read the detailed description

The application of laparoscopic surgery has expanded over the last decade to include many complex abdominal procedures that have traditionally been performed through a laparotomic incision. The widespread acceptance and utilization of laparoscopy has directly resulted in a continuing need to develop both new techniques and ancillary surgical instrumentation.

Laparoscopic instruments that provide adequate hemostasis and allow for precise dissection of tissues are needed for a safe and efficient operation. Furthermore, as new devices emerge and the volume of laparoscopic cases increases the importance of cost and ergonomically sound instrumentation have become apparent.

The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic colectomy for benign disease has been demonstrated by several case series over the last decade. The advantages of smaller wounds, shorter ileus, earlier resumption of dietary intake, and reductions in hospital stay have been consistently reported as the major benefits of this approach. More recently, in a multi-center randomized prospective trial laparoscopic colectomy for curable cancer resulted in equivalent cancer related survival to open colectomy when performed by experienced surgeons. Adherence to standard cancer resection techniques including but not limited to complete exploration of the abdomen, adequate proximal and distal margins, ligation of the major vessels at their respective origins, containment and careful tissue handling, and en bloc resection with negative tumor margins using the laparoscopic approach resulted in acceptable outcomes.

The advantages of standardized surgical technique's for laparoscopic colectomy that were discussed in this multicenter trial were well outlined in one previous study. This study retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy from 1999 to 2001 at a single institution. The potential benefits of a standardized technique included 1) standardization of surgical instrument sets, 2) definition of benchmarks for the decision to convert before inappropriate investments in time and equipment, and 3) provision of an easily transferred skill set for residents in training.

Despite the obvious value of this standardized approach, a variety of techniques and laparoscopic instruments for tissue dissection and coagulation are currently utilized. These options include laparoscopic staplers, lap clip appliers, suture ligature, electrothermal bipolar vessel sealers, electric cautery, and ultrasonic shears. Dissection, coagulation, and the division of the mesocolon and mesorectum during laparoscopy, continue to represent a technical and hemostatic challenge. When dealing with inflamed tissues, as in diverticulitis or inflammatory bowel disease, or when the mesocolon and mesorectum are fatty, reliable hemostasis is not always easy to obtain. Concerning tissue dissection and coagulation, electrosurgery, widely implemented in open surgery, has displayed some complications and limits related to minimally invasive techniques. The search for safer multidimensional instruments has led to the development of both the ultrasonic dissector(UCS), (Harmonic Scalpel, Ultracision, Ethicon Endosurgery Inc., Cincinnati, OH) and the endoscopic Ligasure (LIG or EBVS), (Valleylab, Boulder, CO).

Use of ultrasonic dissection in colorectal laparoscopic surgery has recently been reviewed retrospectively in two studies. Both studies concluded that ultrasonic dissection was safe and effective. A prospective randomized clinical trial also demonstrated that use of UCS provided the advantage of a decreased blood loss when compared with ES without and any increase in morbidity.

Recently an electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer, (EBVS) (Ligasure, Valleylab, Boulder, CO, USA) was developed for both laparoscopic and open procedures as an alternative to suture ligatures, hemoclips, staplers and ultrasonic coagulator's for ligating vessels, and tissue bundles. The EBVS is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to seal vessels up to 7mm in diameter. It does so by applying high current and low voltage, which differs from the energy used in standard monopolar and bipolar cautery. This unique form of energy denatures collagen and elastin within the vessel wall and surrounding connective tissue. The addition of extreme pressure applied by the instrument, which also differs from other energy sources, causes the denatured protein to reform, with the vessel walls in apposition. Clinically, the result is a nearly translucent "seal" that may be transected. The Ligasure device has been used in all types of gastrointestinal surgery including small and large bowel resection, gastrectomy, pancreatectomy, splenectomy, esophagogastric devascularization for portal hypertension, and transplantation. To date, the device appears to be cost effective in teaching institutions when used in difficult open and laparoscopic surgery.

The initial results with the EBVS and colorectal surgery were from a prospective review of 98 cases by a single surgeon from 1998 to 2000. These included both laparoscopic and open cases and involved 53 colon resections. No postoperative hemorrhagic complication occurred and there was an estimated mean reduction in operative time of 39 minutes. Additionally, the same authors' applied the ligasure technology to a pig animal model and consistently reported no evidence of postoperative bleeding. They concluded that the EBVS was safe and effective and may potentially reduce operative times.

A second study, also a retrospective analysis, compared Ligasure to an ultrasonic coagulator for total abdominal colectomy in 15 patients with ulcerative colitis. The procedure using Ligasure reduced the operating time, intraoperative bleeding and operator's stress in comparison with ultrasonic coagulation.

A third study, another retrospective comparative model, was conducted to address the differences between EBVS and ultrasonic shears for laparoscopic transverse and sigmoid colectomy. The study included 30 patients and found that the incidence of rebleeding was significantly lower in the EBVS group than in the the UCS group for both surgical procedures. In addition the required time for mesocolon dissection was also significantly shorter when the EBVS was used.

The only prospective randomized study with Ligasure and laparoscopic colorectal surgery addressed the speed, reliability and cost to guide surgeons in their choice for intracorporeal pedicle ligation. This study involved both straight laparoscopy and hand-assisted laparoscopy and compared laparoscopic vascular staplers and disposable clip appliers with the Ligasure Atlas during elective right, left, and total colectomy. Cases were stratified by procedure and failure was defined as any bleeding after pedicle ligation. 100 patients were included in the study and the Ligasure atlas was found to be more cost effective and associated with lower failure rates.

Significance and Purpose The utilization and safety of surgical staplers and disposable clips for laparoscopic colectomy is established and has been adopted by the majority of surgeon's performing these procedures. Although the growing evidence supporting the application of Ligasure to laparoscopic colorectal surgery has demonstrated its safety and efficiency, most of the studies have been limited by sample size and their retrospective nature. There also have been several questions left unanswered. A standardized approach for laparoscopic right, total, and left colectomy has never been substantiated by any prospective study. Furthermore, the difficult and somewhat dangerous steps involved with division of the mesorectum during both laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy and low anterior resection have not been appropriately evaluated.

The objective of this study is to determine the best technical approach to laparoscopic right, total, and left colectomy by comparing the utilization of the Ligasure device to electrocautery with the application of surgical clips and/or surgical stapler's. To answer this question the investigators will compare each approach regarding tissue dissection, colonic mobilization and pedicle ligation. Safety, cost, operative time, time to pedicle ligation and hemostasis will be objectively measured in each treatment group.

Being tested
Bipolar electrosurgical generator and instruments, Disposable stapling instruments
Keywords
Ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, Colorectal polyps, Colorectal malignancy, Endometriosis, Diverticulitis, Colonic inertia
Medical subject headings
Colonic Diseases, Rectal Diseases, Colitis, Ulcerative, Crohn Disease, Endometriosis, Diverticulitis, Constipation

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Bipolar electrosurgical generator and instrumentsProcedure or surgery

    Also called Ligasure Device

    laparoscopic colectomy using the Ligasure device

  • Disposable stapling instrumentsProcedure or surgery

    Also called Staples or Clips

    laparoscopic colectomy using clips, cautery and stapler

Study groups in NCT00487409
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Group AOtherStandard of Care
Receives: Procedure: Disposable stapling instruments
Group BOtherStandard of Care
Receives: Procedure: Bipolar electrosurgical generator and instruments

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. this study will evaluate the surgical approach using the Ligasure device at six weeks post operative.

    The objective of this study is to determine the best technical approach to laparoscopic right total and left colectomy by comparing the utilization of the Ligasure device to electrocautery with the application of surgical clips and or surgical staples. Safety, cost, operative time, time to pedicle ligation and hemostasis will be objectively measured in each treatment group.

    Measured: 6 weeks post-op

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. Will evaluate the surgical approach using electrocautery with surgical clips and staples

    The objective of this study is to determine the best technical approach to laparoscopic right total and left colectomy by comparing the utilization of the Ligasure device to electrocautery with the application of surgical clips and or surgical staples. Safety, cost, operative time, time to pedicle ligation and hemostasis will be objectively measured in each treatment group.

    Measured: 6 weeks post op

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted18 Jun 2007 (estimated)
  2. Study startDec 2006
  3. Primary completionNov 2010
  4. Study completionNov 2010

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Participant
Enrolment
100 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT00487409
Sponsor's protocol ID
10-06-33
Status last verified
Dec 2014
First submitted
15 Jun 2007
Last updated
15 Dec 2014
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No

Publications

  • Adamina M, Champagne BJ, Hoffman L, Ermlich MB, Delaney CP. Randomized clinical trial comparing the cost and effectiveness of bipolar vessel sealers versus clips and vascular staplers for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Br J Surg. 2011 Dec;98(12):1703-12. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7679. Epub 2011 Oct 13.

    PubMed 21997317

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Bipolar electrosurgical generator and instruments and Disposable stapling instruments in people with Colonic Diseases and Rectal Diseases, run by University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 15 Dec 2014. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

this study will evaluate the surgical approach using the Ligasure device at six weeks post operative. (time frame: 6 weeks post-op). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00487409, which also lists 1 linked publication.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 15 Dec 2014.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in