Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of ultrasonic surgical instrumentation with nonultrasonic traditional surgical techniques in various types of surgery.
Data sources: Electronic searches of MEDLINE, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Library were performed for the period of 1990 to June 1, 2005, using relevant search terms. A manual check of all references in accepted studies was also performed.
Study selection: Only comparative studies (including randomized and nonrandomized control trials) of ultrasonic surgical instrumentation with nonultrasonic instrumentation were accepted. Procedures of interest included the following: colorectal surgery, gynecologic surgery, head and neck surgery, solid organ surgery, vessel harvesting, cholecystectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, mastectomy, and Nissen fundoplication.
Data extraction: Two investigators reviewed each study: the first investigator extracted all relevant data, and consensus of each extraction was performed by a second investigator to verify the data. Data were then entered into a database and quality checked for accuracy.
Data synthesis: Fifty-one primary studies that examined 4902 patients were included in this systematic review, of which 24 were randomized trials and 27 were nonrandomized studies. Comparative meta-analyses for blood loss, surgery time, and hospital length of stay were performed using a random-effects model and stratified by surgery type. Heterogeneity was tested using Q statistics. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05.
Conclusion: Meta-analysis of outcomes comparing ultrasonic with conventional nonultrasonic surgical instrumentation demonstrates significant improvement of several perioperative outcomes in procedure-specific settings when ultrasonic instrumentation is used.