对比评价SanAgileTMSA01超声手术刀与强生GEN11、HAR36的疗效和安全性。

Expert review of medical devices Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-12 DOI:10.1080/17434440.2024.2440599
Xin Xie, Fanyu Huang, Jun Yao, Shifeng Teng, Yi Gao, Lu Chen, Haofei Wang, Wenbin Rui, Wei He, Le Xu, Hai Huang, Hongchao He, Xiaojing Wang, Fukang Sun, Yu Zhu, Zhiqian Hu, Danfeng Xu
{"title":"对比评价SanAgileTMSA01超声手术刀与强生GEN11、HAR36的疗效和安全性。","authors":"Xin Xie, Fanyu Huang, Jun Yao, Shifeng Teng, Yi Gao, Lu Chen, Haofei Wang, Wenbin Rui, Wei He, Le Xu, Hai Huang, Hongchao He, Xiaojing Wang, Fukang Sun, Yu Zhu, Zhiqian Hu, Danfeng Xu","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2024.2440599","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The advent of ultrasonic scalpels has remarkably advanced minimally invasive surgery; however, the Chinese market's reliance on imports highlights the urgent need for a cost-effective, efficient, and domestically produced surgical scalpel. This study aimed to compare SanAgile<sup>TM</sup>SA01 with the Johnson & Johnson GEN11, and HAR36 surgical devices.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>In total, 152 participants requiring urological or general laparoscopic surgery were randomly and equally divided between the two hospitals and randomized to the test and control groups. Clinical outcomes, adverse event rates, intraoperative bleeding, and surgery duration were compared between the two devices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The clinical application rate of both devices was 100%. There were no significant differences between the two groups in intraoperative bleeding, surgery duration, and incidence of adverse events. In the test group, five device-related adverse events occurred (6.58%), compared to two (2.63%) in the control group (no significant difference). The device-related adverse events did not result in any sequelae.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The clinical performance of the SanAgile<sup>TM</sup>SA01 was comparable to that of the Johnson & Johnson GEN11 and HAR36. The SanAgile<sup>TM</sup>SA01 device may serve as a viable alternative ultrasonic surgical tool, thereby providing clinicians with additional options.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Registration number of Shanghai Medical Equipment Preparation 20,190,114.</p>","PeriodicalId":94006,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of medical devices","volume":" ","pages":"1211-1217"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of SanAgile<sup>TM</sup>SA01 ultrasonic scalpel and Johnson & Johnson GEN11, and HAR36 for efficacy and safety.\",\"authors\":\"Xin Xie, Fanyu Huang, Jun Yao, Shifeng Teng, Yi Gao, Lu Chen, Haofei Wang, Wenbin Rui, Wei He, Le Xu, Hai Huang, Hongchao He, Xiaojing Wang, Fukang Sun, Yu Zhu, Zhiqian Hu, Danfeng Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17434440.2024.2440599\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The advent of ultrasonic scalpels has remarkably advanced minimally invasive surgery; however, the Chinese market's reliance on imports highlights the urgent need for a cost-effective, efficient, and domestically produced surgical scalpel. This study aimed to compare SanAgile<sup>TM</sup>SA01 with the Johnson & Johnson GEN11, and HAR36 surgical devices.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>In total, 152 participants requiring urological or general laparoscopic surgery were randomly and equally divided between the two hospitals and randomized to the test and control groups. Clinical outcomes, adverse event rates, intraoperative bleeding, and surgery duration were compared between the two devices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The clinical application rate of both devices was 100%. There were no significant differences between the two groups in intraoperative bleeding, surgery duration, and incidence of adverse events. In the test group, five device-related adverse events occurred (6.58%), compared to two (2.63%) in the control group (no significant difference). The device-related adverse events did not result in any sequelae.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The clinical performance of the SanAgile<sup>TM</sup>SA01 was comparable to that of the Johnson & Johnson GEN11 and HAR36. The SanAgile<sup>TM</sup>SA01 device may serve as a viable alternative ultrasonic surgical tool, thereby providing clinicians with additional options.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Registration number of Shanghai Medical Equipment Preparation 20,190,114.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94006,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert review of medical devices\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1211-1217\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert review of medical devices\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2024.2440599\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of medical devices","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2024.2440599","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:超声手术刀的出现标志着微创外科的重大突破;然而,中国市场仍然主要由进口产品供应。迫切需要开发一种成本效益高、效率高的国产外科手术刀。本研究旨在比较SanAgileTMSA01与强生GEN11和HAR36手术器械。研究设计与方法:将152名需要泌尿外科或普通腹腔镜手术的参与者随机等分于两家医院,随机分为实验组和对照组。比较两种装置的临床结果、不良事件发生率、术中出血和手术时间。结果:两种器械的临床应用率均为100%。两组在术中出血、手术时间和不良事件发生率方面无显著差异。试验组发生5例器械相关不良事件(6.58%),对照组发生2例(2.63%),差异无统计学意义。器械相关的不良事件对接受矫正治疗的患者没有造成任何后遗症。结论:SanAgileTMSA01的临床表现与强生GEN11和HAR36相当。SanAgileTMSA01装置可以作为一种可行的替代超声手术工具,从而为临床医生提供额外的选择。试验注册号:上海市医疗器械制剂注册号2019114。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative evaluation of SanAgileTMSA01 ultrasonic scalpel and Johnson & Johnson GEN11, and HAR36 for efficacy and safety.

Background: The advent of ultrasonic scalpels has remarkably advanced minimally invasive surgery; however, the Chinese market's reliance on imports highlights the urgent need for a cost-effective, efficient, and domestically produced surgical scalpel. This study aimed to compare SanAgileTMSA01 with the Johnson & Johnson GEN11, and HAR36 surgical devices.

Research design and methods: In total, 152 participants requiring urological or general laparoscopic surgery were randomly and equally divided between the two hospitals and randomized to the test and control groups. Clinical outcomes, adverse event rates, intraoperative bleeding, and surgery duration were compared between the two devices.

Results: The clinical application rate of both devices was 100%. There were no significant differences between the two groups in intraoperative bleeding, surgery duration, and incidence of adverse events. In the test group, five device-related adverse events occurred (6.58%), compared to two (2.63%) in the control group (no significant difference). The device-related adverse events did not result in any sequelae.

Conclusions: The clinical performance of the SanAgileTMSA01 was comparable to that of the Johnson & Johnson GEN11 and HAR36. The SanAgileTMSA01 device may serve as a viable alternative ultrasonic surgical tool, thereby providing clinicians with additional options.

Trial registration: Registration number of Shanghai Medical Equipment Preparation 20,190,114.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信