Annals of Orthopedics and Rheumatology

A Review of Bipolar Sealer Use in Modern Total Joint Arthroplasty

Review Article | Open Access

  • 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, USA
  • 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Einstein Medical Center, USA
+ Show More - Show Less
Corresponding Authors
Bryan M Saltzman, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 West Harrison Street, Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60612, USA

The rich vascularity of the hip and knee joints provides a substantial source of blood loss intra- and perioperatively during total knee or hip arthroplasty procedures. Due to concerns over postoperative anemia and the subsequent risks of transfusion of blood products, a push has been made in the Orthopedic and other surgical fields toward developing technology to provide superior intraoperative hemostasis. Standard unipolar electrocautery has been utilized for many years, but at the detriment of local tissue damage through charring and possibility of eschar detachment postoperatively and consequent repeat bleeding. Bipolar sealer devices were developed to produce hemostasis with radiofrequency energy in combination with continuously-flowing saline irrigation at the electrode tip to denature the vessel wall’s elastin and collagen and cause contraction of vascular collagen, occlusion of blood flow, coagulation and subsequent soft tissue sealing at a much lower temperature (< 100ºC) than with standard electrocautery. The advantage of electrothermal bipolar vessel sealers include diminished thermal injuries, reduced charring, less tissue necrosis, reduced time of operation, ease of visualization of vessels being sealed, no systemic morbidity risks (as may be seen with certain pharmacologic strategies), and the absence of foreign material left at the surgical site. However, the disadvantages include the cost of the device and the risk of thermal spread. Some studies comparing bipolar sealers to standard monopolar devices have reported superior results in reducing blood loss and transfusion risk, while other reports have shown equivocal outcomes, leading to questions regarding the cost-effectiveness of the technology.


Bipolar sealer, Aquamantys©, Electrocautery, Hemostasis, Arthroplasty


Saltzman BM, Oni JK (2014) A Review of Bipolar Sealer Use in Modern Total Joint Arthroplasty. Ann Orthop Rheumatol 2(2): 1015.


Due to the rich vasculature of the hip and knee joints, total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have an inherent risk of substantial intra- and peri-operative blood loss. Effective hemostasis is therefore imperative during the course of the procedure to prevent numerous potential complications. It is well reported that postoperative anemia is of significant concern to surgeons given the increased morbidity, length of hospital stay, and mortality associated with it [1]. With regards to the hip, reports have stated that primary THA averages 1000 to 2000 mL of intraoperative blood loss, and transfusion requirements have ranged from 3% to 50% [2-5].Some reports have stated a rate of one serious homologous blood transfusion-related complication for every 67,000 transfused [6]. Consequent concerns about safety of allogeneic blood transfusions after intra- and postoperative blood loss from total hip and knee arthroplasty procedures have led to a generalized increase in efforts to develop techniques aimed at decreasing blood loss. Such techniques include autologous donation and transfusion, perioperative blood salvage, controlled hypotension, fibrin sealants on exposed bone and soft tissue surfaces, antifibrinolytic treatment, erythropoietin therapy, intraoperative cell savers, hemodilution, pharmacological devices, and bipolar sealers [7,8]. Secure hemostasis is valuable during any surgery to prevent both local and systemic morbidity as well as mortality. Bipolar sealers can be used intraoperatively to control active bleeding with spot coagulation of vessels in an effort to both decrease blood loss and improve surgeon visualization, and can additionally be used to pre-treat areas that will likely bleed in the course of the operation [7,9]. The device in this manner can broadly ‘paint’ over surfaces that may bleed after closure of soft tissues [10]. Some of the proposed advantages of electrothermal bipolar vessel sealers include diminished thermal injuries, reduced charring, decreased tissue necrosis, reduced time of operation, ease of visualization of vessels being sealed, no systemic morbidity risks (as may be seen with certain pharmacologic strategies), and the absence of foreign material left at the surgical site. However, the disadvantages include the cost of the device and the risk of thermal spread with coagulation [11]. Some studies have demonstrated that bipolar sealers have the ability to reduce smoke production, tissue damage, blood loss and transfusion requirements during intraoperative hemostasis as compared with the standard electrocautery, which has led to further evaluation of the value of this relatively new technology [12,13]. However, as new surgical devices are created, and as the volume of joint replacement procedures continues to increase rapidly, the importance of cost and efficacy of intraoperative techniques is paramount, and a single bipolar sealer device costs about 50-times more than a standard monopolar device.


The most recent iteration of this technology genre, the Aquamantys© System is a bipolar sealing device (BPS 6.0-VT Tissue Link Medical, Dover, NH), which combines a bipolar electrosurgical generator with a rotary peristaltic saline pump [14]. The current hand-held device has both the aforementioned combined into a single unit. Electrothermal bipolar vessel sealers produce a hemostatic seal by applying radiofrequency energy in combination with continuously-flowing saline irrigation at the electrode tip directed at a vessel, therein denaturing the vessel wall’s elastin and collagen and causing contraction of vascular collagen, occlusion of blood flow, coagulation and subsequent soft tissue sealing at a much lower temperature (< 100º C) than occurs with standard electrocautery [15-17]. The saline flow serves to cool tissue temperatures, and serves as a conductive fluid to distribute energy over a larger, more even surface of the vessel while sealing [7,12]. Typically, the depth of penetration of these saline-coupled bipolar sealing technologies is only 2mm or less [9]. By contrast, conventional monopolar electrocautery risks producing an eschar and tissue charring from temperatures exceeding 300º C, and thereby poses a risk of subsequent postoperative bleeding with eschar breakage or detachment [7].

Basic science research aimed at delineating the physiologic effects bipolar sealers has used animal model studies predominantly in the General Surgery literature because of the role that bipolar sealers have played in advancing the potential of complicated laparoscopic procedures. However, the results are generic and applicable to the device’s function within orthopedic procedures as well. An animal study on New Zealand white rabbits was performed to better understand the mechanical, histological and biomechanical differences among several different hemostatic techniques, including bipolar sealers [17]. The researchers ligated the 2-mm-sized short gastric vessels with the LigaSure electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer (LigaSure, Valleylab, Boulder, CO) as well as comparisons with metal clip, plastic clip, Harmonic Ace and tie ligation, and three days later through a reoperation harvested the vessels for analysis. Interestingly, they found that the Liga Sure bipolar sealer had significantly lower bursting pressures in arteries than the other aforementioned techniques. This electrocautery technique additionally showed significantly lower expression of inducible and endothelial nitric oxide synthase (iNOS and eNOS) mRNA expressions, which they hypothesized, was due to thermal injuries of the whole vessel wall from the device causing more full-thickness tissue damage than the other techniques.

Perivascular fibrosis and inflammation were frequently observed in the sites proximal to the ligation, which was not unlike any of the other evaluated hemostatic devices. Harold [18]. determined that electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer use in pig arteries secured vessels up to 7 mm in diameter with burst strengths of at least three times that of physiologic burst strength, indicating that it adequately seals the majority of vessels that a surgeon may encounter. They also reported a mean thermal spread for any vessel size of 2.57 mm, indicating that there is some spread of coagulating effects from the device to the nearby vessel wall, but that the risk to surrounding soft tissues is minimal. Similar results of bursting pressures and thermal spread were described in a comparable pig study by Carbonell [19].

In TKA, bipolar sealers can be used to treat the soft tissue and exposed bone after bone cuts and trial components have been placed, prior to the actual implantation of components. Transected branches of the inferior geniculate arteries at the posterolateral and medial joint corners are sources of bleeding that can be cauterized with the device. Spot treatment of bone surfaces not covered by implanted components is also recommended. In THA, pretreatment of areas expected to bleed is as important as coagulating large open muscle and bone beds from the femoral canal or extended trochanteric osteotomy sections. Of note, it is imperative in these procedures to avoid contact with skin edges, subcutaneous tissues, tendons and ligaments with the bipolar sealing devices due to potential harm from their shrinking effect on collagen [9].


The general surgical fields have seen great advances with use of the bipolar sealer device for hemostasis. Through randomized controlled trials, bipolar vessel sealers have been demonstrated in laparoscopic colorectal resection to be faster and more cost-efficient than surgical clips and vascular staplers for vascular control and operative time [20,21]. This technology has additionally been safe and successful with laparoscopic cholecystectomy, [22] liver surgery, [23] and in the field of endoscopic gynecological surgery [24]. The electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer device was reported as safe and effective for intestinal resections and hemostasis in the setting of acute trauma, with substantial shortening of valuable operative time [25].

In Orthopedics, the excessive blood loss encountered in spinal reconstructive surgery – particularly during surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis – and the risks and limitations that often preclude the transfusion of blood products has led to the use of the bipolar sealer intraoperatively. A comparison study by Mankin [26] reported a significant reduction in blood loss by 57% after the introduction of the Aquamantys© bipolar sealer as compared to a control group of patients treated with hypotensive anesthesia, thrombin-soaked sponges, and intraoperative blood salvage (435±192 mL vs 1009±392 mL). Complication rates between the cohorts were similar, and none of the 100 patients treated with the bipolar sealer required blood transfusions in contrast to 5 of the 76 control group patients. Gordon [27] additionally noted the effectiveness of the Aquamantys© bipolar sealer device in pediatric patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis undergoing posterior spinal fusion and segmental spinal instrumentation. They used the Aquamantys© bipolar sealer in a cohort of 50 patients and demonstrated significant reductions in intraoperative estimated blood loss, total perioperative blood loss, volume of blood products transfuse and overall transfusion rate in comparison with the 50 control group patients using traditional electrocautery. The technology has been used in orthopedic oncology as well with comparable decreases in operative times and transfusion risks [28].

Table 1: Outcome studies of bipolar sealer use for hemostasis in total joint arthroplasty.

Author No. Total 
Procedure Type of Study Results Conclusions
[13] 50 Primary THA Prospective, blinded, 
comparison Bipolar 
sealer vs standard
Total blood loss in bipolar sealer group decreased by 
40% Transfusions decreased in bipolar sealer group by 
73% Significant intraoperative blood loss reduction (p = 
0.002) Significant postoperative blood loss reduction (p 
= 0.001) No difference in modified Harris hip scores
Reduced tissue damage and smoke production with 
bipolar Sealers
Bipolar sealer is an effective
means of hemostasis in total
hip arthroplasty as an
alternative to standard
[12] 50 Primary TKA Prospective, 
Bipolar sealer vs 
Significant reduction in postoperative blood loss (p = 
0.05) with bipolar sealer Significant reduction in total 
blood loss (p = 0.02) with bipolar sealer No tissue 
charring or smoke production with bipolar sealer No 
difference in knee scores between cohorts
Bipolar sealer is as effective or
more effective than standard
electrocautery to reduce blood
loss, tissue damage and smoke
production in TKA
[31] 100 Primary 
anterior supine 
consecutive series
Bipolar sealer 
second 50 cases) vs
(first 50 cases)
No significant differences with length of hospitalization, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hemoglobin levels, operative times Lower rate of intraoperative and postoperative transfusions with bipolar sealer use Bipolar sealer is as effective as standard electrocautery for hemostasis in THA, with a lower rate of transfusion
[5] 200 Primary 
anterior supine 
Bipolar sealer 
vs standard monopolar
Similar transfusion rates between cohorts (6% and 4%)
Actual blood loss and change in hemoglobin were 
identical (1.35 and 3.3g) Estimated intraoperative blood 
loss was significantly greater with bipolar sealer use 
(140.8 vs 127.5, p = 0.034) 
The use of bipolar sealer was
not found to provide increased
hemostasis, and the cost was
50-fold higher ($500 to $10)
than standard electrocautery
The team’s practice has stopped
use of bipolar sealer in this
[30] 40 Primary TKA Prospective matchedpair analysis
Bipolar sealer 
vs standard 
Significant reduction of 28.4% total visible blood loss in
bipolar sealer group (1130 vs 1580 mL, p < 0.003)
Reduced probability for allogeneic transfusion by a 
factor of 5 and for overall transfusion of stored blood 
from 39% to 5% No complications No reoperations
Bipolar sealer devices are
recommended for use in TKA
to potentially decrease blood
loss and risk of transfusion at
no additional morbidity to the
[29] 95 Primary THA Prospective, andomized
controlled trial Bipolar 
sealer (Aquamantys)
vs fibrin spray vs 
standard electrocautery
Bipolar sealer group compared to control group with 
blood savings at 6 hours (96mL), 24 hours (129 mL), 
48 hours (296 mL), and 72 hours (121mL) Significance 
compared to standard electrocautery only at 48 hours 
postop Fibrin spray group had superior performance in 
blood loss prevention No adverse events
Bipolar sealer is effective with
minimal risk to the patient
Fibrin spray is superior to
bipolar sealer, and standard
[7] 80 Revision for 
infected TKA
Case-Control Study
Bipolar sealer 
vs standard 
Mean total blood loss was 865.6±707.3mL for 
conventional electrocautery group and 747.6±577.6mL 
for the bipolar sealer group (p = .416) Transfusion 
requirement was mean 1.8±1.7 units pRBCs vs 1.4±1.3 
units (p = .296) Proportion of patients who required 
transfusion was 63% vs 68% (p = .639) Control 
patients tended to be more likely to require 2+ units 
pRBCs (33% vs 15%) (p = .066) Mean operative time 
was 140.2±45.7min vs 161.6±47.3min (p = .044) Net 
increase $70 per case No adverse events with bipolar 
sealer vs 4 with conventional
Although the operative time
was significantly less in the
bipolar sealer group, this did
not offset the high cost of the
device itself and the device
did not significantly alter
blood loss or need for
Saline-coupled bipolar sealing
device is not efficacious in
patients with infected TKA
[10] 111 Primary TKA Prospective, 
controlled trial
Bipolar sealer 
vs standard unipolar
No significant differences in mean postoperative 
drain output (unipolar: 776.5±334.0mL vs bipolar: 
778.7±331.1mL, p =.97) No significant differences in 
postop day 1 thru 3 hemoglobin level (p = .2-.6) or 
hematocrit (p = .17-.46) No significant difference in 
transfusion needs (36% vs 40%, p = .67) No significant 
differences in mean hemoglobin nadir (9.2±1.1 g/dL vs 
9.3±1.1 g/dL, p = .81) No significant difference in mean 
change in hematocrit (11.1±3.5g/dL vs 10.6±2.7g/dL, 
p = .42)
Unipolar and bipolar sealer
efficacy are equivocal with no
significant differences in
terms of drain output,
transfusion rates or
postoperative hemoglobin
[14] 105 Primary THA Prospective, 
randomized trial
Bipolar sealer 
vs conventional
No significant difference in mean operating times 
(standard electrocautery: 85±37min vs bipolar: 
77±27min, p = .29) No significant difference in mean 
hospital stay (6.6±2.7min vs 5.8±2.1min, p = .11) No 
significant difference in mean drain fluid (879±541mL 
vs 903±419mL, p = .01) No significant difference in 
mean serum myoglobin on postop day 1 (397±473µg/
LJ vs 434±525µg/LJ, p = .71) No significant difference in 
mean total blood loss (1846±526mL vs 1740±569mL, 
p = .37) No significant difference in mean postoperative 
blood loss (1306±271mL vs 1256±532mL, p = .38) 
No significant difference in mean intraoperative blood 
loss (539±254mL vs 483±288mL, p = .40) Significantly 
earlier removal of suction drain after standard
electrocautery (13.7±14 vs 19.8±17 hours)
There was no clinical
superiority or inferiority of the
bipolar sealer device in
comparison to conventional
electrocautery in primary
They do not recommend its use
in primary THA due to this
and the higher relative cost of
the device
[15] 140 Primary THA Prospective, singlecenter,
randomized, doubleblinded
Bipolar sealer 
vs standard 
No significant difference in operative time (bipolar: 107.5±45.9min vs standard: 107.0±41.9min, p = .95) No significant difference in mean estimated blood loss (315.2±203.4mL vs 368.5±277.8mL, p = .20) No significant difference in proportion patients with transfusion (21.1% vs 20.3%, p = .90) No significant difference in mean number of blood units transfused (0.38±0.83 vs 0.44±0.98, p = .72) No significant difference in mean hemoglobin drop (5.4±1.6 vs 5.3±1.8, p = .10) No significant difference in narcotic usage (156.1±130.2 vs 164.9±123.4 mg-equivalents, p = .68) No significant difference in mean length of stay (3.3±1.1 vs 3.4±1.6 days, p = .67) No significant difference in Harris hip score at mean improvement from preop at 4-weeks (19.1±14.3 vs 18.5±14.1, p = .98) or 12-weeks postop (33.9±13.2 vs 35.0±11.7, p = .06) No significant difference in pain score at mean improvement from preop at 4-weeks (4.5±2.4 vs 4.7±2.3, p = .77) or 12- weeks postop (5.0±2.4 vs 5.5±2.0, p = .29) No significant difference in SF-12 mean PCS at 4-weeks (36.9±8.7 vs 35.7±9.3, p = .51) or 12-weeks postop (45.9±8.3 vs 45.9±10.6, p = .99) No significant difference in SF-12 mean MCS at 4-weeks (56.5±9.2 vs 56.1±9.1, p = .84) or 12-weeks postop (56.4±8.4 vs 57.1±6.0, p = .64) No significant differences were found in terms of functional, clinical, or health-related quality-of-life outcomes between those treated with bipolar sealer and those with standard electrocautery The team no longer uses the bipolar sealer device for uncomplicated primary THA



Fifty primary THAs were performed by Marulanda [13] in a prospective, blinded, randomized comparison of hemostasis with a bipolar sealer device and with standard electrocautery. They reported a significant reduction in the intra- (p = 0.002) and postoperative (p = 0.001) blood loss compared to standard electrocautery use, with 40% and 73% decreases in total blood loss and transfusion requirements, respectively. Additionally, they reported a subjective reduction in smoke production and tissue damage with bipolar sealer use. There was, however, no difference in clinical outcomes between cohorts.

Falez [29] compared the Aquamantys© bipolar sealer use to both fibrin spray and standard electrocautery in a prospective, randomized trial of 95 patients who underwent primary THA. They determined that at 6-, 24-, 48-, and 72-hours postoperatively, those patients treated with bipolar sealer and fibrin spray had lower mean blood losses than with standard electrocautery, although differences were more substantial with the fibrin spray. Significant mean blood savings were seen with the bipolar sealer only at the 48-hour postoperative time.

Marulanda [4] conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized study to compare standard electrocautery with a bipolar sealer for hemostasis in primary unilateral TKA. Of the total 69 patients, they reported a significantly lower amount of blood loss and decrease in postoperative hemoglobin for those in the bipolar sealer cohort, in addition to lower trends for the need of autologous transfusion of blood products. They found no difference in clinical outcomes when compared to standard electrocautery, concluding that bipolar sealers are effective alternatives in primary unilateral knee arthroplasty without adversely affecting the clinical outcome.

Marulanda [12] reported on 50 primary TKAs comparing bipolar sealer to conventional electrocautery for hemostasis in a prospective, randomized study. They demonstrated a significant reduction in postoperative (p = 0.05) and total (p = 0.02) blood loss, as well as an absence of smoke production and tissue charring with bipolar sealer use. Similar to the aforementioned studies, there were no clinical outcome differences per Knee Society scores, suggesting that bipolar sealing devices are at least as effective as the standard electrocautery option without affecting patient knee clinical outcomes.

A prospective matched-pair analysis of 40 patients by Pfeiffer [30] concluded that the Aquamantys© bipolar sealer use for electrocoagulation in TKA is superior to conventional hemostasis. They reported a reduced total visible blood loss of more than 28% compared to the control patients, and a reduction of blood transfusions by a factor of five. There were no associated complications with its use, and no requirement for reoperation.

Despite these studies demonstrating the value of the bipolar sealer in lowering intraoperative and postoperative blood loss and decreasing transfusion needs, some other reports have failed to show any significant improvements with the bipolar sealer in arthroplasty. A retrospective review of 100 consecutive anterior supine THAs was evaluated, with the first 50 cases using traditional electrocautery for hemostasis and the subsequent 50 cases utilizing an Aquamantys© bipolar sealer device. They reported a lower intraoperative and postoperative transfusion rate with the bipolar sealer group, but no significant differences between the cohorts with respect to length of hospitalization, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hemoglobin levels, or operative times [31]. As a continuation of this 100-patient retrospective pilot study, the team performed a double-blinded prospective study to compare Aquamantys© bipolar sealer to standard monopolar electrocautery in reducing blood loss after anterior supine intermuscular THA [5]. Surprisingly, this trial’s data was contrary to some of the results of their previous research and the results of others, in that the use of the bipolar sealer did not account for a significant difference in postoperative hemoglobin, change in hemoglobin, or a decrease in transfusion requirements. They reported a significantly higher estimated blood loss of about 15 mL with the patients who had bipolar sealer use, but reported that this was likely anomalous given the identical hemoglobin changes in both cohorts. They proposed that the use of bipolar sealer technology may be more efficient in surgeons early in their training when a greater volume of intraoperative blood loss may be at risk.

Zeh [14] compared the Aquamantys© bipolar sealer device with standard electrocautery in primary THA via a prospective randomized trial of 105 patients. The 50 patients in the standard electrocautery cohort and the 55 patients in the bipolar sealer hemostasis cohort showed no difference in terms of mean operating time, mean hospital stay, mean drain fluid, mean total blood loss, mean intraoperative blood loss, or calculated postoperative blood loss. There was no statistical difference in mean serum myoglobin between groups indicating that conventional electrocautery was not traumatizing the surrounding skeletal musculature to any greater a degree than the Aquamantys© or vice versa. Significance was found only with the mean time to suction drain removal, which was lower in the standard electrocautery patients.

Another prospective, single-center, randomized, doubleblinded study by Barsoum [15] failed to show efficacy of the bipolar sealer in use with uncomplicated primary THA. They reported on 140 patients receiving primary THA with either the Aquamantys© 6.0 bipolar sealer (N = 71) or a standard Bovie electrocautery (N = 69). The mean number of blood units transfused and proportion of patients requiring transfusion were similar in the two cohorts. There were additionally no significant differences in estimated blood loss, postoperative hemoglobin levels, perioperative narcotic usage, length of stay in hospital, or postoperative clinical outcome scores (pain, Harris hip, Short Form-12).

Bipolar sealing technology with the Aquamantys© was additionally reported by Plymale [10] in a consecutive, randomized trial in comparison with standard unipolar electrocautery during primary TKA. In a final cohort of 50 patients undergoing the procedure with bipolar sealer use and 61 patients with the standard unipolar device, they reported no statistically significant difference in mean postoperative drain output, proportion of patients requiring packed red blood cell transfusion, or mean auto-transfusion amounts. There were similarly no significant differences between mean postoperative hemoglobin nadirs in either group. Mean hemoglobin level difference and mean change in hematocrit were also not significantly different between cohorts.

The use of the Aquamantys© bipolar sealing in revision TKA was analyzed by Derman [7] in a case-controlled study of 80 patients with infected TKA. The 40 patients who used conventional electrocautery underwent either removal of hardware with spacer implantation (15, 38%), I&D with polyethylene exchange (9, 23%) or hardware replantation, with the 40 patients using bipolar sealer respectively undergoing 16 (40%), 12 (30%) and 12 (30%),respectively. While the bipolar sealer group did have lower total blood loss it was not statistically significant. There were additionally no significant differences in transfusion of packed red blood cells or proportion of patients requiring transfusion. Of particular note, although patients in the bipolar sealing group had a significantly lower operative time (161.6 vs 140.2 min, p =.044) accounting for savings of $430 per case, this did not offset the $500 cost of the device itself (net increase of $70 per operation).



Proposed benefits from this technology include prevention of substantial blood loss intraoperatively and postoperatively, improved visualization intraoperatively, decreased morbidity to surrounding tissues and reduced risk for transfusion [9]. These goals are founded in the results of several of the aforementioned studies, yet many still find no difference when compared to standard monopolar electrocautery. Additionally, the theoretical benefits of reduced pain and swelling from decreased postoperative hematoma formation are as of yet unfounded, given the lack of significant clinical outcome differences when comparing bipolar sealers to the conventional hemostasis techniques. Since bipolar sealer devices initially add substantial additional costs to arthroplasty procedures, it is imperative that their use be of considerable benefit to the patient in order to offset this cost via less blood loss and lower transfusion risks for the patient. Further evaluation of bipolar sealer use in more complicated arthroplasty cases, including revision hip and knee arthroplasty surgery, and other orthopedic procedures is necessary before definitive conclusions about its indications and limitations can be defined. Specific patient subsets including those with vascular abnormalities or elevated bleeding risks can be further evaluated in the context of bipolar sealer use to determine its utility in these situations as well. Perhaps further use in complex revision cases, patients with coagulation defects, may find a superior niche for the technology and its potential for decreasing overall blood loss and operative time [9]. In addition, a large cost-effectiveness analysis should be completed to determine expense, bleeding-related complications and patient morbidity associated with the use of bipolar sealer, and in comparison to standard electrocautery and various other hemostasis or blood-sparing technologies.


1. Dunne JR, Malone D, Tracy JK, Gannon C, Napolitano LM. Perioperative anemia: an independent risk factor for infection, mortality, and resource utilization in surgery. J Surg Res. 2002; 102: 237-244.

2. Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Seng BE, Adams JB. Enhanced early outcomes with the anterior supine intermuscular approach in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91 Suppl 6: 107-120.

3. Cheung G, Carmont MR, Bing AJ, Kuiper JH, Alcock RJ, Graham NM. No drain, autologous transfusion drain or suction drain? A randomised prospective study in total hip replacement surgery of 168 patients. Acta Orthop Belg. 2010; 76: 619-627.

4. Marulanda GA, Krebs VE, Bierbaum BE, Goldberg VM, Ries M, Ulrich SD, et al. Hemostasis using a bipolar sealer in primary unilateral total knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009; 38: E179-183.

5. Morris MJ, Barrett M, Lombardi AV Jr, Tucker TL, Berend KR. Randomized blinded study comparing a bipolar sealer and standard electrocautery in reducing transfusion requirements in anterior supine intermuscular total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28: 1614-1617.

6. Bridgens JP, Evans CR, Dobson PM, Hamer AJ. Intraoperative red blood-cell salvage in revision hip surgery. A case-matched study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89: 270-275.

7. Derman PB, Kamath AF, Lee GC. Saline-coupled bipolar sealing in revision total knee arthroplasty for infection. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2013; 42: 407-411.

8. Ulrich SD, Kyle B, Johnson AJ, Zywiel MG, Mont MA. Strategies to reduce blood loss in lower extremity total joint arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int. 2010; 20: 341-347.

9. Rosenberg AG. Reducing blood loss in total joint surgery with a salinecoupled bipolar sealing technology. J Arthroplasty. 2007; 22: 82-85.

10. Plymale MF, Capogna BM, Lovy AJ, Adler ML, Hirsh DM, Kim SJ. Unipolar vs bipolar hemostasis in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized trial. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27: 1133-1137.

11. Entezari K, Hoffmann P, Goris M, Peltier A, Van Velthoven R. A review of currently available vessel sealing systems. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2007; 16: 52-57.

12. Marulanda GA, Ragland PS, Seyler TM, Mont MA. Reductions in blood loss with use of a bipolar sealer for hemostasis in primary total knee arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int. 2005; 14: 281-286.

13. Marulanda GA, Ulrich SD, Seyler TM, Delanois RE, Mont MA. Reductions in blood loss with a bipolar sealer in total hip arthroplasty. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2008; 5: 125-131.

14. Zeh A, Messer J, Davis J, Vasarhelyi A, Wohlrab D. The Aquamantys system--an alternative to reduce blood loss in primary total hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2010; 25: 1072-1077.

15. Barsoum WK, Klika AK, Murray TG, Higuera C, Lee HH, Krebs VE. Prospective randomized evaluation of the need for blood transfusion during primary total hip arthroplasty with use of a bipolar sealer. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93: 513-518.

16. Heniford BT, Matthews BD, Sing RF, Backus C, Pratt B, Greene FL. Initial results with an electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer. Surg Endosc. 2001; 15: 799-801.

17. Lim CS, Jang JY, Lee SE, Lee YJ, Kang MJ, Kim SW. Comparison of various methods of vessel ligation: what is the safest method? Surg Endosc. 2013; 27: 3129-3138.

18. Harold KL, Pollinger H, Matthews BD, Kercher KW, Sing RF, Heniford BT. Comparison of ultrasonic energy, bipolar thermal energy, and vascular clips for the hemostasis of small-, medium-, and large-sized arteries. Surg Endosc. 2003; 17: 1228-1230.

19. Carbonell AM, Joels CS, Kercher KW, Matthews BD, Sing RF, Heniford BT. A comparison of laparoscopic bipolar vessel sealing devices in the hemostasis of small-, medium-, and large-sized arteries. J Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques 2003; 13: 377- 380.

20. 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. British Journal of Surgery. 2011; 98: 1703-1712.

21. Hubner M, Demartines N, Muller S, Dindo D, Clavien PA, Hahnloser D. Prospective randomized study of monopolar scissors, bipolar vessel sealer and ultrasonic shears in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2008; 95: 1098-1104.

22. Bulus H, Basar O, Tas A, Yavuz A, Akkoca M, Coskun A, et al. Evaluation of three instruments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: harmonic scalpel, bipolar vessel sealer, and conventional technique. Minerva Chir. 2013; 68: 537-542.

23. Kaibori M, Matsui K, Ishizaki M, Sakaguchi T, Matsushima H, Matsui Y, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial of hemostasis with a bipolar sealer during hepatic transection for liver resection. Surgery. 2013; 154: 1046-1052.

24. Aytan H, Nazik H, Narin R, Api M, Tok EC. Comparison of the use of LigaSure, Halo PKS Cutting Forceps and EnSeal Tissue Sealer in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a Randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 [In Press].

25. Hope WW, Burns JM, Newcomb WL, Heniford BT, Sing RF. Safety and efficacy of the electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer in trauma. Injury. 2009; 40: 564-566.

26. Mankin KP, Moore CA, Miller LE, Block JE. Hemostasis with a bipolar sealer during surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012; 25: 259-263.

27. Gordon ZL, Son-Hing JP, Poe-Kochert C, Thompson GH. Bipolar sealer device reduces blood loss and transfusion requirements in posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop. 2013; 33: 700-706.

28. Siegel HJ, Sparks DR, Casillas MA Jr, Hong H, Dunham WH. The use of bipolar hemosealing technology in orthopedic oncology: safety and clinical impact. Orthopedics. 2008; 31.

29. Falez F, Meo A, Panegrossi G, Favetti F, La Cava F, Casella F. Blood loss reduction in cementless total hip replacement with fibrin spray or bipolar sealer: a randomized controlled trial on ninety five patients. Int Orthop. 2013; 37: 1213-1217.

 30. Pfeiffer M, Brautigam H, Draws D, Sigg A. A new bipolar blood sealing system embedded in perioperative strategies vs. a conventional regimen for total knee arthroplasty: results of a matched-pair study. Ger Med Sci. 2005; 3: 1-5.

31. Morris MJ, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr. Hemostasis in anterior supine intermuscular total hip arthroplasty: pilot study comparing standard electrocautery and a bipolar sealer. Surg Technol Int. 2010; 20: 352- 356.

Received : 23 Feb 2014
Accepted : 05 May 2014
Published : 08 May 2014
Annals of Otolaryngology and Rhinology
ISSN : 2379-948X
Launched : 2014
JSM Schizophrenia
Launched : 2016
Journal of Nausea
Launched : 2020
JSM Internal Medicine
Launched : 2016
JSM Hepatitis
Launched : 2016
JSM Oro Facial Surgeries
ISSN : 2578-3211
Launched : 2016
Journal of Human Nutrition and Food Science
ISSN : 2333-6706
Launched : 2013
JSM Regenerative Medicine and Bioengineering
ISSN : 2379-0490
Launched : 2013
JSM Spine
ISSN : 2578-3181
Launched : 2016
Archives of Palliative Care
ISSN : 2573-1165
Launched : 2016
JSM Nutritional Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3203
Launched : 2017
Annals of Neurodegenerative Disorders
ISSN : 2476-2032
Launched : 2016
Journal of Fever
ISSN : 2641-7782
Launched : 2017
JSM Bone Marrow Research
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2016
JSM Mathematics and Statistics
ISSN : 2578-3173
Launched : 2014
Journal of Autoimmunity and Research
ISSN : 2573-1173
Launched : 2014
JSM Arthritis
ISSN : 2475-9155
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Neck Cancer-Cases and Reviews
ISSN : 2573-1610
Launched : 2016
JSM General Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2573-1564
Launched : 2016
JSM Anatomy and Physiology
ISSN : 2573-1262
Launched : 2016
JSM Dental Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1548
Launched : 2016
Annals of Emergency Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1017
Launched : 2016
Annals of Mens Health and Wellness
ISSN : 2641-7707
Launched : 2017
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Health Care
ISSN : 2576-0084
Launched : 2018
Journal of Chronic Diseases and Management
ISSN : 2573-1300
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vaccines and Immunization
ISSN : 2378-9379
Launched : 2014
JSM Heart Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2578-3157
Launched : 2016
Annals of Reproductive Medicine and Treatment
ISSN : 2573-1092
Launched : 2016
JSM Brain Science
ISSN : 2573-1289
Launched : 2016
JSM Biomarkers
ISSN : 2578-3815
Launched : 2014
JSM Biology
ISSN : 2475-9392
Launched : 2016
Archives of Stem Cell and Research
ISSN : 2578-3580
Launched : 2014
Annals of Clinical and Medical Microbiology
ISSN : 2578-3629
Launched : 2014
JSM Pediatric Surgery
ISSN : 2578-3149
Launched : 2017
Journal of Memory Disorder and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-319X
Launched : 2016
JSM Tropical Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2578-3165
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Face Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3793
Launched : 2016
JSM Cardiothoracic Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1297
Launched : 2016
JSM Bone and Joint Diseases
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2017
JSM Bioavailability and Bioequivalence
ISSN : 2641-7812
Launched : 2017
JSM Atherosclerosis
ISSN : 2573-1270
Launched : 2016
Journal of Genitourinary Disorders
ISSN : 2641-7790
Launched : 2017
Journal of Fractures and Sprains
ISSN : 2578-3831
Launched : 2016
Journal of Autism and Epilepsy
ISSN : 2641-7774
Launched : 2016
Annals of Marine Biology and Research
ISSN : 2573-105X
Launched : 2014
JSM Health Education & Primary Health Care
ISSN : 2578-3777
Launched : 2016
JSM Communication Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3807
Launched : 2016
Annals of Musculoskeletal Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3599
Launched : 2016
Annals of Virology and Research
ISSN : 2573-1122
Launched : 2014
JSM Renal Medicine
ISSN : 2573-1637
Launched : 2016
Journal of Muscle Health
ISSN : 2578-3823
Launched : 2016
JSM Genetics and Genomics
ISSN : 2334-1823
Launched : 2013
JSM Anxiety and Depression
ISSN : 2475-9139
Launched : 2016
Clinical Journal of Heart Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7766
Launched : 2016
Annals of Medicinal Chemistry and Research
ISSN : 2378-9336
Launched : 2014
JSM Pain and Management
ISSN : 2578-3378
Launched : 2016
JSM Women's Health
ISSN : 2578-3696
Launched : 2016
Clinical Research in HIV or AIDS
ISSN : 2374-0094
Launched : 2013
Journal of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity
ISSN : 2333-6692
Launched : 2013
Journal of Substance Abuse and Alcoholism
ISSN : 2373-9363
Launched : 2013
JSM Neurosurgery and Spine
ISSN : 2373-9479
Launched : 2013
Journal of Liver and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2379-0830
Launched : 2014
Journal of Drug Design and Research
ISSN : 2379-089X
Launched : 2014
JSM Clinical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2373-938X
Launched : 2013
JSM Bioinformatics, Genomics and Proteomics
ISSN : 2576-1102
Launched : 2014
JSM Chemistry
ISSN : 2334-1831
Launched : 2013
Journal of Trauma and Care
ISSN : 2573-1246
Launched : 2014
JSM Surgical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2578-3688
Launched : 2016
Annals of Food Processing and Preservation
ISSN : 2573-1033
Launched : 2016
Journal of Radiology and Radiation Therapy
ISSN : 2333-7095
Launched : 2013
JSM Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-3572
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical Pathology
ISSN : 2373-9282
Launched : 2013
Annals of Cardiovascular Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7731
Launched : 2016
Journal of Behavior
ISSN : 2576-0076
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical and Experimental Metabolism
ISSN : 2572-2492
Launched : 2016
Clinical Research in Infectious Diseases
ISSN : 2379-0636
Launched : 2013
JSM Microbiology
ISSN : 2333-6455
Launched : 2013
Journal of Urology and Research
ISSN : 2379-951X
Launched : 2014
Journal of Family Medicine and Community Health
ISSN : 2379-0547
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pregnancy and Care
ISSN : 2578-336X
Launched : 2017
JSM Cell and Developmental Biology
ISSN : 2379-061X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Aquaculture and Research
ISSN : 2379-0881
Launched : 2014
Clinical Research in Pulmonology
ISSN : 2333-6625
Launched : 2013
Journal of Immunology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6714
Launched : 2013
Annals of Forensic Research and Analysis
ISSN : 2378-9476
Launched : 2014
JSM Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
ISSN : 2333-7109
Launched : 2013
Annals of Breast Cancer Research
ISSN : 2641-7685
Launched : 2016
Annals of Gerontology and Geriatric Research
ISSN : 2378-9409
Launched : 2014
Journal of Sleep Medicine and Disorders
ISSN : 2379-0822
Launched : 2014
JSM Burns and Trauma
ISSN : 2475-9406
Launched : 2016
Chemical Engineering and Process Techniques
ISSN : 2333-6633
Launched : 2013
Annals of Clinical Cytology and Pathology
ISSN : 2475-9430
Launched : 2014
JSM Allergy and Asthma
ISSN : 2573-1254
Launched : 2016
Journal of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
ISSN : 2334-2307
Launched : 2013
Annals of Sports Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2379-0571
Launched : 2014
JSM Sexual Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3718
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vascular Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-9344
Launched : 2014
JSM Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering
ISSN : 2333-7117
Launched : 2013
Journal of Hematology and Transfusion
ISSN : 2333-6684
Launched : 2013
JSM Environmental Science and Ecology
ISSN : 2333-7141
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cardiology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6676
Launched : 2013
JSM Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine
ISSN : 2334-1815
Launched : 2013
Journal of Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders
ISSN : 2475-9473
Launched : 2016
JSM Ophthalmology
ISSN : 2333-6447
Launched : 2013
Journal of Pharmacology and Clinical Toxicology
ISSN : 2333-7079
Launched : 2013
Annals of Psychiatry and Mental Health
ISSN : 2374-0124
Launched : 2013
Medical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN : 2333-6439
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pediatrics and Child Health
ISSN : 2373-9312
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Pharmaceutics
ISSN : 2379-9498
Launched : 2014
JSM Foot and Ankle
ISSN : 2475-9112
Launched : 2016
JSM Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia
ISSN : 2378-9565
Launched : 2014
Journal of Addiction Medicine and Therapy
ISSN : 2333-665X
Launched : 2013
Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-931X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Public Health and Research
ISSN : 2378-9328
Launched : 2014
Journal of Clinical Nephrology and Research
ISSN : 2379-0652
Launched : 2014
Annals of Community Medicine and Practice
ISSN : 2475-9465
Launched : 2014
Annals of Biometrics and Biostatistics
ISSN : 2374-0116
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Case Reports
ISSN : 2373-9819
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cancer Biology and Research
ISSN : 2373-9436
Launched : 2013
Journal of Surgery and Transplantation Science
ISSN : 2379-0911
Launched : 2013
Journal of Dermatology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2373-9371
Launched : 2013
JSM Gastroenterology and Hepatology
ISSN : 2373-9487
Launched : 2013
Annals of Nursing and Practice
ISSN : 2379-9501
Launched : 2014
JSM Dentistry
ISSN : 2333-7133
Launched : 2013
Author Information X