Radiofrequency-induced heating versus mechanical stapler for pancreatic stump closure: in vivo comparative study

Fernando Burdío, Dimitri Dorcaratto, Lourdes Hernandez, Anna Andaluz, Xavier Moll, Rita Quesada, Ignasi Poves, Luis Grande, Marta Cáceres, Enrique Berjano

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

6 Citations (Web of Science)


© 2016 Taylor & Francis. Abstract: Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the capacity of two methods of surgical pancreatic stump closure in terms of reducing the risk of pancreatic fistula formation (POPF): radiofrequency-induced heating versus mechanical stapler. Materials and methods: Sixteen pigs underwent a laparoscopic transection of the neck of the pancreas. Pancreatic anastomosis was always avoided in order to work with an experimental model prone to POPF. Pancreatic stump closure was conducted either by stapler (ST group, n = 8) or radiofrequency energy (RF group, n = 8). Both groups were compared for incidence of POPF and histopathological alterations of the pancreatic remnant. Results: Six animals (75%) in the ST group and one (14%) in the RF group were diagnosed with POPF (p = 0.019). One animal in the RF group and three animals in the ST group had a pseudocyst in close contact with both pancreas stumps. On day 30 post-operation (PO), almost complete atrophy of the exocrine distal pancreas was observed when the main pancreatic duct was efficiently sealed. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that RF-induced heating is more effective at closing the pancreatic stump than mechanical stapler and leads to the complete atrophy of the distal remnant pancreas.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)272-280
JournalInternational Journal of Hyperthermia
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2 Apr 2016


  • Duct sealing
  • mechanical stapler
  • pancreatectomy
  • radiofrequency-assisted resection
  • stump closure


Dive into the research topics of 'Radiofrequency-induced heating versus mechanical stapler for pancreatic stump closure: in vivo comparative study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this