Is penile electrocautery safe?: I. Histological and computational temperature assessment in an animal model

P. Jack Hoopes D.V.M.; David J. Cozzolino; Marc Cendron; Keith D. Paulsen; B. Stuart Trembly; Alex Hartov; Thomas P. Ryan; Luanna R. Bartholomew

doi:10.1117/12.427846

1 June 2001 Is penile electrocautery safe?: I. Histological and computational temperature assessment in an animal model

P. Jack Hoopes D.V.M., David J. Cozzolino, Marc Cendron, Keith D. Paulsen, B. Stuart Trembly, Alex Hartov, Thomas P. Ryan, Luanna R. Bartholomew

Author Affiliations +

Proceedings Volume 4247, Thermal Treatment of Tissue: Energy Delivery and Assessment; (2001) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.427846
Event: BiOS 2001 The International Symposium on Biomedical Optics, 2001, San Jose, CA, United States

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the thermal and tissue changes associated with the use of electrocautery hemostasis on dependent tissues such as the penis. Circumcision was performed on twelve male sheep using a Gomco clamp and surgical removal. Electrocautery was then applied circumferentially to 6 separate sites along the circumcision incision for a duration of 2 seconds per application, with a 10-second interval between applications. Coagulation electrocautery power was set at either 25 or 50 Watts. Temperature changes were monitored by fiber-optic temperature probes placed immediately beneath the circumcision site in the penile urethra and at the base of the penis. Three animals were sacrificed acutely while the remaining 15 animals were sacrificed one month post-procedure. Penises were assessed by gross and histologic observation. Immediately post-procedure, epidermal and superficial dermal necrosis was observed at the cautery sites. By 32-days postprocedure, primary tissue change at the cautery site consisted of scarring and mild inflammation. Energy level (25 vs 50 Watts) did not significantly affect the level of tissue damage. Penile tissue subadjacent or distant to the cautery sites showed no gross or histologic change at the acute or chronic assessment period. During electrocautery, a maximum increase of 7°C (1-2 mm from the site of electrocautery) was observed regardless of the energy level. Temperature elevations commonly returned to near baseline within 5 minutes post-application. Smaller increases in temperature (range 1-2°C) occurred at the base of the penis. Our results document the long-held perception that electrocautery hemostasis can be safely employed in penile surgery, if the appropriate technique is used. Significant temperature and tissue changes are confined to very small/localized regions immediately adjacent to the cautery applicator.

Citation Download Citation

P. Jack Hoopes D.V.M., David J. Cozzolino, Marc Cendron, Keith D. Paulsen, B. Stuart Trembly, Alex Hartov, Thomas P. Ryan, and Luanna R. Bartholomew "Is penile electrocautery safe?: I. Histological and computational temperature assessment in an animal model", Proc. SPIE 4247, Thermal Treatment of Tissue: Energy Delivery and Assessment, (1 June 2001); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.427846

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available