Liquid-Infused Surfaces on Electrosurgical Instruments with Exceptional Antiadhesion and Low-Damage Performances
Source abstract
Abstract
Electrosurgery based on electrosurgical instruments plays an important role in clinical surgery owing to its advantages of ease of operation, low damage, and less pain to the patient. But soft tissue adhesion on electrosurgical instruments is still a major obstacle to improve the operation efficiency and achieve a better surgical result, regardless of so many developed methods to enhance the antiadhesion performance. In this paper, we successfully demonstrated that liquid-infused surfaces (LISs) can significantly improve the antiadhesion performance of electrosurgical instruments. We developed a microcontact printing method to assist the structure fabrication on the small instrument tip to prepare a firmly liquid-held surface. Soft tissue cutting experiments showed that LIS could not only significantly reduce the adhesion force between the tissue and the instrument tip but also lead to a much smaller charring wound. The underlying mechanism was discussed, and further experiments concluded that LIS have a better duration capability. Our study provides a new insight into the antiadhesion design for electrosurgical instruments.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Surface Modification and Superhydrophobicity · Polymer Surface Interaction Studies · Advanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158, United States
Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Biomedical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
Funding
National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars
References (37)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.3171/jns.1996.85.5.097010.3171/jns.1996.85.5.0970 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.11.01710.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.11.017 ↗
3. 10.1002/bjs.690110.1002/bjs.6901 ↗
4. 10.1016/S0301-5629(02)00727-510.1016/S0301-5629(02)00727-5 ↗
5. 10.1097/00005537-200302000-0000710.1097/00005537-200302000-00007 ↗
6. 10.1007/s00464-002-8584-510.1007/s00464-002-8584-5 ↗
7. 10.1007/s11845-007-0068-010.1007/s11845-007-0068-0 ↗
8. 10.1227/01.NEU.0000356985.27936.9310.1227/01.NEU.0000356985.27936.93 ↗
9. 10.1002/micr.192008021510.1002/micr.1920080215 ↗
10. 10.1001/archotol.126.2.14910.1001/archotol.126.2.149 ↗
11. 10.1007/BF0140495410.1007/BF01404954 ↗
12. 10.3171/jns.1995.82.4.066910.3171/jns.1995.82.4.0669 ↗
13. Safabash J. · Surg. Appl. Energy · 1998 · 3249 · 142
14. 10.3171/jns.2004.100.1.013310.3171/jns.2004.100.1.0133 ↗
15. 10.1002/ppap.20110015510.1002/ppap.201100155 ↗
16. 10.1007/s00701005015010.1007/s007010050150 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.03.00910.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.03.009 ↗
18. Magro B. · J. Reprod. Med. · 1996 · 41 · 73
19. 10.1038/nature1044710.1038/nature10447 ↗
20. 10.1038/nature1718910.1038/nature17189 ↗
21. 10.1002/adma.20170299510.1002/adma.201702995 ↗
22. 10.1002/adfm.20130148110.1002/adfm.201301481 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2015.07.15910.1016/j.apsusc.2015.07.159 ↗
24. 10.1039/C6TA03857C10.1039/C6TA03857C ↗
25. 10.1073/pnas.120197310910.1073/pnas.1201973109 ↗
26. 10.1021/ab500057810.1021/ab5000578 ↗
27. 10.1002/adfm.20150552210.1002/adfm.201505522 ↗
28. 10.1073/pnas.160527211310.1073/pnas.1605272113 ↗
29. 10.1021/acsami.6b0640710.1021/acsami.6b06407 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2016.05.11010.1016/j.apsusc.2016.05.110 ↗
31. 10.1021/acsami.6b1521310.1021/acsami.6b15213 ↗
32. 10.1002/adhm.20160094810.1002/adhm.201600948 ↗
33. 10.1038/srep2592410.1038/srep25924 ↗
34. 10.1126/science.aai897710.1126/science.aai8977 ↗
35. 10.1109/TUFFC.2007.24210.1109/TUFFC.2007.242 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.triboint.2014.08.01310.1016/j.triboint.2014.08.013 ↗
37. 10.1002/adma.20110401910.1002/adma.201104019 ↗