Article Text

  1. H. Figueroa,
  2. J. Harper,
  3. K. Ebrahimi,
  4. G. Zimmerman,
  5. D. Baldwin
  1. Division of Urology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA


Purpose of Study Surgeons performing laparoscopic surgery often use scissors to cut a variety of tissues, such as fibrotic tissue, calcified vessels, and occasionally tissue containing staples. As a result, the scissors could become dull or damaged. This study compared three laparoscopic scissors in cutting ability and ergonomics to see if true differences existed.

Methods Used Three different laparoscopic scissors were compared: Ethicon Endopath (Cincinnati, OH), US Surgical Auto Suture (Norwalk, CT), and Applied Medical Direct Drive (Irvine, CA). Subjective data included surgical ratings of scissors which transected both tissue and staples. It also included 20 blinded volunteers who rated the cutting ability and ergonomics of each scissor. Objective data included an assessment of scissor blade damage via high-magnification digital photography. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed ranks test and the Friedman test.

Summary of Results All scissors performed well cutting fresh tissue; however, the Direct Drive scissor performed better in staple transection, post-staple tissue transection, and during volunteer ratings of performance and ergonomics (p < .05). Also, the blade least damaged was the Direct Drive scissor under high-power magnification (p < .05). Moreover, the reusable Direct Drive scissor handle provided a greater than 50% savings.

Conclusions Reached All scissors functioned well on initial tissue transection. The Direct Drive scissor performed better in blade durability and ergonomics and was more cost efficient.

Statistics from

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.