Ultrasonic cutting and coagulation device versus conventional diathermy dissection in thyroid surgery: prospective randomized trial

Aditya Singhal, Dharma Kant Baskota, Kunjan Acharya


Background: The objective of this study was to compare the operative time and postoperative outcomes in thyroid surgeries using the ultrasonic cutting and coagulation device with conventional diathermy dissection.

Methods: This study was a prospective, interventional, cohort study. The patients   were randomized in two groups by lottery system. The patients operated with ultrasonic device were labeled as Group A: UCCD and by conventional diathermy as Group B: CDD. The operative time, postoperative drain volume, pain score on VAS and complications were assessed and compared in between the two techniques of surgery.  

Results: Total of 18 males and 58 females underwent thyroid surgery with age ranging from 17 to 75 years. The operative time in UCCD group was less than CDD group (93.29 min vs. 106.59 min; p=0.06). The cumulative mean amount of drain was found to be less in UCCD group, this difference was statistically significant (77.86 ml vs. 138.05 ml; p=0.00018). The drain was removed earlier in UCCD group, this comparison was also statistically significant (2.49 days in UCCD group vs. 3.02 days in CDD group; p=0.000009). The mean pain score was found to be statistically significant on all the postoperative days in UCCD group.

Conclusions: The patients experienced less pain and complication while using UCCD as technique for surgery.  Hence, ultrasonic device using both cutting and coagulating mode at the same time is efficient in hemostasis and lesser post-operative pain, and found to be advantageous.


Thyroid surgery, Ultrasonic device, Bipolar cautery, Operative time, Drain volume, Pain scale

Full Text:



Yener O, Demir M, Yılmaz A, Yıgıtbaşı R, Atak T. Harmonic scalpel compared to conventional hemostasis in thyroid surgery. Indian J Surg. 2014;76(1):66–9.

Miccoli P, Berti P, Dionigi GL, D ’agostino J, Orlandini C, Donatini G. Randomized Controlled Trial of Harmonic Scalpel Use During Thyroidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;132:1069–73.

Bliss RD, Gauger PG, Delbridge LW. Surgeon’s Approach to the Thyroid Gland: Surgical Anatomy and the Importance of Technique. World J Surg. 2000;24:891–7.

Voutilainen PE, Haglund CH. Ultrasonically activated shears in thyroidectomies: a randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2000;231(3):322–8.

Koh YW, Park JH, Lee SW CE. The harmonic scalpel technique without supplementary ligation in total thyroidectomy with cental neck dissection: a prospective randomized study. Ann Surg. 2008;247(6):945–9.

Al-Dhahiry JKS, Hameed HM. Total thyroidectomy: Conventional Suture Ligation technique versus sutureless techniques using Harmonic Scalpel or Maxium. Ann Med Surg. 2016;5:29–34.

Foreman E, Aspinall S, Bliss R, Lennard T. The Use of the Harmonic Scalpel in Thyroidectomy: “Beyond the Learning Curve.” Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2009;91(3):214–6.

Regmi D, KC T, Bista M, Shrestha S4 .Comparison of surgical outcomes of Ultrasonic technique (Harmonic FocusTM) with Conventional technique in open hemithyroidectomy. J Kathmandu Med Coll. 2013;2(6):175.

Siperstein AE, Berber E, Morkoyun E. The Use of the Harmonic Scalpel vs Conventional Knot Tying for Vessel Ligation in Thyroid Surgery. Arch Surg. 2002;137(2);137-42.

Aziz W, Khan MS, Assad S, Siddique G. Suture-less thyroidectomy using harmonic scalpel versus conventional thyroidectomy: A randomized controlled trial. J Pioneer Med Sci. 2016;6(2):48-51.

AB N, Aslam MA, Nair PP. Prospective randomised study using focus harmonic scalpel versus conventional hemostasis for vessel ligation in open thyroid surgery. Int Surg J. 2017;4(4):1431.

Cirocchi R, D'Ajello F, Trastulli S, Santoro A, Di Rocco G, Vendettuoli D, et al. Meta-analysis of thyroidectomy with ultrasonic dissector versus conventional clamp and tie. World J Surg Oncol. 2010;8:112.

Ecker T, Carvalho AL, Choe J-H, Walosek G, Preuss KJ. Hemostasis in thyroid surgery: Harmonic scalpel versus other techniques—a meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;143(1):17-25.