Home
>
products
>
Laparoscopic Surgical Instruments
>
|
|
| Model | Name | Specifications |
| HF2001.7 | Hem-O-Lok Clip Applier | For Large size clips Φ10×330mm |
| HF2001.8 | Hem-O-Lok Clip Applier | For Medium size clips Φ10×330mm |
| HF2001.9 | Hem-O-Lok Clip Applier | For Small size clips Φ5×330mm |
| Package detail: | Poly bag and special shockproof paper box. |
| Delivery detail: | By air |
FAQ
The main differences between minimally invasive surgical instruments and traditional surgical instruments are reflected in the following aspects:
Trauma and recovery: Minimally invasive surgical instruments are usually used in minimally invasive surgery, which is a surgical method with less trauma, less bleeding, less pain, and faster recovery. In contrast, the incision of traditional surgery is larger, which also interferes with local tissues and organs and causes more bleeding.
Traditional surgical instruments require larger incisions to directly expose the surgical area.
Operation method: Minimally invasive surgical instruments usually have a high-definition 3D stereoscopic vision system, which can provide a clearer field of view and help doctors perform surgical operations more accurately. In addition, the design of minimally invasive surgical instruments also takes into account hand-eye coordination, reducing the difficulty of operation.
Scope of application: Minimally invasive surgical instruments are widely used in operations performed by modern medical devices such as laparoscopes and thoracoscopes and related equipment. These instruments can complete complex surgical operations such as cardiac interventional surgery and tumor resection surgery with smaller incisions.
Postoperative effect: Minimally invasive surgical instruments make postoperative scars smaller, recovery faster, and hospital stay shorter. Traditional surgery has a larger incision, a longer recovery time after surgery, and more obvious scars.
Minimally invasive surgical instruments differ significantly from traditional surgical instruments in terms of trauma degree, instrument design, operation method, application scope, and postoperative effects.
The specific technologies and principles of minimally invasive surgical instruments mainly include the following aspects:
Energy platform and imaging equipment: The continuous development of minimally invasive surgical technology in the fields of energy platform and imaging equipment has made laparoscopic surgery more precise and safe.
Controllable stiffness technology: In the research of minimally invasive surgical manipulators, controllable stiffness technology is an important direction. This technology adjusts the stiffness of the manipulator to adapt to different surgical needs, thereby improving the flexibility and safety of the operation.
Surgical robot: Intelligent surgical robots are an important part of minimally invasive surgery. These robots can be divided into two configurations: split and integrated. The base positions of the split operating arms are independent of each other, while the integrated operating arms are fixed to a base.
High-frequency electrosurgical knives and lasers: High-frequency electrosurgical knives and medical lasers are also common minimally invasive surgical instruments. These instruments use high-frequency current or laser beams for cutting and hemostasis, with the advantages of less trauma and faster recovery.
Natural Orifice Surgery (NOSES): This surgical method uses laparoscopic instruments, TEM or soft endoscopes to enter the abdominal cavity through natural cavities for surgical operations, reducing incision trauma.
The main types of traditional surgical instruments and their application range are as follows:
Triangular needle: The front half of the triangular needle is triangular and sharp, and is used to suture tough tissues such as skin, cartilage, and ligaments. Due to its high damage, it is usually not used for other tissues except the above-mentioned tissues.
Round needle: Compared with the triangular needle, the round needle is less damaging and is suitable for most tissues and organs that need to be sutured.
These traditional surgical instruments are widely used in different medical fields, such as plastic surgery, basic surgery, etc.
The difference in postoperative recovery time between minimally invasive surgery and traditional surgery is mainly reflected in the following aspects:
Hospitalization time: Minimally invasive surgery usually requires a shorter hospitalization time.
Mobility: Minimally invasive surgery patients recover their mobility faster after surgery. In contrast, patients with traditional surgery recover more slowly, feel more pain, and have limited mobility.
Recovery speed: Minimally invasive surgery has a faster recovery speed after surgery due to its small trauma and small interference with organs. For example, patients with minimally invasive lung surgery can get up and move around on the 2nd-3rd day after surgery, and patients with rapid recovery surgery can even be discharged on the same day. However, patients with traditional surgery have a longer recovery time after surgery and significant pain.
Minimally invasive surgical instruments have significant advantages and some limitations in cardiac interventional surgery.
Advantages:
Less trauma and faster recovery: Compared with traditional open-chest surgery, minimally invasive surgery is performed through tiny incisions or puncture points, which greatly reduces surgical trauma and allows patients to recover faster after surgery.
Less bleeding and shorter hospital stay: Minimally invasive surgery usually requires smaller incisions, so the amount of bleeding is less and the hospital stay is correspondingly shortened.
Aesthetics: Due to the small incision, the postoperative scar is relatively hidden, and the aesthetic effect is better.
Low risk and low cost: Minimally invasive surgery does not require long-term oral anticoagulants, no occluder umbrella is left in the body, and the treatment effect is low-risk and low-cost.
Limitations:
High equipment and technical requirements: Minimally invasive surgery requires the use of advanced surgical instruments and imaging technology, and requires high technical level and experience of doctors.
Limited scope of application: Although minimally invasive surgery is suitable for the treatment of a variety of heart diseases, for some complex heart diseases, traditional open-chest surgery may still be required to ensure the effect of the surgery.
High initial cost: Although minimally invasive surgery is less expensive in the long run, its initial equipment investment and surgical costs are relatively high.
To evaluate the difference between minimally invasive surgical instruments and traditional surgical instruments in terms of cost-effectiveness, a detailed analysis can be conducted from the following aspects:
Initial equipment and consumables cost:
Although traditional surgical instruments are cheaper, they may require more frequent reuse or replacement in some cases, thereby increasing long-term costs.
Operation time and efficiency:
Minimally invasive surgery usually has the advantages of small incisions, less bleeding, and shorter hospital stays, which can significantly reduce the operation time and postoperative recovery time. For example, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of laparoscopic surgery for pediatric hernia is 1159.738 yuan/year, showing a high economic benefit.
Traditional surgery may require longer operation times and more complex postoperative care due to larger incisions, thereby increasing overall costs.
Doctor training and operation difficulty:
However, once mastered, doctors can reduce the risk of surgical complications and secondary surgeries by improving surgical precision and stability.
Traditional surgical instruments are relatively simple to operate and do not require additional training costs, but may not achieve the effect of minimally invasive surgery in some complex operations.
Postoperative complications and recovery time:
Minimally invasive surgery has fewer postoperative complications due to less trauma and less bleeding, and patients recover faster. This not only reduces the patient's medical expenses, but also reduces the overall operating costs of the hospital.
Traditional surgery may lead to higher medical expenses and longer hospital stays due to greater trauma, more postoperative complications, and longer recovery time.
Comprehensive economic benefits:
Minimally invasive surgery has significant advantages in reducing postoperative complications and shortening recovery time, which can reduce long-term medical expenses and improve patient satisfaction.
Although traditional surgery has lower initial costs, it may require more follow-up treatment and management, thereby increasing overall costs.
When evaluating the difference in cost-effectiveness between minimally invasive surgical instruments and traditional surgical instruments, it is necessary to comprehensively consider multiple factors such as initial equipment and consumables costs, surgical time and efficiency, doctor training and operation difficulty, postoperative complications and recovery time, and comprehensive economic benefits.
For more photos and details please contact me:
Company Name: Tonglu Wanhe Medical Instruments Co., Ltd.
Sales: Sue
Contact Us at Any Time
