Ferromagnetic Dissection in a Rat Glioma Model


Background: We compared cutting and coagulation of a novel ferromagnetic tool (FMwand) with modalities currently used in the clinical setting. Methods: 24 F344 rats with 9L gliosarcoma flank tumours were randomized into 2 groups (n = 12): 1) Five parallel incisions were made into the tumor of each rat using monopolar electrosurgery (MES) cut mode, MES coagulation (coag) mode, FMwand, carbon dioxide (CO2) laser and cold scalpel. 2) Two parallel incisions were made comparing the MES and the FMwand, both with resecting loop tips. The study was then repeated by a second surgeon. The surgeons applied a grading scale (1 = worst, 5 = best) based on their observations. Results: Average scores for FMwand were superior in ease of tissue dissection (3.58), distortion upon tissues (3.67), and smoke production (2.87). CO2 laser led in effectiveness of hemostasis (4.32). MES cut mode had the highest scores for ease of cleaning of tip (3.17) and speed of dissection (3.92). The FMwand loop device led in all attributes except for ease of cleaning. Conclusions: The FMwand outperformed CO2 laser significantly in ease and speed. It was superior compared to MES cut mode for hemostasis and superior compared to coag mode in ease and speed, distortion upon tissues and smoke production. The FMwand loop was significantly better compared to MES loop for hemostasis, distortion, ease and speed. The FMwand was shown to be safe and effective for hemostatic soft tissue cutting and coagulation.

Share and Cite:

Tok, S. , Neidert, M. , Sharab, M. , Siu, I. , Reyes, J. , Charubhumi, V. , Wicks, R. , Eberhart, C. , Jallo, G. and Tyler, B. (2015) Ferromagnetic Dissection in a Rat Glioma Model. Journal of Cancer Therapy, 6, 613-621. doi: 10.4236/jct.2015.67067.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Tudor, K.I., Tudor, M., Buca, A., Cambi-Sapunar, L., Tudor, L., Dujmovic, D., Carija, R., Sucevic, D. and Caric, D. (2008) [Electrosurgery, the Cornerstone of Current Achievements of Brain Tumor Surgery—On the Occasion of 80th Anniversary]. Acta Medica Croatica, 62, 33-40.
[2] Chehrazi, B. and Collins Jr., W.F. (1981) A Comparison of Effects of Bipolar and Monopolar Electrocoagulation in Brain. Journal of Neurosurgery, 54, 197-203.
[3] Killory, B.D., Chang, S.W., Wait, S.D. and Spetzler, R.F. (2010) Use of Flexible Hollow-Core CO2 Laser in Microsurgical Resection of CNS Lesions: Early Surgical Experience. Neurosurgery, 66, 1187-1192.
[4] Epstein, F. (1983) The Cavitron Ultrasonic Aspirator in Tumor Surgery. Clinical Neurosurgery, 31, 497-505.
[5] Flamm, E.S., Ransohoff, J., Wuchinich, D. and Broadwin, A. (1978) Preliminary Experience with Ultrasonic Aspiration in Neurosurgery. Neurosurgery, 2, 240-245.
[6] Macdonald, J.D., Bowers, C.A., Chin, S.S. and Burns, G. (2014) Comparison of the Effects of Surgical Dissection Devices on the Rabbit Liver. Surgery Today, 44, 1116-1122.
[7] Bowers, C.A., Burns, G., Salzman, K.L., Mcgill, L.D. and Macdonald, J.D. (2014) Comparison of Tissue Effects in Rabbit Muscle of Surgical Dissection Devices. International Journal of Surgery, 12, 219-223.
[8] Weiss, J.P. and Manwaring, P. (2013) Freedom from Electromagnetic Interference between Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and the FMwand Ferromagnetic Surgical System. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, 25, 681-684.
[9] Barth, R.F. and Kaur, B. (2009) Rat Brain Tumor Models in Experimental Neuro-Oncology: The C6, 9L, T9, RG2, F98, BT4C, RT-2 and CNS-1 Gliomas. Journal of Neuro-Oncology, 94, 299-312.
[10] Tyler, B., Wadsworth, S., Recinos, V., Mehta, V., Vellimana, A., Li, K., Rosenblatt, J., Do, H., Gallia, G.L., Siu, I.M., Wicks, R.T., Rudek, M.A., Zhao, M. and Brem, H. (2011) Local Delivery of Rapamycin: A Toxicity and Efficacy Study in an Experimental Malignant Glioma Model in Rats. Neuro Oncology, 13, 700-709.
[11] Weizsaecker, M., Deen, D.F., Rosenblum, M.L., Hoshino, T., Gutin, P.H. and Barker, M. (1981) The 9L Rat Brain Tumor: Description and Application of an Animal Model. Journal of Neurology, 224, 183-192.
[12] Brem, S., Tyler, B., Li, K., Pradilla, G., Legnani, F., Caplan, J. and Brem, H. (2007) Local Delivery of Temozolomide by Biodegradable Polymers Is Superior to Oral Administration in a Rodent Glioma Model. Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, 60, 643-650.
[13] Basu, M.K., Frame, J.W. and Rhys Evans, P.H. (1988) Wound Healing Following Partial Glossectomy Using the CO2 Laser, Diathermy and Scalpel: A Histological Study in Rats. The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 102, 322-327.
[14] Bellina, J.H., Hemmings, R., Voros, J.I. and Ross, L.F. (1984) Carbon Dioxide Laser and Electrosurgical Wound Study with an Animal Model: A Comparison of Tissue Damage and Healing Patterns in Peritoneal Tissue. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 148, 327-334.
[15] Christensen, G.J. (2008) Soft-Tissue Cutting with Laser versus Electrosurgery. The Journal of the American Dental Association, 139, 981-984.
[16] Johnson, M.A., Gadacz, T.R., Pfeifer, E.A., Given, K.S. and Gao, X. (1997) Comparison of CO2 Laser, Electrocautery, and Scalpel Incisions on Acute-Phase Reactants in Rat Skin. The American Surgeon, 63, 13-16.
[17] Sutton, P.A., Awad, S., Perkins, A.C. and Lobo, D.N. (2010) Comparison of Lateral Thermal Spread Using Monopolar and Bipolar Diathermy, the Harmonic Scalpel TM and the Ligasure TM. British Journal of Surgery, 97, 428-433.
[18] Hanby, D.F., Gremillion, G., Zieske, A.W., Loehn, B., Whitworth, R., Wolf, T., Kakade, A.C. and Walvekar, R.R. (2011) Harmonic Scalpel versus Flexible CO2 Laser for Tongue Resection: A Histopathological Analysis of Thermal Damage in Human Cadavers. World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 9, 83.
[19] Vellimana, A.K., Sciubba, D.M., Noggle, J.C. and Jallo, G.I. (2009) Current Technological Advances of Bipolar Coagulation. Neurosurgery, 64, ons11-8; Discussion ons19.
[20] Liboon, J., Funkhouser, W. and Terris, D.J. (1997) A Comparison of Mucosal Incisions Made by Scalpel, CO2 Laser, Electrocautery, and Constant-Voltage Electrocautery. Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, 116, 379-385.

Copyright © 2022 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.