HARMONIC 30th Anniversary Brochure 225318 220829
HARMONIC 30th Anniversary Brochure 225318 220829
HARMONIC 30th Anniversary Brochure 225318 220829
art of precision
for 30 years.
First ultrasonic shears device First 5mm ultrasonic shafted shears for First to design curved ultrasonic First ultrasonic device with a 5mm
First to add clamp arm to control minimally invasive access blade for improved visualization and vessel indication
compression, improve hemostasis dissection capability
and cutting
Pioneer in scissor-design shears for Combined ENSEAL™ and First ultrasonic device with thermal A foundational platform for future
open procedures HARMONIC™ generators into one unit management system to deliver more design and development
precise energy
1. vs. HARMONIC ACE® without Adaptive Tissue Technology. (044005-200826). 2. In a benchtop study, >99% of vessels sealed to over 240mmHg.
Industry first Innovation (049339-200427). 3. Based on a benchtop study with 5-7mm porcine carotid arteries, achieved burst pressure of 1878 mmHg. (140636-200801).
First ultrasonic device with up to 7mm First medical device to receive First ultrasonic device with integrated First active thermal management
vessel indication EARTHWARDS™ recognition for transducer, redesigned blade for system that controls blade heat for
reducing surgical waste enhanced precision, faster transection lower maximum blade temperature6
speed and reliable hemostasis2,3
1. As exhibited in a preclinical model (n=16), mean lateral thermal spread of 1.68mm. (012142-200109). 2. Based on benchtop metrology and porcine comparative studies vs. legacy HARMONIC® and LigaSure™ Maryland devices. (084839-210630). 3. In a benchtop study,
>99% of vessels sealed to over 240mmHg. (049339-200427). 4. Based on a PreClinical evaluation. (138469-200427). 5. Based on benchtop study that showed Harmonic 1100 had 35% faster transection speed and significantly lower maximum blade temperature post
Industry first Innovation transection than Harmonic ACE+7 Shears for shorter heat exposure. (140047-200512). 6. Compared to previous generations of Harmonic devices. (140049-210108).
HARMONIC™ vs conventional/monopolar and/or advanced bipolar (P<0.05)3,4 HARMONIC™ may result in reduced annual costs compared to other
competitive advanced energy devices5
Reduced # of Studies
Blood loss
OR Time
86
141
$
600,000+ OR time costs
125,000+ hospital stay costs
Complications 48
Length of stay 36
$
1. As per literature searches for advanced energy devices in Embase/Medline, PubMed, and Google Scholar through May 2021. (112287-210609) 2. Global sales data and market share & insights for HARMONIC® as of October 2021. (062951-211202) 3. Based on a meta-analysis of HARMONIC
FOCUS® (HF) versus clamp, cut and tie, where HARMONIC FOCUS reduced operative time by 29 minutes (p<0.001), intra-operative blood loss by 45 ml (p<0.001), and length of stay by 0.68 days. Cheng et al., A systematic review and meta-analysis of Harmonic Focus in thyroidectomy
compared to conventional techniques. Thyroid Research. (2015) 8:15. (044268-210825) 4. Based on a meta-analysis of HARMONIC® technology (HT) versus conventional methods. Cheng et al., Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2016 Jul 18;8:125-40. (058821-160824) 5. Budget Impact Model
analysis comparing portfolio-wide adoption of Ethicon energy devices versus other non-Ethicon manufactured energy devices in a typical hospital performing 8,000 annual electrosurgery procedures across five specialties (bariatric, colorectal, thoracic, gynecology, and general surgery).
Ferko, N., et al. A Device Category Economic Model of Electrosurgery Technologies Across Procedure Types: A U.S. Hospital Budget Impact Analysis. J of Med Eco. Jan-Dec 2021;24(1):524-535. (185706-220323)
heat exposure4
The third-party trademarks used herein are trademarks of their respective owners. For complete
indications, contraindications, warnings, precautions, and adverse reactions, please reference full
package insert. ©2022 Ethicon, Inc. All rights reserved. 225318-220829