Quantum Molecular Resonance

MCNplus and the family of generators are the first electrosurgical products in a new class to use Quantum Molecular Resonance to cut and coagulate. Traditional electrosurgery devices raise temperature that can cause extensive necrosis and tissue damage.1This can impact healing and postoperative complications.4Telea, Italy has developed MCNplus for Neurosurgeons and Spine surgeons. Using Quantum Molecular Resonance (QMR) technology, energy from the MCNplus generator is converted into potential energy (breaking molecular bonds) and not kinetic energy (causes an increase of local temperature).5QMR is generated by means of alternate current of defined high-frequency where electron waves at 4, 8, 12, and 16 MHz break molecular bonds with minimal temperature elevation.1,2, 3 

QMR can be delivered through the tips of bipolar forceps or the tip of a regular pencil-like monopolar electrode.

Advantages

  • No necrotic tissue or thermal damage2
  • Precise, undamaged histological examinations8
  • Less post operative pain1
  • Reduced duration of surgery3, 7
  • Decreased intra-operative blood loss3
  • Precise removal of tissue in a practically bloodless field2
  • No irrigation or saline solution required

Features

  • Safe2
  • Bipolar and monopolar output used at the same time
  • Re-usable non-stick bipolar forceps and bipolar scissors
  • Wide range of disposable monopolar electrodes
  • Concurrent coagulation and tissue dissection7

References

  1. D’Eredità R, Bozzola L.: Molecular resonance vs. coblation tonsillectomy in children. Laryngoscope 2009 Oct;119(10):1897–901. doi: 10.1002/lary.20210.
  2. Tarantino V, D’Agostino R, Melagrana A, et al. Safety of electronic molecular resonance adenoidectomy. Int J Ped Otorhinolaryngol 2004;68:1519–1523.
  3. D’Agostino R, Tarantino V, Grazia Calevo M, Blunt dissection versus electronic molecular resonance bipolar dissection for tonsillectomy: Operative time and intraoperative and postoperative bleeding and pain International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology (2008) 72, 1077–1084.
  4. Schiavon M, Calabrese F, Nicotra S, et al: Favorable Tissue Effects of Quantum Molecular Resonance Device (Vesalius) Compared with Standard Electrocautery Eur Surg Res 2007;39:222–228.
  5. Pozzato G, Vignato G: Teoria della risonanza quantica molecolare nella realizzazione del bisturi elettronico ‘Vesalius’. Quintessence Int 2003;5/6:153–155.
  6. Kaku S, lshii T, Hasegawa Y, et al Usefulness of Bipolar Forceps and Generator with High Frequency Technology for Point Coagulation and Tissue Adhesion. Currently Practical Neurosurgery vol 18, no.5, 2008.5: 617– 624.
  7. Cherekaev VA, Bekiashev AKh, et al. Experience in using a molecular resonance coagulator in neurooncology; Zhurnal Voprosy Neirokhirurgii Imeni N. N. Burdenko 2005(3):33–36.
  8. D’Eredita R, Cenzi M. TriVerse versus molecular resonance-harvested grafts in single-stage Baha surgery Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010 Apr;142(4):560–4. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2009.12.019