HARMONIC FOCUS®+ Shears

The HARMONIC FOCUS®+ Shears with Adaptive Tissue Technology is today’s standard for head and neck surgery—enabling fine dissection and sealing of vessels up to 5mm in head and neck procedures.

Tesoura HARMONIC FOCUS®+

Features & Benefits

  • HARMONIC FOCUS®+ Shears Card 1

    Visualization and Control

    Precisely grasp, dissect, seal and cut. Slimmer design improves visualization and control in narrow spaces and around delicate nerves. The curved, tapered tip allows precision and speed in your head and neck procedures.*

  • HARMONIC FOCUS®+ Shears Card 2

    Improved Efficiency§¶ and Outcomes
     

    Less blood loss, shorter procedures and better outcomes. HARMONIC FOCUS+ Shears reduced total operative time by 31%\\ and reduced intraoperative blood loss by 45ml.**

  • HARMONIC FOCUS®+ Shears Card 3 v2

    Cost-savings

    Proven leader in thyroidectomy, now get the same precision and speed in your head and neck procedures* HARMONIC FOCUS+ Shears reduced total operative costs by 10%.1

  • HARMONIC FOCUS®+ Shears Card 4

    Designed for Ergonomics and Fine Dissection

    Feels, responds and dissects like a traditional fine dissection instrument. With Adaptive Tissue Technology, HARMONIC FOCUS+ Shears delivers energy intelligently and efficiently to enhance surgical outcomes and reliably seal 5mm vessels, as well as lymphatics.

Product Specifications

Product Code

Product Code

Description

 
HAR9F HAR9F Ultrasonic shears, Curved tip 

Product Resources

Resources

HARMONIC FOCUS®+ Shears
Thyroidectomy with Phillip Pellitteri, DO, FACS
0:04:57
HARMONIC FOCUS®+ shears in a Right Neck Dissection with Richard Scher, MD
0:05:39
Left Partial Hemi-Glossectomy with Richard Scher, MD
0:03:19
Pre-Clinical Studies Comparing HARMONIC FOCUS®+ Shears with Adaptive Tissue Technology to an Advanced Biploar Device
0:01:46

Supporting Documentation

Clinical Evidence

Ultrasonic Technology and HARMONIC® Instruments: Advances in Surgery for Carotid Artery Disease

HARMONIC® Ultrasonic Technology: Advances in Surgery for Peripheral Vascular Disease

Focus vs Electrocautery in Axillary Node Dissection

HARMONIC FOCUS®+ Meta Analysis One Pager

HARMONIC FOCUS® Family Cost Savings in Thyroidectomy

Product Support

HARMONIC FOCUS®+ vs LigaSure Small Jaw

Ethicon Product Catalog

References

* Approved with ENT indication, see IFU.

† Device measurements based on a metrology study. (Clamp Arm + Pad + Blade Area .0079 sq in vs .0098 sq in.)

§ Based on a meta-analysis of HARMONIC FOCUS® (HF) versus clamp, cut and tie, where HF reduced operative time (p<0.001), intra-operative blood loss (p<0.001), length of stay (p<0.005), drainage volume (p<0.01). Cheng et al., A systematic review and meta-analysis of Harmonic Focus in thyroidectomy compared to conventional techniques. Thyroid Research (2015) 8:15. (C1962)

¶ The health technology method was applied in a case study of 440 patients undergoing thyroidectomy in Terni, Italy. The use of HARMONIC FOCUS® resulted in reducing overall procedure time from 143.33 minutes to 113.7 minutes (20.67%) and reducing overall hospital cost from €3,055 to €2,768 (9.39%). Lucchini R., et. al., Health technology assessment and thyroid surgery. Il Giornale di Chirurgia (July/August 2013) 34:198-201. (C1529)

\\ Based on a meta-analysis of HARMONIC FOCUS® (HF) versus clamp, cut and tie, where HF reduced operative time (p<0.001). Cheng et al., A systematic review and meta-analysis of Harmonic Focus in thyroidectomy compared to conventional techniques. Thyroid Research (2015) 8:15. (C1962)

** Based on a meta-analysis of HARMONIC FOCUS® (HF) versus clamp, cut and tie, where HF reduced intra-operative blood loss (p<0.001). Cheng et al., A systematic review and meta-analysis of Harmonic Focus in thyroidectomy compared to conventional techniques. Thyroid Research (2015) 8:15. (C1962)

†† In a preclinical rat model that compared cold scissors, HARMONIC ACE®+, HARMONIC FOCUS® and monopolar electrosurgery (MES). Incision with cold scissors, HARMONIC ACE®+ and HARMONIC FOCUS® at 2mm from the sciatic nerve were not different via compound action potential (1621, 1519, 1803 mV-ms), conduction velocity (61.8, 62.3, 60.3mm/ms), depolarization time (229.5, 211.6, 248.1 micro secs), repolarization time (2687, 2435, 2650 micro secs), vForce (20.2 , 17.0, 19.1 g), dForce (24.0, 21.4, 27.7 g) and beta-APP (12.6, 18.1, 18.6 % incidence), respectively (p-value for all >0.05). At 2mm from the sciatic nerve, MES resulted in significantly slower conduction velocity (58.5mm/ms), longer depolarization time (283.1 micro secs), longer repolarization time (4150 micro secs) and higher incidence of beta‐APP infiltration (31.8 % incidence) than cold scissors (p-value for all <0.05). (Note: p-values are comparison to cold scissors)(PSP003539).

‡ Based on preclinical testing of blood vessels and lymphatic vessels up to and including 5mm and 1mm in diameter, respectively.(C0097)

1. Cheng H et al., Hospital costs associated with thyroidectomy performed with a Harmonic device compared to conventional techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Econ. 2016 Apr 5:1-9. [Epub ahead of print]