Trial reportDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2008
[Ultrasonic scissors. New vs resterilized instruments].
Trial report in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04226482 (Comparison of Lateral Thermal Damage and Clinical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Appendectomy With New Versus Reused Ultrasonic Scalpel in Patients With Acute Appendicitis - Randomized Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Comparison of Lateral Thermal Damage and Clinical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Appendectomy With New Versus Reused Ultrasonic Scalpel in Patients With Acute Appendicitis - Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare reliability in handling and function of resterilized and single-use disposable ultrasonic scissors.
methodsIn a prospective randomized study, the surgeon blindly tested new and resterilized ultrasonographic scissors. The parameters were force of activation, cutting effect, coagulation effect, error messages, and disturbing generator noise.
resultsFifty-one new and 49 resterilized instruments in 94 operations were evaluated. The differences in force of activation, cutting effect, and coagulation were not significant. Error messages and disturbing noises were rare in both groups. Six new instruments and two resterilized instruments had to be exchanged because of problems during surgery.
conclusionThis study demonstrates comparable reliability in function and handling of resterilized and new ultrasonic scissors. The use of resterilized instruments leads to distinctly reduced costs and could contribute to efficiency in laparoscopic surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.