Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18773109›Full record

ArticleHPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association2008

Use of dissecting sealer may affect the early outcome in patients submitted to hepatic resection.

I Di Carlo, E Pulvirenti, A Toro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Recent progress in laparoscopic liver resection.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2013
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

I Di CarloDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Organs Transplantation and Advanced Technologies, University of Catania, Cannizzaro Hospital, Catania, Italy. idicarlo@unict.it
E Pulvirenti
A Toro

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany technological devices have been used to avoid intraoperative bleeding during hepatic parenchymal transection and to avoid morbidity and mortality, but until now none is complete. The aim of this work is to prospectively analyze hepatic resection patients treated with a water-cooled high frequency monopolar device in order to evaluate its effectiveness. PATIENTS AND

methodsAll consecutive patients who underwent liver resection by use of this device, between January 2003 until December 2007, were analyzed prospectively. The following variables were considered: age, sex, kind of disease, kind of liver resection, number of major/minor resections, total operative time and transection time, number and time of clamping, blood loss, time of hospitalization, morbidity, and mortality.

resultsBetween January 2003 and December 2007, 26 patients were analyzed prospectively (69% women, 31% men). Ages ranged from 18 to 84 years. Sixty-five percent of patients had a malignant disease; 35%, a benign disease. The procedures performed were two major hepatectomies (7.6%) and 24 minor hepatectomies (92.4%). Hepatic transection was performed in 35 to 150 min. Total operative time range was 120-480 min. The average blood loss was 325 ml (range 50-600 ml). The mean postoperative stays were nine days for all the patient and six days for non-cirrhotic patients.

conclusionThe water-cooled high frequency monopolar device is useful for reducing ischemia-reperfusion damage due to the Pringle maneuver and for reducing the risk of morbidity. However, the Kelly forceps remains the only inexpensive instrument really essential for liver surgery.

Indexed as

hepatic resectionsliver surgerytechnological devices

Identifiers

PMID18773109
PMCPMC2518305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.