Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22230963›Full record

Trial reportLangenbeck's archives of surgery2012

The safety of energy-based devices in open thyroidectomy: a prospective, randomised study comparing the LigaSure™ (LF1212) and the Harmonic® FOCUS.

Gianlorenzo Dionigi, Luigi Boni, Stefano Rausei, Francesco Frattini, Cesare Carlo Ferrari, Alberto Mangano, Andrea Leotta, Marco Franchin

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Questions on randomised trials by Dionigi and coworkers.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2019
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. A comparison of surgical outcomes and complications between hemostatic devices for thyroid surgery: a network meta-analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2017
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Gianlorenzo DionigiDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Insubria, Varese-Como, Italy. gianlorenzo.dionigi@uninsubria.it
Luigi Boni
Stefano Rausei
Francesco Frattini
Cesare Carlo Ferrari
Alberto Mangano
Andrea Leotta
Marco Franchin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe options for haemostasis and dissection during modern thyroid surgery include the use of a bipolar vessel sealing system and ultrasonic technology. The aim of this study was to compare these energy-based devices (EBDs) with respect to their use in open thyroidectomy.

methodsThe FOCUS Shear (F) and LigaSure LF1212 (L) were evaluated. A total of 182 consecutive patients scheduled for open thyroidectomy were prospectively randomised into two similarly sized groups. The parameters of operative time, morbidity, incision length, postoperative pain and hospital stay were analysed.

resultsThe main clinically primary endpoints of the two devices were identical in the study as the rate of nerve lesions, bleeding, drainage, operative time and postoperative calcium concentration with no significant differences with respect to the instrument utilised. The mean length of the incision was greater in the F group (p < 0.05). Patients in the F group were more likely to complain of pain while swallowing (p < 0.001). Early postoperative measurements of intact parathyroid hormone plasma levels revealed that although the levels were within the reference range, they were significantly lower in the F group (p < 0.001). Oral calcium supplementation was significantly higher and more prolonged in the F group.

conclusionsThe present study demonstrated no significant difference in the rates of postoperative morbidity associated with these two different EBDs used. Differences in clinically less significant were founded and focused on.

Indexed as

Surgical InstrumentsAdultAgedBlood Loss, SurgicalEquipment DesignEquipment SafetyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHemostasis, SurgicalHumansLigationMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesThyroidectomyThyroid Neoplasms

Identifiers

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.