ArticleSurgical endoscopy2012
Laparoscopic ultrasound-assisted liposuction for lymph node dissection: a pilot study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLymphadenectomy is a surgical technique for staging and treating cancer. Laparoscopic lymphadenectomy for obese patients is challenging. Laparoscopic ultrasound-assisted liposuction (UAL) has been successful in porcine models. The current study aimed to evaluate whether UAL facilitates pelvic laparoscopic lymphadenectomy in obese subjects.
methodsThe UAL technique was evaluated in two human cadavers and in six obese Ossabaw pigs. Both a standard and a prototype ultrasonic probe with a wider contact surface were tested. Pelvic lymphadenectomy comparing UAL with standard monopolar cautery was performed using obese Ossabaw pigs. The animals were survived for 2 weeks. Descriptive data regarding intra- and postoperative outcomes were recorded, including histologic analysis of dissected tissue after 2 weeks. Cytologic analysis of aspirated fluid coming from UAL also was recorded.
resultsThe UAL procedure was safely performed for all the cadavers and animals. Lymph node exposure and clean exposure of surrounding structures were dramatic compared with monopolar assisted dissection. One animal was excluded from further analysis due to ultrasonic device malfunction (a broken footswitch cord). In general, UAL notably debulks adipose tissue with dramatic field exposure. Postoperative adhesions were present in all animals undergoing either monopolar or UAL dissection. Histology showed areas of foreign body reaction from mild to severe, with no predominance of either extreme seen with monopolar or UAL dissection. Cytologic analysis of collected pooled oil emulsion did not contain lymph node tissue.
conclusionThe UAL approach permits pelvic lymphadenectomy in the obese animal and cadaver model, with excellent exposure of lymph nodes and surrounding pelvic anatomy. The use of a new ultrasonic prototype probe with a wider contact surface allowed dissection with less mechanical and thermal penetration of tissue. Further studies are needed to assess oncologic safety (cancer cell dissemination), postoperative healing, and adhesion formation.
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.