Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23042449›Full record

ArticleAsian journal of andrology2013

The ultrasonic harmonic scalpel for circumcision: experimental evaluation using dogs.

Mou Peng, Zhe Meng, Zhong-Hua Yang, Xing-Huan Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian journal of andrology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mou PengDepartment of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, China.
Zhe Meng
Zhong-Hua Yang
Xing-Huan Wang
Wuhan University · CNZhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Male circumcision is one of the most commonly performed operations worldwide, and many novel techniques have been developed for better postoperative outcomes. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of applying the ultracision harmonic scalpel (UHS) for circumcision by using dogs. Sixteen adult male dogs were divided into two groups: the UHS group and the control group. The dogs were circumcised with either the UHS or a conventional scalpel. The UHS circumcision procedure and the effects were imaged 1 week after surgery. The two groups were compared with respect to the operative time and volume of blood loss. Postoperative complications, including oedema, infection, bleeding of the incision and wound dehiscence, were recorded for both groups. The mean operative time for the UHS group was only 5.1 min compared with the 35.5 min of the conventional group. The mean blood loss was less than 2 ml for the UHS group and 15 ml for the conventional group. There was only one case of mild oedema in the UHS group, but the postoperative complications in the conventional group included two cases of mild oedema, one infection of the incision and one case of bleeding of the incision. In conclusion, circumcision using UHS is a novel technique to treat patients with phimosis and excessive foreskin, and this method has a short operative time, less blood loss and fewer complications than the conventional scalpel method. This small animal study provides a basis for embarking on a larger-scale clinical trial of the UHS.

Indexed as

Surgical InstrumentsAnimalsBlood Loss, SurgicalCircumcision, MaleDogsElectrocoagulationMaleModels, AnimalPhimosisPostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeUltrasonics

Identifiers

PMID23042449
PMCPMC3739127
OpenAlexW2114111498

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.