Trial reportJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2013
LigaSure™ vs. conventional dissection techniques in pancreatic surgery--a prospective randomised single-centre trial.
Trial report in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00850291 (Prospective, Controlled, Randomized Study of Economisation of the Preparation in Partial Duodenopancreatectomy Using an Electrosurgical Sealing Device Versus Traditional Methods), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Prospective, Controlled, Randomized Study of Economisation of the Preparation in Partial Duodenopancreatectomy Using an Electrosurgical Sealing Device Versus Traditional Methods
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dissection with LigaSure Impact™ versus conventional resection in pylorus-preserving partial pancreatoduodenectomy (DISSECT): a single-institution randomized controlled trial.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Trial
- Implementation of a novel efficacy score to compare sealing and cutting devices in a porcine model.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Rationale, bench testing and in vivo evaluation of a novel 5 mm laparoscopic vessel sealing device with homogeneous pressure distribution in long instrument jaws.Annals of surgical innovation and research · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical procedures in pancreatic surgery are well established, but still involve time-consuming manual dissection. We compared the use of LigaSure with conventional dissection techniques in pancreatic surgery in a prospective randomised single-centre trial (registration number: NCT00850291).
methodsPatients with tumours of the pancreatic head that were assumed to be technically resectable were randomised to LigaSure or conventional surgery. The primary endpoint of this study was overall operation time. Secondary endpoints were preparation time until tumour resection, intraoperative blood loss, number of given units of packed red blood cells, costs of surgery, postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay and mortality.
resultsThere was no difference in overall operation time between the two groups (P = 0.227). Median costs for pancreatic surgery were significantly less in the conventional group with €3,047 (range 2,004-5,543) vs. €3,527 (range 2,516-5,056, P = 0.009). Preparation time, intraoperative blood loss, number of units of packed red blood cells, postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay and mortality did not differ between the two groups.
conclusionOur data indicate that the LigaSure device is equivalent to conventional dissection modalities in pancreatic surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23250820What 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.