Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24490063›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of surgical oncology2013

Harmonic scalpel versus conventional haemostasis in neck dissection: a prospective randomized study.

Emanuele Ferri, Enrico Armato, Giacomo Spinato, Marcello Lunghi, Giancarlo Tirelli, Roberto Spinato

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of surgical oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Emanuele FerriOtorhinolaryngology Department ULSS 17, General Hospital of Monselice, Via G. Marconi 19, Monselice, 35043 Padua, Italy.
Enrico ArmatoOtorhinolaryngology Department ULSS 13, General Hospitals of Dolo and Mirano, Via Mariutto 76, Mirano, 30035 Venice, Italy.
Giacomo SpinatoHead and Neck Department, ENT Clinic, Hospital of Cattinara, University of Trieste, Strada di Fiume 447, 34149 Trieste, Italy.
Marcello LunghiOtorhinolaryngology Department ULSS 17, General Hospital of Monselice, Via G. Marconi 19, Monselice, 35043 Padua, Italy.
Giancarlo TirelliHead and Neck Department, ENT Clinic, Hospital of Cattinara, University of Trieste, Strada di Fiume 447, 34149 Trieste, Italy.
Roberto SpinatoOtorhinolaryngology Department ULSS 13, General Hospitals of Dolo and Mirano, Via Mariutto 76, Mirano, 30035 Venice, Italy.
Ospedale di Mirano · ITOspedale di Cattinara · ITUniversity of Trieste · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this prospective randomized trial was to compare operative factors, postoperative outcomes, and surgical complications of neck dissection (ND) when using the harmonic scalpel (HS) versus conventional haemostasis (CH) (classic technique of tying and knots, resorbable ligature, and bipolar diathermy). MATERIALS AND

methodsSixty-one patients who underwent ND with primary head and neck cancer (HNSCC) resection were enrolled in this study and were randomized into two homogeneous groups: CH (conventional haemostasis with classic technique of tying and knots, resorbable ligature, and bipolar diathermy) and HS (haemostasis with harmonic scalpel). Outcomes of the study included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, drainage volume, postoperative pain, hospital stay, and incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications.

resultsThe use of the HS reduced significantly the operating time, the intraoperative blood loss, the postoperative pain, and the volume of drainage. No significant difference was observed in mean hospital stay and perioperative, and postoperative complications.

conclusionThe HS is a reliable and safe tool for reducing intraoperative blood loss, operative time, volume of drainage and postoperative pain in patients undergoing ND for HNSCC. Multicenter randomized studies need to be done to confirm the advantages of this technique and to evaluate the cost-benefit ratio.

Indexed as

Neck DissectionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBlood Loss, SurgicalFemaleHead and Neck NeoplasmsHemostasis, SurgicalHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative HemorrhagePostoperative PainProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID24490063
PMCPMC3881528
OpenAlexW2036567416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.