Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25245863›Full record

Trial reportEuropean 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 Surgery2015

Optical magnification devices in tonsillectomy: a prospective randomised clinical study.

F Schrötzlmair, L Geerke, U Kisser, C Reichel, S Vögele, K Stelter

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in 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, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

F SchrötzlmairKlinik und Poliklinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde, Klinikum der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany, florian.schroetzlmair@med.uni-muenchen.de.
L Geerke
U Kisser
C Reichel
S Vögele
K Stelter
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEKlinik und Poliklinik für Hals-, Nasen-, Ohrenheilkunde · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tonsillectomy is one of the most common surgical procedure in otorhinolaryngology. A plethora of approaches has been undertaken so far to limit postoperative pain, one of the major problems patients are concerned with. Thermal damages of the surrounding tissue caused by coagulation during surgery are discussed to correlate with postoperative pain. Therefore, we studied whether the use of magnification devices reduced coagulation procedures and consequently limited post-operative pain. Following an intraindividual design, we performed tonsillectomy on one side using a microscope or magnifying glasses whereas the opposite side was operated with unsupported vision. As verified by a visual analogue scale, our study shows that neither the use of a microscope, nor the use of magnifying glasses leads to less post-operative pain. Other parameters like post-operative bleeding, duration of surgery, and total applied energy by bipolar coagulation were also comparable in the different treatment groups. Taken together, magnification-supported tonsillectomy does not seem to be appropriate for limiting complications of tonsillectomy, especially not for reducing post-operative pain.

Indexed as

Hemostasis, SurgicalMicroscopyTonsillectomyAdolescentAdultEyeglassesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPostoperative HemorrhagePostoperative PainProspective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25245863
OpenAlexW2062754734

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.