Trial reportWorld journal of surgery2015
Impact of energy devices during liver parenchymal transection: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in World journal of surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the outcomes between ultrasonic devices and clamping in hepatectomy: a meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Pooled it
- High-energy devices in different surgical settings: lessons learnt from a full health technology assessment report developed by SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica).Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- Methods to decrease blood loss during liver resection: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Laparoscopic liver parenchymal transection using CUSA versus harmonic scalpel: a protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Article
- Non-Stick Liver Parenchymal Transection With Saline-Linked Bipolar Clamp-Crush Technique in Robotic Liver Resection.Cureus · 2023Article
- Laparoscopic liver resection with "ultrasonic scalpel mimic CUSA" technique.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Tissue pad degradation of ultrasonic device may enhance thermal injury and impair its sealing performance in liver surgery.World journal of hepatology · 2022Article
- Prospective validation to prevent symptomatic portal vein thrombosis after liver resection.World journal of hepatology · 2022Article
- Comparison of operative outcomes between monopolar and bipolar coagulation in hepatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single center.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- The Italian Consensus on minimally invasive simultaneous resections for synchronous liver metastasis and primary colorectal cancer: A Delphi methodology.Updates in surgery · 2021Article
- Feasibility of Microwave-Based Scissors and Tweezers in Partial Hepatectomy: An Initial Assessment on Canine Model.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
- A novel device designed to improve the operability of energy devices with foot pedals in endoscopic surgery: the Foot-Site Monitor.Surgery today · 2019Article
- Article
- What are the True Advantages of Devices for Hepatic Parenchymal Transection in Open Surgery?World journal of surgery · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo clarify the benefit of energy devices such as ultrasonically activated device and bipolar vessel sealing device in liver surgeries.
backgroundSeveral studies have suggested the benefit of energy devices in liver transection, while a randomized trial has found no association between their use and surgical outcomes. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients scheduled to undergo open liver resection were eligible for this multicenter non-blinded randomized study. They were randomized to receive an energy device (experimental group) or not (control group) during liver transection. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with intraoperative blood loss >1,000 mL. The primary aim was to show non-inferiority of hepatectomy with energy device to that without energy device.
resultsA total of 212 patients were randomized and 211 (105 and 106 in the respective groups) were analyzed. Intraoperative blood loss >1,000 mL occurred in 15.0% patients with energy device and 20.2% patients without energy device. The experimental minus control group difference was -5.2% (95% confidence interval -13.8 to 3.3%; non-inferiority test, p = 0.0248). Hepatectomy with energy device resulted in a shorter median liver transection time (63 vs. 84 min; p < 0.001) and a lower rate of postoperative bile leakage (4 vs. 16%; p = 0.002).
conclusionsThe hypothesis that hepatectomy with energy device is not inferior to that without energy device in terms of blood loss has been demonstrated. The use of energy devices during liver surgery is clinically meaningful as it shortens the liver transection time and reduces the incidence of postoperative bile leakage.
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.