ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2016
Comparison of the Perioperative Outcomes of a Vessel Sealing Instrument-Assisted Technique with a Conventional Technique in Abdominal Myomectomy.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn gynaecologic practice, LigaSure Precise(TM) is generally used in endoscopic and open surgeries, such as hysterectomy, adnexectomy, and cancer surgery. However, there is no case report or main research article where LigaSure Precise(TM) has been used for myomectomy. We want to compare a technique using a vessel sealing instrument with a conventional technique in abdominal myomectomy. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty-five women who underwent abdominal myomectomy were divided two groups: (1) a vessel sealing instrument-assisted technique (24 patients); and (2) a conventional technique (31 patients) between January 2011 and December 2014 at the Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey. The data for the operation times, the occurrence of perioperative complications, the hospitalization times, and changes in haemaglobin and haematocrit levels for the two techniques were collected and compared.
resultsThe mean operation time was 48 minutes for the vessel sealing instrument-assisted technique and 54 minutes for the conventional technique. No statistically significant differences were determined for haemoglobin and haematocrit changes, hospital stay and perioperative complications.
conclusionWe did not find any difference in the occurrence of complications, changes in haemoglobin or haematocrit levels, or hospital stay. The vessel sealing instrument-assisted technique is feasible and effective in reducing operation times.
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.