Trial reportBMC surgery2017
Impact of the Ultrasonic scalpel on the amount of drained lymph after axillary or inguinal lymphadenectomy.
Trial report in BMC surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02476357 (A Randomized Control Trial for Lymphocele and Lymphorrhea Control Following Inguinal and Axillary Radical Lymph Node Dissection), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
A Randomized Control Trial for Lymphocele and Lymphorrhea Control Following Inguinal and Axillary Radical Lymph Node Dissection
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Minimally Invasive Management of Inguinal Lymph Nodes in Penile Cancer: Recent Progress and Remaining Challenges.Cancers · 2024Review
- Evaluating HEmopatch® in Reducing Seroma-Related Complications following Axillary Lymph Node DIssection: A Pilot Study (HEIDI).Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Review
- Correlation between the contrast-enhanced ultrasound image features and axillary lymph node metastasis of primary breast cancer and its diagnostic value.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeroma formation and lymphoedema are frequently encountered complications after radical lymph node dissection (RLND). Attempts to reduce the lymphatic morbidity include the use of Ultrasonic Scalpel. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the impact of the ultrasonic scalpel on the amount of drained lymph after lymph node dissection.
methodsPatients listed for a RLND or completion lymph node dissection (CLND) were enrolled in a prospective randomized trial to compare the impact of two surgical dissection techniques (USS versus control) on the amount of drained lymph. The lymph drained in 24 h was collected. Our primary endpoint was to compare the daily amount of drained lymph between the two groups. Secondary endpoints were the comparison of drained lymph with the BMI of the patients, the gender and the surgical site (axilla, groin).
resultsEighty patients were randomly assigned to the USS group or the Control (C) group. No difference was measured in the total amount of lymph drained (USS: 2908 ± 2453 ml vs. C: 3898 ± 5791 ml; p-value = 0.382). The result was also similar after adjusting for gender, age, and BMI. A significant higher amount of lymph was measured after inguinal dissection with USS compared to axillary (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe study suggests that the use of Harmonic scalpel did not influence the amount of lymph drained after RLND and not support the theory that USS induces oversealing of lymphatics.
trial registrationClinical Trial NCT02476357 . Registered 20 of February 2015.
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.