Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28840380›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018

Implementation of a novel efficacy score to compare sealing and cutting devices in a porcine model.

Lea Brecht, Markus Wallwiener, Sarah Schott, Christoph Domschke, Christine Dinkic, Michael Golatta, Florian Schuetz, Herbert Fluhr, Albrecht Stenzinger, Marietta Kirchner and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A Real-Time Fluorescence Feedback System for Infrared Laser Sealing of Blood Vessels.IEEE journal of selected topics in quantum electronics : a publication of the IEEE Lasers and Electro-optics Society
    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

12 authors.

Lea BrechtDepartment for Internal Medicine, St. Josef's Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus WallwienerDepartment for Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sarah SchottDepartment for Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Christoph DomschkeDepartment for Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Christine DinkicDepartment for Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Michael GolattaDepartment for Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Florian SchuetzDepartment for Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Herbert FluhrDepartment for Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Albrecht StenzingerDepartment of Pathology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Marietta KirchnerInstitute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Christof SohnDepartment for Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Joachim RomDepartment for Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. joachim.rom@med.uni-heidelberg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn general surgery, minimally invasive laparoscopic procedures have been steadily increasing over the last decade. The application of advanced bipolar and ultrasonic energy devices for sealing and cutting of blood vessels plays a vital role in routine clinical procedures. The advantages of energy-based instruments are enhanced sealing capability combined with both fast sealing time and minimal thermal injury. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy profiles of nine laparoscopic sealing and cutting devices in a porcine model, with a new scoring system.

methodsComparative studies in a porcine model were performed to assess vessel sealing, burst pressure, thermal spread, maximum heat, sealing/cooling time, and compression strength over the full jaw. Nine different devices from five manufacturers were tested in this study. The sealing and cutting devices (SCD) score has been developed to enable standardized comparisons of various devices. For this purpose, the most important parameters were identified through a consensus approach.

resultsAll sealed vessels with different devices could withstand a median pressure of more than 300 mmHg (range 112-2046 mmHg). The time for the sealing procedure was 7.705 s (range 5.305-18.38 s) for the ultrasonic and 7.860 s (range 5.08-10.17 s) for the bipolar devices. The ultrasonic instruments reached a median temperature of 218.1 °C (range 81.3-349.75 °C) and the bipolar devices a temperature of 125.5 °C (range 94.1-133.35 °C). The tissue reached a median temperature of 61.9 (range 47.1-80.6 °C) after ultrasonic sealing and 76.7 °C (range 63.1-94.2 °C) after bipolar sealing. The median SCD score was 10.47 (range 7.16-13.72).

conclusionAll the instruments used seemed safe for use on the patient. The SCD score allows an indirect comparability of the instruments.

Indexed as

AnimalsDissectionEquipment DesignHemostasis, SurgicalLaparoscopyPatient SafetyPressureSwineTemperatureTime FactorsBurst pressureEndoscopySCD scoreSealing and cutting devicesSealing time

Identifiers

PMID28840380

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.