ArticleSurgery today2018
A novel suction/coagulation integrated probe for achieving better hemostasis: development and clinical use.
Article in Surgery today, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methods used for smoke evacuation in laparoendoscopic surgery: a technical review.Surgery today · 2025Review
- Flexible suction-coagulation probe restores dexterity in robot-assisted surgery: bench-to-bedside evaluation.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Techniques for dividing incomplete pulmonary interlobar fissure using bipolar soft coagulation forceps in robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Efficacy of electrocoagulation hemostasis: a study on the optimal usage of the very-low-voltage mode.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of suction-tip forceps, a new tool for laparoscopic surgery, for gastric cancer.Asian journal of endoscopic surgery · 2021Article
- Usefulness of a suction ball coagulation probe for hemostasis in complete VATS lobectomy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer.Surgery today · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesModern electrosurgical tools have a specific coagulation mode called "soft coagulation". However, soft coagulation has not been widely accepted for surgical operations. To optimize the soft coagulation environment, we developed a novel suction device integrated with an electrosurgical probe, called the "Suction ball coagulator" (SBC). In this study, we aimed to optimize the SBC design with a prototyping process involving a bench test and preclinical study; then, we aimed to demonstrate the feasibility, safety, and potential effectiveness of the SBC for laparoscopic surgery in clinical settings.
methodsSBC prototyping was performed with a bench test. Device optimization was performed in a preclinical study with a domestic swine bleeding model. Then, SBC was tested in a clinical setting during 17 clinical laparoscopic colorectal surgeries.
resultsIn the bench tests, two tip hole sizes and patterns showed a good suction capacity. The preclinical study indicated the best tip shape for accuracy. In clinical use, no device-related adverse event was observed. Moreover, the SBC was feasible for prompt hemostasis and blunt dissections. In addition, SBC could evacuate vapors generated by tissue ablation using electroprobe during laparoscopic surgery.
conclusionsWe successfully developed a novel, integrated suction/coagulation probe for hemostasis and commercialized it.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29453623What 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.