Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29463122›Full record

ArticleJournal of endourology2018

Evaluation and Comparison of Contemporary Energy-Based Surgical Vessel Sealing Devices.

Zhamshid Okhunov, Renai Yoon, Achim Lusch, Kyle Spradling, Melissa Suarez, Kamaljot S Kaler, Roshan Patel, Christina Hwang, Kathy Osann, Jiaoti Huang and 2 more

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of endourology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Advances and safe use of energy devices in lung cancer surgery.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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.

Zhamshid Okhunov1 Department of Urology, University of California , Irvine, Orange, California.
Renai Yoon1 Department of Urology, University of California , Irvine, Orange, California.
Achim Lusch1 Department of Urology, University of California , Irvine, Orange, California.
Kyle Spradling2 Department of Urology, University of California , Irvine, Orange, California.
Melissa Suarez1 Department of Urology, University of California , Irvine, Orange, California.
Kamaljot S Kaler1 Department of Urology, University of California , Irvine, Orange, California.
Roshan Patel1 Department of Urology, University of California , Irvine, Orange, California.
Christina Hwang1 Department of Urology, University of California , Irvine, Orange, California.
Kathy Osann2 Department of Urology, University of California , Irvine, Orange, California.
Jiaoti Huang3 Department of Pathology, Duke University , Durham, North Carolina.
Thomas Lee4 Department of Pathology, University of California , Irvine, Orange, California.
Jaime Landman1 Department of Urology, University of California , Irvine, Orange, California.

Funding

TRAINING PROGRAM IN ACADEMIC NEPHROLOGYT32DK007357 · NIDDK · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI CHERTOW, GLENN MATTHEW · 1986 to 2022
$4.8M
NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK007357
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe evaluated and compared five currently available energy-based vessel sealing devices to assess typical surgical metrics.

methodsWe tested Caiman 5 (C5), Harmonic Scalpel Ace Plus (HA), Harmonic Ace +7 (HA7), LigaSure (LS), and Enseal G2 (ES) on small (2-5 mm), medium (5.1-7 mm), and large (7.1-9 mm) vessels obtained from 15 Yorkshire pigs. Vessels were randomly sealed and transected. We recorded sealing and transection time, charring and carbonization, thermal spread, and bursting pressure (BP). Specimens were sent for histopathologic evaluation of seal quality and thermal spread.

resultsA total of 246 vessels were evaluated: 125 were arteries and 121 were veins. There was no difference in BPs for small size arteries. For medium arteries, C5 provided the highest BP (proximal and distal jaw), followed by HA7, ES, LS, and HA [1740, 1600, 1165, 1165, 981, and 571 mm Hg, respectively, HA<C5-D(<0.001); HA<C5-P(<0.001); HA<ES(0.002); HA<HA7(0.002); HA7<C5-P(0.026); ES<C5-P(0.026); LS<C5-P(0.001); LS<C5-D(0.014)]. For large arteries, C5 and LS provided highest BP followed by HA7, ES, and HA [1676, 530, 467, 467, and 254 mm Hg, respectively, C5<HA(<0.001); C5<HA7(0.006); C5<ES(0.006); C5<LS(0.012)]. There were no bursting pressure failures for C5, HA7, and LS up to 9 mm vessels. For medium and large size arteries, HA had bursting failure of 20% and 40%, respectively. The ES was significantly less efficient with small, medium, and large arteries with bursting failure rates of 10%, 40%, and 80%, respectively.

conclusionsIn this study, C5 outperformed all other devices. However, all of the devices provide a seal that was superphysiologic in that all burst pressures were >250 mm Hg.

Indexed as

AnimalsArteriesHemostasis, SurgicalPressureSwineVascular Surgical ProceduresVeinsCaimanEnSealHarmonic Scalpellaparoscopic hemostasisLigaSuresurgical energy devicesvessel sealing technologies

Identifiers

PMID29463122
PMCPMC5909080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.