ArticleArab journal of urology2018
Contemporary use of ultrasonic versus standard electrosurgical dissection in laparoscopic nephrectomy: Safety, efficacy and cost.
Article in Arab journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ultrasonic dissection (USD) compared with standard monopolar electrosurgery (ES) in laparoscopic nephrectomy (LN). PATIENTS AND
methodsRetrospective analysis of patients' records who underwent elective LN was performed. Patients were divided in to two groups: USD and ES groups depending on the energy source used during LN. The preoperative (demographics, indication for surgery), intraoperative (conversion to open surgery, operative time, estimated blood loss [EBL], complications), and postoperative (morbidity/mortality, volume of drainage, hospital stay, cost) data were collected and analysed.
resultsBetween February 2004 and February 2008, 136 patients were included. The indications for nephrectomy were: inflammatory (51 patients), non-inflammatory (64), and tumours (21). The two groups were similar for preoperative data. The conversion rate to open surgery (12.5%) and mean operative time did not differ significantly between the groups. However, intraoperative mean EBL was significantly less with USD, at 140.8 mL vs 182.6 mL for ES. There were no differences in postoperative parameters and morbidity. USD was significantly more expensive than ES (59 000 vs 26 000 Indian Rupees).
conclusionsES is a safe and feasible tool like USD in LN when used with caution. USD facilitates completion of difficult cases and reduces intraoperative blood loss. However, the majority of LNs can be completed safely with ES. ES is sturdy and cheap; therefore, selective use of USD appears to be the most cost-effective policy in the developing world.
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.