ArticleBMC surgery2018
Evaluation of THUNDERBEAT® in open liver resection- a single-center experience.
Article in BMC surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparative Study of an Integrated Ultrasonic/Bipolar Sealing Device Versus an Articulating Bipolar Sealing Device for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery.World journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Central hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in a patient with anti-Gerbich antibody.Surgical case reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTHUNDERBEAT® (TB) (Olympus Medical Systems Corp., Tokyo, Japan) is a dynamic energy system device that simultaneously delivers ultrasonically generated frictional heat energy and electrically generated bipolar energy. TB is being routinely used in various operative procedures, however, less is known about its utility in liver resection. We, herein, report our early experience of using TB in open liver resection particularly in patients with normal or near-normal liver parenchyma.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the clinical characteristics, and evaluated the perioperative outcome of twenty-eight patients who underwent liver resection with TB, and twenty-four patients who underwent liver resection with basic procedure in our institution. The resection type was stratified into: major hepatectomy; resection of 3 or more than 3 Couinauds segments, and minor hepatectomy; resection of less than 3 Couinauds segments.
resultsLiver resection time (mean ± SD) in TB group with major hepatectomy was significantly shorter: 16.7 ± 8.8 compared to 62.8 ± 39.4 min in basic procedure group (P < 0.0001). Accordingly, the liver resection time (mean ± SD) in TB group with minor hepatectomy was also significantly shorter, 8.3 ± 2.9 min compared to 45.2 ± 23.9 min in liver resection with basic procedure (P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of intraoperative blood transfusion ratio, postoperative complication and postoperative liver dysfunction.
conclusionTB as a new energy device can offer a safe, reliable and substantially rapid liver resection particularly in patients with normal or near-normal liver parenchyma.
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.