Trial reportInternational wound journal2019
Comparative analysis on the effect of low-thermal plasma dissection device (PEAK PlasmaBlade) versus conventional electro surgery in post-bariatric body-contouring procedures: A retrospective randomised clinical study.
Trial report in International wound journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of low-thermal dissection device versus conventional electrocautery in mastectomy for female-to-male transgender patients.International wound journal · 2020Trial
- Comparative analysis on the effect of low-thermal plasma dissection device (PEAK PlasmaBlade) versus conventional electro surgery in post-bariatric body-contouring procedures: A retrospective randomised clinical study.International wound journal · 2019Trial
- Minimally Invasive Beaded Electrosurgical Dissectors, Basic Science, and Pilot Studies.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2024Article
- Post-Bariatric Plastic Surgery: Abdominoplasty, the State of the Art in Body Contouring.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Comparative analysis on the effect of low-thermal plasma dissection device (PEAK PlasmaBlade) vs conventional electrosurgery in post-bariatric abdominoplasty: A retrospective randomised clinical study.International wound journal · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Postoperative wound-healing problems are relatively high in post-bariatric body-contouring procedures, partly because of electrosurgery and the associated thermal tissue damage. This study is a retrospective randomised evaluation of the effect of a low-thermal plasma dissection device (PEAK PlasmaBlade, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) in comparison with conventional electrosurgery. A total of 24 patients undergoing upper arm or medial thigh lifting were randomised to PEAK PlasmaBlade on one side and to monopolar electrosurgery on the other side of the same patient. Wounds of 10 patients were examined histologically for acute thermal injury depth. Significantly lower total volume of drain output (61,1 ± 70,2 mL versus 95,1 ± 176,0 mL; P = .04) was found on the PEAK PlasmaBlade side compared with the electrosurgery side. Furthermore, the PEAK PlasmaBlade side showed fewer seromas (no case of seroma versus three seromas in the electrosurgery group) and less thermal damage (40% versus 70%; P = .26). Acute thermal injury depth from the PEAK PlasmaBlade was less than from monopolar electrosurgery (425 ± 171 μm versus 686 ± 1037 μm; P = .631). PEAK PlasmaBlade appears to be superior to traditional monopolar electrosurgery for post-bariatric body-contouring procedures because it demonstrated less tissue damage, lower total volume of drain output, and fewer postoperative seromas resulting in faster wound healing.
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.