Trial reportOral and maxillofacial surgery2021
Neck dissection with harmonic instruments and electrocautery: a prospective comparative study.
Trial report in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- An umbrella review of the surgical performance of Harmonic ultrasonic devices and impact on patient outcomes.BMC surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Thermal versus cold instrument incisions in cervical dissection for oral squamous cell carcinoma: A comparative study.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Neck Dissection with Harmonic Instruments and Electrocautery: A Systematic Review.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2024Review
- Is Using the Harmonic Scalpel Better than Conventional Hemostasis in Neck Dissection? A Meta-Analysis.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2024Article
- Monopolar electrocautery versus sharp dissection in the neck dissection: a retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Electrocautery, Harmonic, and Thunderbeat Instruments in Parotid Surgery: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Comparison of the Accuracy and Clinical Parameters of Patient-Specific and Conventionally Bended Plates for Mandibular Reconstruction.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
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
backgroundHarmonic instruments are becoming popular in head and neck surgeries. In this prospective, randomized study, the efficacy of the harmonic instruments and electrosurgical technique is compared. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 48 patients undergoing unilateral neck dissection were divided into two groups. In one group, surgery was performed using conventional hemostatic instruments while in the other, only harmonic instruments were used. The two techniques were then compared with regard to intra- and post-operative blood loss, complications in operating time, drain, tracheotomy and nasogastric tube duration, and post-operative hospital stay.
resultsDifferences in operative time (P = 0.647), total suction drainage (P = 0.362) and time that drains (P = 0.404), nasogastric tube (P = 0.378), and tracheotomy (P = 0.052) were kept in place and proved not significant. The average blood loss during surgery was significantly greater in the CH group (P = 0.003) as the number of hemoclips and resorbable ligature used (P = 0.002).
conclusionsIn contrast to what has been reported up to now, our study did not reveal a net advantage in the use of harmonic instruments with respect to classical instruments in terms of surgical outcome. On the contrary, harmonic tools had a higher complication rate (i.e., salivary fistula and lymphatic leak) probably due to the decreased ability of this instruments to permanently close glandular structures and lymphatic ducts. In these cases, a closure technique such as electrocautery or classic knot-tying should be used.
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.