ArticleGland surgery2020
Shaw scalpel use for recurrent laryngeal nerve dissection: safety parameter findings from continuous intraoperative neuromonitoring in swine models.
Article in Gland surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrecise dissection with hemostasis while preserving important structures is critical in thyroid surgeries. In this study, we tested the safety of the Hemostatix Shaw scalpel (HSS) around the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) in porcine models.
methodsFour piglets were used to obtain continuous intraoperative neuromonitoring data. The HSS was applied at various distances from the RLN, with various temperature settings. Monopolar electrosurgical pencil and Harmonic scalpel were also tested for comparison.
resultsThe use of HSS did not show adverse electromyographic (EMG) events when activated at 3- and 5-mm distances from the RLN. At a 1-mm distance, adverse event was observed at 300 °C after 2 seconds of activation. At 210 °C, adverse event was observed when the instrument was directly adjacent to the RLN. For comparison, an electrosurgical pencil, set at coagulation mode (25W), showed an irreversible adverse EMG event during 5 seconds of activation at 1-mm distance from the RLN. Harmonic ACE+, activation power at level 5, was also applied in one RLN and reversable adverse EMG event was observed at <0.1-mm (contact) distance after 3 seconds of activation.
conclusionsThe safety distance of the HSS was 3 mm for the 300 °C setting and >1 mm for the 210 °C setting in the swine models in this study. Surgeons must understand the specific characteristics of various energy devices and apply them appropriately for safe operation.
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.