ArticleCureus2020
Outcomes of Harmonic Scalpel and Electrocautery in Patients Who Underwent Modified Radical Mastectomy.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Harmonic Scalpel Versus Monopolar Electrotome in Endoscopic-Assisted Transaxillary Dual-Plane Augmentation Mammaplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Value of using ultrasonic shears in reducing seroma formation after axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer patients.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2024Trial
- Examining the Value of Ultrasonic Scalpel in Endoscopy-Assisted Transaxillary Breast Augmentation Surgery: A Self-controlled Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparison of the effect of ultrasounic-harmonic scalpel and electrocautery in the treatment of axillary lymph nodes during radical surgery for breast cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to compare the mean operative time, total analgesic required, and the mean number of drainage days in harmonic scalpel versus electrocautery in breast cancer patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy (MRM). Methodology This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of General Surgery, Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Center (JPMC). The duration of the study was six months, from January 2018 until July 2018. A total of 194 females with biopsy-proven breast cancer undergoing MRM were included in the study. They were divided into two groups. In group 'A', a harmonic scalpel was used, and in group 'B', electrocautery was used for hemostasis. Results The mean age of the participants was 48.68 ±10.04 years. The mean operative time was 102.13 ±2.04 minutes. The mean number of days of drainage was 1.27 ±2.63. The mean analgesia amount was 30.72 ±3.25 mg. In the harmonic scalpel group, the mean operative time was 100.43 ±0.89 minutes, whereas, in the electrocautery group, it was 103.86 ±1.12 minutes with a significant difference (p=0.001). In the harmonic scalpel group, the mean number of drainage days was 8.90 ±0.42, whereas, in the electrocautery group, it was 13.58 ±1.26 with a statistically significant difference (p=0.001). In the harmonic scalpel group, the mean analgesia amount was 1,800.5 ±353.55 mg, whereas, in the electrocautery group, it was noted to be 2,006.25 ±289.43 with a statistically significant difference (p=0.001). Conclusion This study concludes that compared with standard electrocautery, harmonic scalpel dissection is associated with significant benefits in decreasing postoperative drainage and blood loss during operations after MRM for breast cancer.
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.