Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33740084›Full record

Trial reportEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2021

A comparison of the Thunderbeat and standard electrocautery devices in head and neck surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

N C Kuipers, B J de Kleijn, J Wedman, B F A M van der Laan, B E C Plaat, G B Halmos

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

N C KuipersDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
B J de KleijnDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
J WedmanDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
B F A M van der LaanDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
B E C PlaatDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
G B HalmosDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. g.b.halmos@umcg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2460-2260
University Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNew energy-based sutureless vessel ligation devices, such as the Thunderbeat (Olympus Medical Systems Corp., Tokyo, Japan), could reduce operative time and limit blood loss in head and neck surgery; however, efficacy and safety in major head and neck surgery have not been investigated in a prospective, randomized study.

methodsThis prospective, double-arm, randomized controlled trial consisted of two parts: total laryngectomy (TL) and neck dissection (ND). Thirty patients planned for TL were randomized in two groups. For the ND part, forty-two operative sides were likewise randomized. In both parts, Thunderbeat was used in addition to the standard instrumentation in the intervention groups, while only standard instrumentation was used in the control groups. Primary outcome values were blood loss, operative time and complication rate.

resultsFor the TL part there was no difference in mean blood loss (p = 0.062), operative time (p = 0.512) and complications (p = 0.662) between both hemostatic techniques. For the neck dissection part, there was a reduction in blood loss (mean 210 mL versus 431 mL, p = 0.046) and in operative time (median 101 (IQR 85-130) minutes versus 150 (IQR 130-199) minutes, p = 0.014) when Thunderbeat was used. There was no difference in complication rate between both hemostatic systems (p = 0.261).

conclusionThe Thunderbeat hemostatic device significantly reduces operative blood loss and operative time for neck dissections, without increase in complications. In TL, blood loss using Thunderbeat was comparable with the standard technique, but the operative time tended to be shorter.

trial registrationUMCG Research Register, Reg. no. 201700041, date of registration: 18/1/2017.

Indexed as

ElectrocoagulationNeck DissectionBlood Loss, SurgicalHumansOperative TimeProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAdverse eventEnergy based deviceNeck dissectionOperative timeThunderbeatTotal laryngectomy

Identifiers

PMID33740084
PMCPMC8553711
OpenAlexW3136247732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.