Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33742323›Full record

Trial reportBreast cancer research and treatment2021

Comparison of mastectomy and breast reconstruction outcomes using low thermal dissection versus traditional electrocautery: a blinded randomized trial.

Mehran Habibi, Vishnu Prasath, Robert Dembinski, Justin M Sacks, Gedge D Rosson, Mohamad E Sebai, Sarah Mirkhaef, Ricardo J Bello, Charalampos Siotos, Kristen P Broderick

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03711916 (Pilot Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03711916 nacompletednot on this map

Pilot Study: Post-Operative Outcomes of Low Thermal Dissection vs. Traditional Electrosurgery for Mastectomy Breast Flap Creation With Immediate Breast Reconstruction

TypeinterventionalSponsorSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns HopkinsRan2017 to 2018Enrolled20ConditionsBreast Cancer, Mastectomy, Perfusion, ComplicationsArmsPlasmaBlade 3.0S
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

10 authors.

Mehran HabibiDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. mhabibi2@jhmi.edu.
Vishnu PrasathDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Robert DembinskiDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Justin M SacksDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Gedge D RossonDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Mohamad E SebaiDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Sarah MirkhaefDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Ricardo J BelloDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Charalampos SiotosDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5047-9951
Kristen P BroderickDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.

Funding

CSRD VA 1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPlasmaBlade® is a thermal dissection device that may allow for improved perfusion of the mastectomy flap by limiting thermal injury. In this study we aim to compare the mastectomy flap perfusion using PlasmaBlade® versus traditional electrocautery.

methodsPatients undergoing bilateral mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction were recruited. The right and left breasts of each patient were randomized to dissection with PlasmaBlade® or standard electrocautery. Randomization was performed using random sequences on the day of surgery and was blinded to the plastic surgeon. Mastectomy flap perfusion was assessed following completion of the mastectomy using intra-operative fluoroscopy and plastic surgeon review. Surgical site drainage and pain score were measured. Sign tests were employed to assess differences in perfusion and Wilcoxon paired test for the secondary outcomes.

resultsTwenty patients were enrolled in the study with median age of 40.5 years and median BMI of 26 kg/m

conclusionUse of PlasmaBlade® appears to be a safe and reliable technique to perform mastectomy and breast reconstruction with equivalent outcomes to traditional electrocautery. Although, mastectomy skin flap perfusion was rated better intra-operatively for the PlasmaBlade® group, both cohorts had comparable outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03711916 Level of Evidence: I (Randomized trial).

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammaplastyAdultDissectionElectrocoagulationFemaleHumansMastectomyPostoperative ComplicationsBreast cancerBreast reconstructionDrainageElectrocoagulationMastectomyPainTrial

Identifiers

PMID33742323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.