SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2022
A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing energy devices used in colorectal surgery.
Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Energy Devices for Clipless-Sutureless Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Utility and Safety.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Pooled it
- Tissue effects of advanced energy devices: a systematic review and descriptive analysis of vascular sealing and lateral thermal damage in human tissue.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Short-term outcomes and learning curve of the double-bipolar method in 100 consecutive robot-assisted colorectal cancer resections: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Performance of the ENSEAL X1 Curved Jaw Tissue Sealer in thoracic procedures in a Japanese cohort: a case series report.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2024Article
- Keep your cool to reduce post haemorrhoidectomy pain.ANZ journal of surgeryArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare energy devices used for intraoperative hemostasis during colorectal surgery.
methodsA systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis performed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Cochrane were searched from inception to August 11th 2021. Intraoperative outcomes were operative blood loss, operative time, conversion to open, conversion to another energy source. Postoperative outcomes were mortality, overall complications, minor complications and major complications, wound complications, postoperative ileus, anastomotic leak, time to first defecation, day 1 and 3 drainage volume, duration of hospital stay.
resultsSeven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, reporting on 680 participants, comparing conventional hemostasis, LigaSure™, Thunderbeat
conclusionsLigaSure™, Thunderbeat
Indexed as
Identifiers
35132505What 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.