ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2022
Particle aerosolization with energy devices: A comparative study.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Particle aerosolization with energy devices: A comparative study.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the degree of particle aerosolization with the use of several energy devices used in tonsillectomy and other common upper airway procedures.
methodsThree different energy devices were measured. These included (a) monopolar electrocautery, (b) bipolar electrocautery, and (c) thermal welding device (TWD). Each device was applied to fresh cadaveric cow tongue and porcine nose. Aerosolized particles produced by these devices were measured using a calibrated electronic particle counter. Measurements were recorded over the course of 3 minutes. Particle sizes were measured at 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, 5, and 10 μm.
resultsIn comparing types of tissues and particle sizes, TWD had the lowest aerosolizing burden among the three devices. By analyzing the highest particle value of TWD against both monopolar and bipolar, monopolar electrocautery proved to have the highest aerosolization exposure with statistical significance at 0.5 and 10 μm. No statistical significance was found when comparing TWD against monopolar electrocautery. DISCUSSION: Our study demonstrates there is a difference in aerosolization burden dependent on the type of device utilized. TWD proved to have the lowest burden whereas monopolar electrocautery had the highest.
conclusionTWD produces less aerosolization than conventional monopolar electrocautery when cauterizing or ablating tissue in an experimental setting. The degree of aerosolization was comparable to bipolar electrocautery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
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.