ArticleCureus2022
Comparison of Conventional Bipolar Electrocautery and Ultrasonic Harmonic Scalpel in Colorectal Cancer Surgeries.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Application of total thoracoscopic ultrasonic scalpel resection in esophageal cancer patients.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Intraoperative laparoscopic ultrasound-guided resection and microwave ablation for colorectal liver metastases.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Low Hartmann's procedure versus abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer, a propensity score matching cohort study.BMC gastroenterology · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy and the second most deadly cancer worldwide. Powered equipment has transformed modern surgery, revolutionizing the delicacy, precision, and accuracy of many surgeries. The safety and efficacy of tissue dissection and artery sealing in colorectal surgery remain highly debatable. With the increased use of minimally invasive procedures in colon and rectal surgery, energy devices for tissue dissection and vascular sealing have become widely used. In light of this, we aimed at comparing the use of bipolar electrocautery and harmonic scalpel in CRC surgeries. Methods Our study was a hospital-based comparative study conducted at our tertiary care hospital. Fifty patients were divided equally into two groups by block randomization, and bipolar electrocautery was used in one group, and harmonic scalpel was used in the second group during surgery. The mean operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay were calculated in both groups. The comparison between bipolar electrocautery and harmonic scalpel was evaluated using independent t-tests. Results The mean operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay were significantly lower in the harmonic scalpel group than in the electrocautery group. The results were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Conclusion Based on our findings, the harmonic scalpel is a better energy source when compared to bipolar electrocautery in CRC surgeries.
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.