ArticleLasers in medical science2023
First experiences with a diode laser in major gynecological laparoscopic procedures show lack of benefit and impaired feasibility.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study is to evaluate feasibility and potential benefit of a diode laser in major laparoscopic procedures in gynecology.
methodsBetween 2018 and 2020, a total of 42 cases were enrolled in this study comparing standard electrosurgery with diode laser-supported therapy in laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH), total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH), or laparoscopic myoma enucleation (LME). Dual wavelength 45 W diode laser light was used to cut and coagulate during laparoscopy in the prospective interventional arm consisting of 11 cases, while 31 matching patients who received conventional treatment with monopolar/bipolar current for the same interventions were retrospectively identified in our laparoscopy database. Recruitment in the prospective interventional laser diode arm was terminated after only 11 patients (instead of planned 50) due to intense hemorrhage and massive smoke development.
resultsA total of 42 cases were analyzed (11 LME, 19 LASH, and 12 TLH). Strong smoke development was evident in all 11 cases in the diode laser arm. It was necessary to convert to bipolar or monopolar current in all hysterectomies (n = 9) with initial diode laser implementation due to increased bleeding and smoke development. Conventional current sources had to be used in LMEs (n = 2) due to excessive bleeding and poor visibility during enucleation of the fibroid. A significant difference (p < 0.0001) was observed regarding smoke development when comparing the laser arm with the control arm.
conclusionWe found a 45-W diode laser to be inferior to electrosurgical techniques for major laparoscopic gynecologic surgeries regarding bleeding control and smoke development.
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.