ArticleScientific reports2023
Monopolar electrocautery versus sharp dissection in the neck dissection: a retrospective study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of electrocautery and scalpel incisions in inguinal hernia repair.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Effect of Monopolar Electrocautery and Blunt Dissection on Muscle Damage and Inflammation in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Microdiscectomy.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Thermal versus cold instrument incisions in cervical dissection for oral squamous cell carcinoma: A comparative study.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Factors in Surgical Placement and System Design to Reduce Pocket Awareness and Optimize the User Experience of Spinal Cord Stimulators - A Comprehensive Review.Journal of pain research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The cold scalpel/scissors (CS) and the monopolar electrocautery (ME) are still the most commonly used instruments for neck dissection in head and neck oncology. However, a direct comparison of these techniques does not exist. This study aims to compare these techniques concerning blood loss, the decline of hemoglobin levels, and surgery duration. Data on 200 patients who received tumor resection, neck dissection and either a radial forearm free flap (RFFF)or a primary closure (PC) were examined retrospectively. The patients were divided according to the performed defect closure (RFFF or PC) and the main instrument usedfor the beck dissection (Group 1: RFFF and ME, Group 2: RFFF and CS, Group 3: PC and ME Group 4: PC and CS). The intraoperative blood loss, decline of hemoglobin values and surgery duration were analyzed and compared between the corresponding groups. The patients where the ME was used lost on average 409.93 ml (group 1 vs. 2) and 242.4 ml (group 3 vs. 4) less blood. The median decrease in the hemoglobin levels was by 1.01 g/dL (group 1 vs. 2) and 0.85 g/dL (group 3 vs. 4) lower for the ME. The median surgery duration was by 102 min (group 1 vs. 2) and 83 min (group 3 vs. 4) shorterfor the ME. All differences were statistically significant. Traditional scalpel and scissors used for neck dissection lead to significantly higher blood loss and longer operation time than the monopolar electrocautery.
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.