SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2023
Use of High Energy Devices (HEDs) versus electrocautery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review on the use of artificial intelligence to identify anatomical structures during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a tool towards the future.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of high-energy devices for thyroid surgery.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Navigating the Impossible Gallbladder: Bailout Strategies and Culture of Safety in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.Cureus · 2026Review
- Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and lymph nodes dissection using Senhance robotic system and Senhance ultrasonic energy device: A case report.Clinical case reports · 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
13 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccording to the literature, there is no clear definition of a High Energy Devices (HEDs), and their proper indications for use are also unclear. Nevertheless, the flourishing market of HEDs could make their choice in daily clinical practice arduous, possibly increasing the risk of improper use for a lack of specific training. At the same time, the diffusion of HEDs impacts the economic asset of the healthcare systems. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of HEDs compared to electrocautery devices while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). MATERIALS AND
methodsOn behalf of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and New Technologies, experts performed a systematic review and meta-analysis and synthesised the evidence assessing the efficacy and safety of HEDs compared to electrocautery devices while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies were included. Outcomes were: operating time, bleeding, intra-operative and post-operative complications, length of hospital stay, costs, and exposition to surgical smoke. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021250447).
resultsTwenty-six studies were included: 21 RCTs, one prospective parallel arm comparative non-RCT, and one retrospective cohort study, while three were prospective comparative studies. Most of the studies included laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed in an elective setting. All the studies but three analysed the outcomes deriving from the utilisation of US sources of energy compared to electrocautery. Operative time was significantly shorter in the HED group compared to the electrocautery group (15 studies, 1938 patients; SMD - 1.33; 95% CI - 1.89 to 0.78; I2 = 97%, Random-effect). No other statistically significant differences were found in the other examined variables.
conclusionsHEDs seem to have a superiority over Electrocautery while performing LC in terms of operative time, while no difference was observed in terms of length of hospitalisation and blood loss. No concerns about safety were raised.
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.