ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2024
A Retrospective Study of Transaxillary Endoscopic Breast Augmentation Using Ultrasonic Scalpel or Conventional Electrocautery for Implant Pocket Dissection.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mandibular angle osteotomy in Asian patients: A narrative review on techniques, emerging technologies, and personalized surgical strategies.JPRAS open · 2026Review
- Performance of ChatGPT in Answering Clinical Questions on the Practical Guideline of Blepharoptosis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Performance of ChatGPT in Answering Clinical Questions on the Practical Guideline of Blepharoptosis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Blepharoptosis Consultation with Artificial Intelligence: Aesthetic Surgery Advice and Counseling from Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT).Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Can ChatGPT be the Plastic Surgeon's New Digital Assistant? A Bibliometric Analysis and Scoping Review of ChatGPT in Plastic Surgery Literature.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Can ChatGPT be the Plastic Surgeon's New Digital Assistant? A Bibliometric Analysis and Scoping Review of ChatGPT in Plastic Surgery Literature.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- A Novel Artificial Intelligence Model for Symmetry Evaluation in Breast Cancer Patients.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- The Artificial Intelligence application in Aesthetic Medicine: How ChatGPT can Revolutionize the Aesthetic World.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUltrasonic scalpel has been reported to be superior to conventional electrocautery in many studies. However, with respect to transaxillary endoscopic breast augmentation, few studies on the effect of ultrasonic scalpel are available in the literature.
methodsThe medical records of 173 female patients who underwent breast augmentation via endoscopic transaxillary approach from January 2018 to December 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups according to the implant pocket dissection instruments. In group A, the implant pockets were dissected with conventional electrocautery (EC group) on 81 patients, and in group B, ultrasonic scalpel (US group) was used for implant pockets on 92 patients. All operations were performed by the same senior plastic surgeon and the same surgical team. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative total drainage volume, days of drainage, postoperative surgical site pain and hospital stay time of the two groups were compared and analyzed statistically.
resultsThe average operation time of the US group (83.82 ± 11.57 min) was significantly shorter than that of the EC group (101.40 ± 14.36 min), intraoperative blood loss in the US group was significantly less than that of the EC group (18.67 ± 6.20 ml vs. 21.59 ± 6.44 ml), the mean hospital stay days (2.96 ± 0.69 vs. 4.30 ± 1.11), total drainage volume (122.24 ± 43.81 vs. 232.37 ± 99.15), and duration of drain (2.52 ± 0.54 vs. 3.77 ± 1.10), mean VAS score for surgical site pain on 3 postoperative days (5.08 ± 1.35 vs. 6.51 ± 1.36, 4.08 ± 1.16 vs. 5.40 ± 1.32, 3.04 ± 0.91 vs. 4.06 ± 1.11) were significantly lower in the US group compared to the EC group.
conclusionsThe ultrasonic scalpel reduces operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative pain, hospital stay time, and incidence of complications. The ultrasonic scalpel is safe and reliable for transaxillary endoscopic breast augmentation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
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.