ArticleFrontiers in surgery2023
Comparing the intraoperative and postoperative complications of the scalpel and electrocautery techniques for severing the inner layers of the lumbar disc during discectomy surgery.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparative study of lumbar spine stabilization with 2-stage surgery and cement augmentation in osteoporosis patients: a randomized clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Investigation on the cutting-infiltration integrated strategy based on medical waterjet for targeted drug delivery.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Risk factors analysis and risk prediction model for failed back surgery syndrome: A prospective cohort study.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Discectomy with spinal anesthesia in the third trimester of pregnancy: A case report and literature review.SAGE open medical case reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Effects of a new continuous nursing program on the short-term and long-term low back pain in patients after UBED: a retrospective study based on 282 patients.Frontiers in surgery · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Due to the sensitivity of the surgical site and a higher probability of injury, the use of a scalpel and electrocautery to create an incision in the spine is discussed. In this study, we will compare the intraoperative and postoperative complications of the scalpel and electrocautery techniques for severing the inner layers of the lumbar disc during discectomy surgery. Materials and methods: This study was conducted in Iran as a randomized controlled trial with double-blinding (1,401). Sixty candidates for spine surgery were randomly divided into two groups of 30 using electrocautery (A) and a scalpel (B) based on available sampling. The VAS scale was used to assess postoperative pain. The duration of the incision and intraoperative blood loss were recorded. The infection and fluid secretions were determined using the Southampton scoring scale. Utilizing the Manchester scar scale, the wound healing status was evaluated. The SPSS version 16 software was used for data analysis ( Results: The electrocautery group had substantially lower bleeding, pain, and wound healing rates than the scalpel group ( Conclusion: Electrocautery reduces postoperative hemorrhage and, potentially, postoperative pain in patients. However, as the duration of surgery increases, so does the duration of anesthesia, and patient safety decreases. Additionally, the risk of infection increases in the electrocautery group compared to the scalpel group, and the rate of wound healing decreases. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.irct.ir/, identifier (IRCT20230222057496N1).
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.