ReviewCureus2024
Efficacy of LigaSure Versus Harmonic Devices in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reduction of seroma by pectoralis fascia dissection using an energy device in total mastectomy for breast cancer: An observational study.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our goal is to conduct a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies to evaluate the efficacy of LigaSure (Valleylab, Boulder, CO) compared with Harmonic (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., Cincinnati, OH) devices in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Our search strategy, from inception until March 1, 2024, involved multiple databases, including the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science (WOS), PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We evaluated randomized clinical trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2) tool and non-randomized studies using the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies for Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. The primary outcomes assessed were operative time, mean length of hospital stay, and the rates of intraoperative complications such as bleeding, organ injury, leakage, and hematoma formation. Additionally, we collected data on postoperative complications, including bleeding, abscess formation, leakage, fever (>38°C), and reoperation rates. Data were analyzed using random-effects models and reported as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using Review Manager software (RevMan, version 5.4 for Windows, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020). Four studies, comprising two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and two retrospective cohort studies, involving a total of 692 patients, were included in the analysis. Both the operative time and length of hospital stay did not significantly differ between the LigaSure and Harmonic groups (p>0.05). The pooled analysis also revealed no significant difference between the LigaSure and Harmonic groups in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications (p>0.05). In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis found no significant statistical or clinical differences between LigaSure and Harmonic devices in terms of operative outcomes and complication rates in patients undergoing LSG.
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.