Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38595442›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024

Choice of Surgeons in Retractors used in Cleft Lip and Palate Surgery: An Original Research.

Sagar Gopalakrishna, M Rajmohan, Radhika Thakkar, Jnanesh Ramesh Kannur, Neelamma Kamadal, Aayush Malhotra, Rahul V C Tiwari

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 97% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Sagar GopalakrishnaDepartment of Dentistry, Kodagu Institute of Medical Sciences, Madikeri, Karnataka, India.
M RajmohanDepartment of Dental Surgery, KAPV Government Medical College and Hospital, Trichy, Tamil Nadu, India.
Radhika ThakkarBDS, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, New York, United States.
Jnanesh Ramesh KannurDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Consultant, Harneshwar Multi-Speciality Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Neelamma KamadalDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Al Ameen Dental College, Vijayapura, Karnataka, India.
Aayush MalhotraDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, M.M. College of Dental Sciences and Research, Maharishi Markandeshwar (Deemed to be University), Mullana, Ambala, Haryana, India.
Rahul V C TiwariConsultant, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon, OMNI and Andhra Hospitals, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Al-Ameen Medical College · INGovernment Medical College and Hospital · INKarnataka Institute of Medical Sciences · INMaharishi Markandeshwar University, Mullana · INUniversity of Rochester · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: To ensure optimal exposure and enable precise tissue manipulation, cleft lip and palate abnormalities require surgical repair utilizing retractors. Different retractors may affect surgical outcomes; however, this is not yet evident. Examining surgeon preferences for retractors in cleft lip and palate surgery and assessing their impact on patient outcomes were the goals of this study. Materials and Methods: The patients who underwent primary cleft lip and palate repair were retrospectively analyzed. This study evaluated three widely used retractors: the Langenbeck, Gelpi, and Moult Mouth Gag retractors. This study looked at demographic information, surgical results (including scarring, aesthetic outcomes, and wound healing issues), and surgeon preferences for retractors. Results: The study identified differences in surgical outcomes related to various retractor types. Both Group A (Langenbeck retractor) and Group B (Gelpi retractor) demonstrated similar favorable results, such as little wound healing issues, less scarring, and pleasing cosmetic results. The wound healing issues, scarring, and cosmetic outcomes were all worse in Group C (Moult Mouth Gag retractor). Conclusion: Retractors were not always preferred by surgeons doing cleft lip and palate surgery. The type of retractor had an impact on the surgical results; the Moult Mouth Gag retractor performed less well than the Langenbeck and Gelpi retractors. These results highlight the value of using evidence-based criteria to select retractors more effectively and enhance surgical methods for better patient outcomes in cleft lip and palate repair.

Indexed as

Cleft lipcleft palateretractorssurgerysurgical outcomes

Identifiers

PMID38595442
PMCPMC11000989
OpenAlexW4392303760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.