Trial reportEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2024
The short-term outcomes of surgical scars in head and neck surgery comparing between surgical blade and geometric electron modulation electrocautery.
Trial report in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScar formation after neck surgery is a frequent concern, impacting patients both physically and psychologically. Cosmetic appearance plays a crucial role in assessing surgical success. At present, the evolving medical technologies introduces innovations like Geometric Electron Modulation (GEM) electrocautery. GEM technology offers potential benefits such as reduced thermal injury and consistent heat emission during surgery compared to conventional electrocautery.
objectivesTo compare the difference between postoperative neck scars from the surgical blade as the gold standard and geometric electron modulation electrocautery. MATERIAL AND
methodsA randomized controlled study was performed on the patients who were diagnosed with surgical conditions requiring neck surgery at the Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, from 2023 to 2024. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale was utilized to assess scar appearance at 1 and 3 months following the surgery, and the amount of blood loss during incision was recorded.
results22 patients were enrolled to this study. At 1-month follow-up, we saw significant difference between GEM (20.32 ± 4.11) and the surgical blade (23.27 ± 4.59) (P = 0.008) from POSAS, patient scale but no significant difference in doctor scale, (GEM 21.55 ± 7.34, surgical blade 24.27 ± 7.88, P = 0.155). At 3-month follow-up, there were no significant difference between the groups both doctor (GEM 16.45 ± 4.62, surgical blade 17.65 ± 4.50, P = 0.411) and patient scale (GEM 13.15 ± 2.96, surgical blade 14.05 ± 3.33, P = 0.328).
conclusionGEM electrocautery had a superior scar outcome to a surgical blade at 1 month from the patient perspective. There was also significantly less blood loss in GEM compared with the surgical blade.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38847842What 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.