ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2024
Minimally Invasive Beaded Electrosurgical Dissectors, Basic Science, and Pilot Studies.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive beaded electrosurgical dissectors ("BEED devices") provide simultaneous sharp dissection, blunt dissection, and electrosurgical coagulation while performing 100 cm Objectives: The aim of the study was to report the basic science and potential clinical applications and to video document the speed and quality of planar dissections in in vivo and ex vivo porcine models with thermal damage quantified by thermal and histopathologic measurements. Additionally, in vivo porcine specimens were followed for 90 days to show whether adverse events occurred on a gross or macroscopic basis, as evidenced by photography, videography, physical examination, and dual ultrasonography. Methods: Ex vivo porcine models were subjected to 20, 30, and 50 W in single-stroke passages with BEED dissectors (granted FDA 510(k) clearance (K233002)) with multichannel thermocouple, 3 s delay recordation combined with matching hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) histopathology. In vivo porcine models were subjected to eight 10 × 10 cm dissections in each of 2 subjects at 20, 30, and 50 W and evaluated periodically until 90 days, wherein histopathology for H&E, collagen, and elastin was taken plus standard and Doppler ultrasounds prior to euthanasia. Results: Five to 8 mm width dissectors were passed at 1 to 2 cm/s in ex vivo models (1-10 cm/s in vivo models) with an average temperature rise of 5°C at 50 W. Clinically evidenced seromas occurred in the undressed, unprotected wounds, and resolved well prior to 90 days, as documented by ultrasounds and histopathology. Conclusions: In vivo and ex vivo models demonstrated thermal values that were below levels known to damage subcutaneous adipose tissue or skin. Tissue histopathology confirmed healing parameters while Doppler ultrasound demonstrated normal blood flow in posttreatment tissues. Level of Evidence 4:
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.