ArticleCureus2024
Outcomes of the Electrothermal Bipolar Vessel Sealing Device and Electrocautery in Modified Radical Mastectomy Patients.
Article 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.
- Experimental Investigation into Bipolar Sealability of Elastin-Rich Tissue.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction With the rising trends in breast cancer throughout the world, the traditional modus of intraoperative tissue dissection using a scalpel, scissors, or electrocautery needs to be re-evaluated in the wake of newer modalities, such as electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing (EBVS) devices, which may theoretically reduce the postoperative complications and morbidity in these patients. Aim and objective The objective of this study is to compare an EBVS device to electrocautery (diathermy) in modified radical mastectomy (MRM), based on selected intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Study procedure This was a comparative cross-sectional section study that included 60 patients with operable breast cancer (stages I and II, TNM classification, and post-neoadjuvant stage III disease). Patients were divided into two groups for surgery: one group underwent an MRM using the EBVS device (Group A), while the other group had the procedure performed using conventional electrocautery (Group B), as per the surgeon's choice depending on theatre slot and equipment availability. Intraoperatively, the total operative time, time for raising the flaps, time taken for breast tissue dissection, time for axillary dissection, and blood loss were recorded. Postoperative parameters included total drainage volume, number of days of drainage, seroma formation, and other complications. Patients were followed up for one month after surgery, with early postoperative complications such as wound infection, upper limb lymphedema, seroma, flap necrosis, and nerve injuries being documented. Results The groups were found to be comparable in terms of the age distribution, TNM staging, stage grouping, and nodal status of the patients. The EBVS device group demonstrated statistically significant advantages in total operative time, axillary dissection time, flap raising time, breast tissue dissection time, intraoperative blood loss, total drainage volume, and days of drainage. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the two devices in terms of seroma formation, early postoperative complications, and duration of postoperative stay at the hospital. Conclusion While the use of EBVS in MRM provides a considerable decrement in the total operative duration, duration of the various steps of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative volume and duration of drainage, these devices do not offer an evident advantage in terms of the postoperative complications or morbidity.
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.