ArticleCureus2024
A Comparative Study of Harmonic Scalpel Versus Electrocautery Dissection in Modified Radical Mastectomy in Breast Carcinoma Cases.
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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to compare the outcomes of modified radical mastectomy (MRM) with the use of a harmonic scalpel versus electrocautery in patients with breast carcinoma. METHODOLOGY: A prospective, non-randomized comparative study conducted from August 2022 to June 2024 on 40 female patients with stage II breast carcinoma undergoing MRM with electrocautery and harmonic scalpel.
resultsPatients with MRM by harmonic scalpel exhibited significantly lower intraoperative blood loss (92.50 ± 9.67 mL) than by electrocautery (172.50 ± 30.76 mL) (p-value <.0001). The average operative time was significantly shorter for the harmonic scalpel (111.00 ± 10.71 minutes) than for the electrocautery (169.50 ± 19.32 minutes) (p-value <.0001). Postoperative pain was lower for the harmonic scalpel (visual analog scale (VAS) score 3.75 ± 0.79) than for the electrocautery (VAS score 6.10 ± 0.85) (p-value <.0001). The incidence of flap necrosis was not substantially different between the categories; seroma formation was significantly lower with the use of a harmonic scalpel (p-value <.0001). Subjects in the group of harmonic scalpels also had shorter hospital stays (8.35 ± 0.93 days) compared with the electrocautery group (12.20 ± 1.06 days) (p-value <.0001).
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.