ArticleYonsei medical journal2024
Use of Advanced Energy Devices and Fiberoptic Retractors in Single-Incision Breast-Conserving Surgery for Breast Cancer.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe use of advanced energy devices for mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection can reduce perioperative blood loss, seroma formation, and drainage duration/volume. Retraction using fiberoptic retractors can help visualize deep and narrow surgical fields. We aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes between single-incision breast-conserving surgery (SIBCS) and conventional breast-conserving surgery (CBCS) with axillary staging using advanced energy devices and conventional equipment, respectively. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 244 patients who underwent BCS with axillary surgery between March 2018 and September 2019 at Severance Hospital. The patients were grouped based on the device used to aid in axillary staging: CBCS group (n=117) used conventional electrocautery; and SIBCS group (n=127) used advanced energy devices and fiberoptic retractors. The two groups were compared for postoperative outcomes.
resultsThe mean patient age was 55.9 and 53.1 years in the CBCS and SIBCS groups, respectively. Incision size was significantly smaller in the SIBCS group than in the CBCS group (6.3±2.1 cm vs. 7.5±2.5 cm,
conclusionUsing advanced energy devices for SIBCS with axillary staging reduced incision size and provided better cosmetic outcomes compared to those using the conventional method. Advanced energy devices may offer better surgical outcomes in patients who undergo BCS with axillary staging.
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.