ArticleArthroplasty today2024
Comparison of the Unipolar Electrocautery and the Bipolar Sealer in Reducing Blood Loss in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Randomized, Noninferiority Study.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 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.
- Definition, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of perioperative bleeding in randomized controlled trials: a methodological systematic review.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2026Review
- Enhancing bleeding control in total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis and rheumatic diseases: strategies and insights.Reumatologia · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This was a noninferiority trial to evaluate blood loss during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) when using the unipolar electrocautery system compared to the saline coupled bipolar sealer system in primary TKA. Methods: One hundred sixty-four patients were randomly assigned by a 1:1 ratio to either the unipolar electrocautery system (N = 82) or bipolar sealer system (N = 82). Inclusion criteria included patients scheduled for primary unilateral TKA, preoperative hemoglobin ≥11 mg/dL, preoperative platelet count ≥150,000, age >18 years, and patient willing to complete all study-related procedures. The primary efficacy outcome was estimated blood loss on morning of postoperative day. Secondary efficacy outcomes were comparison between the preoperative hemoglobin and postoperative day 1 hemoglobin, and allogeneic blood transfusions. Additionally, the study collected objective and functional outcomes using the postoperative 2011 Knee Society Score. Results: The unipolar electrocautery system was not found to be less efficacious than the bipolar sealer system. Mean blood loss for the unipolar electrocautery system was 1062.0 cubic centimeters (cc) (95% confidence limit for the mean: 985.2, 1138.7), and for the bipolar sealer system was 929.4 cc (95% confidence limit for the mean: 841.9, 1016.8). The mean difference in blood loss was 132.6 cc, below the margin of inferiority set at 200 cc. Additionally, there was no difference in patient outcomes as measured by the Knee Society Score. Conclusions: The safety, efficacy, and outcomes profile of the unipolar electrocautery system compared to the bipolar sealer system were similar. Use of the bipolar sealer system significantly increases surgical cost without any added benefits.
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.