SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2024
Comparison of the outcomes between ultrasonic devices and clamping in hepatectomy: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparative study of argon plasma coagulation and electrosurgical knife on postoperative complications after curative resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Segmentation of renal vessels on non-enhanced CT images using deep learning models.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Outcomes and Cost of Major Liver Resection Using Combined LigaSure and Stapler: A Propensity Score Matching Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Beyond estimates: optimizing surgical strategies through accurate blood loss measurement.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent advances in ultrasound technology have led to widespread adoption of ultrasonic energy devices in liver resections. While various studies have assessed the comparative advantages of ultrasonic devices and traditional clamp-crushing, their findings vary. Moreover, a specific systematic review on this topic has not yet been conducted.
objectivesThis study aims to present a comprehensive, up-to-date analysis comparing outcomes between ultrasonic devices and conventional clamp-crushing methods in liver resection, based on currently available literature. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search in databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI up to November 2023. Studies that compared the efficacy or safety of ultrasonic devices against traditional clamp-crushing methods in hepatectomy were included. The analysis covered intraoperative outcomes like operating time, blood loss, and transfusion rate, as well as postoperative outcomes such as complication rate, mortality, postoperative bleeding, and bile leakage. Review Manager version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) and Stata 17.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA) were used for data analysis.
resultsThirteen studies, involving a total of 1,417 patients (630 using ultrasonic devices and 787 using clamp-crushing methods), were included. The clamp-crush method resulted in a shorter operation time. Contrarily, the ultrasonic device group experienced reduced blood loss and lower transfusion rates. Postoperatively, there was no significant difference in mortality or postoperative bleeding between the groups. However, the ultrasonic group had a lower overall complication rate, particularly a reduced incidence of bile leakage. Overall, the ultrasonic devices were associated with improved perioperative outcomes.
conclusionsThe findings suggest that ultrasonic devices provide better outcomes in hepatectomy compared to traditional clamp-crushing techniques. Nonetheless, large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results due to potential heterogeneity and biases. The choice of using ultrasonic devices should consider the surgeon's experience and individual patient circumstances.
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.