ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Comparison of Colorado Needle Electrocautery and Traditional Scalpel for Lower Eyelid Blepharoplasty Incision: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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.
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
Background: Lower eyelid blepharoplasty is one of the most popular aesthetic procedures. Electrocautery provides a hemostatic benefit for skin incision; however, its effect on scar cosmesis remains unclear, particularly in Asian skin types. We compared the Colorado needle electrocautery (pure-cutting mode) versus the traditional scalpel in terms of efficacy, complications, and cosmetic outcomes. Methods: A prospective intraindividual randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of Colorado needle electrocautery and scalpel in lower blepharoplasty. The study outcomes were scar quality at different times until 1 year postoperatively, bleeding during incision, and postoperative ecchymosis. Scar quality was evaluated using 3 standard scar ratings: the Vancouver Scar Scale, Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and Hollander wound evaluation scale. Results: The study included 25 patients, and the electrocautery side had less blood loss during incision than the scalpel side (2.6 ± 0.65 versus 5.28 ± 0.68 sticks; Conclusions: Colorado needle electrocautery pure-cutting mode can be an alternative to the traditional scalpel for lower eyelid blepharoplasty skin incision because of long-term scar quality. Electrocautery also has hemostatic benefits, leading to a decrease in intraoperative and postoperative bleeding.
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.