ArticleBMC surgery2024
The effectiveness of different flap-raising techniques for mastectomy in reducing the rate of complications: a network meta-analysis.
Article in BMC surgery, 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.
- Electrocautery vs. Cold Cutting in Modified Radical Mastectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeroma has been associated with some energy devices used in raising flaps during modified radical mastectomy. Perhaps, its occurrence might be reduced by determining the most effective technique for raising the flap. Hence, the wide array of energy devices available for mastectomy warrants a network meta-analysis for comparison to determine the most suitable for rseducing complications.
methodsSearches were conducted on Google Scholar and PubMed for randomized controlled trials that compared the various energy devices (argon-cautery, diathermy, plasma blade, LigaSure, and harmonic scalpel) to traditional scalpel/scissors in mastectomy procedures. This review was registered with a PROSPERO number: CRD42023456510. The primary outcome was seroma formation, while the secondary outcomes included flap necrosis, drain effluent, and blood loss.
resultsThirty-three studies were used for this network meta-analysis. Using sharp dissections (scissors or scalpel) for raising flaps in mastectomy reduced seroma formation [Odds ratio (OR): 0.375 (Credible interval (CrI): 0.244, 0.575)], Argon cautery decreased blood loss [Mean difference (MD): -304 (CrI: -698, 90.5)] but harmonic scalpel reduced the rate of flap necrosis [OR: 0.379 (CrI: 0.177, 0.791)] and the volume of drain effluent [MD: -383 (CrI: -704, -62.9)].
conclusionUsing scissors or scalpels for mastectomy was associated with a reduction in the rate of seroma. In addition, the volume of drain effluent was reduced using a Harmonic scalpel compared to other energy devices. Aside from a reduction in flap necrosis rate, blood loss, and the volume of drain effluent; energy devices for raising flaps in mastectomy were not entirely superior to scalpels or scissors.
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.