ArticleMedicine and pharmacy reports2025
Laparoscopic sealing devices on animal models: searching the least harmful for the surrounding tissue.
Article in Medicine and pharmacy reports, 2025. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Sealing devices can produce mechanical and thermal damage to collateral tissue, with few studies analyzing these effects. However, the least harmful device for the surrounding tissue will achieve optimal functional results. Methods: We compared the tissue damage made by different laparoscopic electro-cauterization instruments while using them as hemostatic means on the stomach and epiploon of Wistar rats, respectively on the diaphragm and urinary bladder of a porcine model. Five devices were used based on either radio frequency diathermy or ultrasound energy, with one coagulation cycle for the automatic hemostasis. Infrared thermography tracked thermal injury on the collateral tissue made by each device on the porcine model. Results: We analyzed the collateral tissue with irreversible thermal damage caused by each sealing device with infrared thermography with ANOVA statistical test. Based on histopathological examination, we calculated the mean value of the area with edema and coagulation necrosis caused by these maneuvers of hemostasis as a pattern of tissue damage around the sealing mark of every hemostatic device. Conclusions: Compared with bipolar sealing devices, ultrasound-based devices offered better collateral tissue preservation, with the smallest damaging temperature spread, on animal models. Further research on ultrasound vs. bipolar sealing devices used as hemostatic tools could more accurately assess their impact on functional outcomes in real life surgery setting.
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.