SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Harmonic Scalpel Versus Monopolar Electrotome in Endoscopic-Assisted Transaxillary Dual-Plane Augmentation Mammaplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic-assisted transaxillary dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty is favored for its aesthetic advantages and minimal visible scarring. However, the optimal dissection tool between harmonic scalpel (HS) or monopolar electrotome (ME) remains debated due to limited comparative data.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing HS and ME in endoscopic-assisted transaxillary dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty. Data synthesis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 with random-effects models. Clinical outcomes were pooled as mean differences (MD) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I
resultsFour studies comprising 390 participants met the inclusion criteria. HS significantly reduced total drainage volume (MD -113.40 mL; 95% CI -133.82 to -92.97; I
conclusionsHS offers superior outcomes over ME in terms of drainage, pain control, and hospitalization following endoscopic-assisted transaxillary dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty. These findings support the preferential use of HS, though larger, high-quality trials are warranted. Trial Registry The study protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42025639891). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
40897964What 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.