| Title |
Implementation of a novel efficacy score to compare sealing and cutting devices in a porcine model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-5778-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lea Brecht, Markus Wallwiener, Sarah Schott, Christoph Domschke, Christine Dinkic, Michael Golatta, Florian Schuetz, Herbert Fluhr, Albrecht Stenzinger, Marietta Kirchner, Christof Sohn, Joachim Rom |
| Abstract |
In general surgery, minimally invasive laparoscopic procedures have been steadily increasing over the last decade. The application of advanced bipolar and ultrasonic energy devices for sealing and cutting of blood vessels plays a vital role in routine clinical procedures. The advantages of energy-based instruments are enhanced sealing capability combined with both fast sealing time and minimal thermal injury. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy profiles of nine laparoscopic sealing and cutting devices in a porcine model, with a new scoring system. Comparative studies in a porcine model were performed to assess vessel sealing, burst pressure, thermal spread, maximum heat, sealing/cooling time, and compression strength over the full jaw. Nine different devices from five manufacturers were tested in this study. The sealing and cutting devices (SCD) score has been developed to enable standardized comparisons of various devices. For this purpose, the most important parameters were identified through a consensus approach. All sealed vessels with different devices could withstand a median pressure of more than 300 mmHg (range 112-2046 mmHg). The time for the sealing procedure was 7.705 s (range 5.305-18.38 s) for the ultrasonic and 7.860 s (range 5.08-10.17 s) for the bipolar devices. The ultrasonic instruments reached a median temperature of 218.1 °C (range 81.3-349.75 °C) and the bipolar devices a temperature of 125.5 °C (range 94.1-133.35 °C). The tissue reached a median temperature of 61.9 (range 47.1-80.6 °C) after ultrasonic sealing and 76.7 °C (range 63.1-94.2 °C) after bipolar sealing. The median SCD score was 10.47 (range 7.16-13.72). All the instruments used seemed safe for use on the patient. The SCD score allows an indirect comparability of the instruments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 17% |
| Researcher | 3 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 35% |
| Engineering | 2 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,569,430
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#4,792
of 6,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,258
of 317,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#119
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,096 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.