↓ Skip to main content

Ultrasonic versus monopolar energy-based surgical devices in terms of surgical smoke and lateral thermal damage (ULMOST): a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Ultrasonic versus monopolar energy-based surgical devices in terms of surgical smoke and lateral thermal damage (ULMOST): a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00464-018-6183-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chahien Choi, In-Gu Do, Taejong Song

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the degree of surgical smoke or vapor and lateral thermal damage caused by two different energy-based surgical devices (ESDs) used in colpotomy during total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy were randomly assigned to an ultrasonic ESD group (n = 20) or monopolar ESD group (n = 20). Colpotomy was performed using the assigned ESD. The degree of surgical smoke or vapor obstructing the laparoscopic view was assessed by two independent reviewers using a 5-point Likert scale, in which a higher score indicates worse visibility. The degree of the lateral thermal damage was measured as the width from the point of instrument application to the margins of the unchanged nearby tissue using a light microscope. The baseline characteristics did not statistically differ between the two groups. The degree of surgical smoke or vapor obstructing vision was 1.2 ± 0.8 points in the ultrasonic group and 3.9 ± 0.7 points in the monopolar groups (p < 0.001). The lateral thermal damage was significantly increased in the monopolar group compared to in the ultrasound group (1500 µm [1200-2500 µm] vs. 950 µm [650-1725 µm], p = 0.037). Ultrasonic ESD had better laparoscopic visibility and caused less lateral thermal damage during colpotomy compared to monopolar device.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 15 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 42%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 16 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,934,271
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#550
of 6,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,496
of 329,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#13
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,111 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 329,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.