Endoscopic monopolar and bipolar devices were compared during cutting and coagulation. It was observed on appropriate animal models that the initial resistance (impedance) values recorded correspond to the normal tissue impedance at the electrode. The subsequent impedance values increase 25 to 50 ohms for the coagulator which relates to tissue desiccation and for the cutting electrodes the impedance increases greater than 1000 ohms during the arcing process. At similar power settings, typical monopolar generators produce maximum power at 300 to 500 ohms while typical bipolar generators produce maximum power at 25 to 100 ohms. With impedances greater than 1000 ohms, monopolar generators are capable of higher power output than are bipolar generators. Since cutting is a high impedance process, bipolar cutting electrodes do not perform as intended with typical bipolar generators. Therefore, bipolar cutting electrodes should be employed with a monopolar generator or a generator designed specifically for their use.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 22 October 2019.
All research outputs
#6,087,116
of 27,780,120 outputs
Outputs from Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
#2,608
of 7,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,930
of 20,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,780,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,918 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 20,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.
