↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
A Prospective Study Comparing the Efficacy and Surgical Outcomes of Harmonic Focus Scalpel Versus LigaSure Small Jaw in Thyroid and Parathyroid Surgery
Published in
Surgical Innovation, July 2016
DOI 10.1177/1553350616639143
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Background The use of sealing devices has been established in thyroid surgeries. Recently, LigaSure Small Jaw (LS), a new device that utilizes bipolar energy, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in different head and neck procedures. The purpose of this study is to assess the efficiency and safety of LS use in thyroid surgery compared to Harmonic Focus Scalpel (HS), a well-established device.Methods A prospective study was conducted to compare the efficacy of LS versus the HS. We evaluated 301 patients who underwent surgery at a North American academic institution. Patients were allocated into two groups according to LS or HS use. All patients underwent vocal cord assessment using direct laryngoscopy preoperatively and postoperatively. Analyses were performed to examine the difference in perioperative outcomes resulting from the utilization of either device.Results No difference was seen in operative time between both groups (124.20 ± 68.44 minutes in HS vs 125.20 ± 72.13 minutes in LS,P= .99). Overall complications were similar between both groups (22.86% in HS vs 13.84% in LS,P= .05). However, LS use was also associated with a lower incidence of postoperative transient hypocalcemia as compared to the HS (P= .025). No significant difference was found between both groups regarding the incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury (P= .52).Conclusion The use of the LS is safe, feasible, and is associated with comparable outcomes to HS. Both intraoperative and postoperative variables were similar between both devices. Future larger studies are warranted to further investigate the effect on postoperative transient hypocalcemia.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 13%
Other 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 10 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 59%
Psychology 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Unknown 11 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 March 2016.
All research outputs
#24,528,145
of 27,263,163 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Innovation
#483
of 628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#290,330
of 331,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Innovation
#22
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,263,163 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 628 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 331,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.