| Title |
Thyroid surgery with a harmonic scalpel: an experimental study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/mder.s104786 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Didier Dequanter, Martin Lammens, Nathalie Nagy, Mohammad Shahla, Yasmine Deniz, Christine Aubert, Youri Vanhemelrijck, Philippe Lothaire |
| Abstract |
The goal of the study was to determinate the safety of the harmonic scalpel, widely used in thyroidectomy, near the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN). The study involved ten pigs of either sex. Twenty RLNs at risk were dissected using the new harmonic scalpel FOCUS. The distances between the nerve and the activated instrument were checked with a millimeter ruler. After dissection, the pigs were euthanized, and both RLNs were fixed in formol and examined by histology after staining with hematoxylin-eosin. Due to technical reasons, only 18 RLNs from the ten pigs could be examined. In the experiment that investigated the extent of heat injury, ultrasonic dissection did not cause any immediate damage of the nerve even close to the RLN (1 mm away from the RLN). The use of harmonic scalpel FOCUS for thyroid surgery is safe for the surrounding structures (nerves). Careful tissue applications of the device near the RLN (1 mm) did not cause any lesion histologically. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 2 | 25% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 13% |
| Professor | 1 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 13% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 75% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 July 2016.
All research outputs
#16,106,935
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#173
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,132
of 353,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#10
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 353,828 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.