↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of a half-grip technique using a fine tip LigaSure™, Dolphin Tip Sealer/Divider, on liver dissection in swine model

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
5 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.
Title
Efficacy of a half-grip technique using a fine tip LigaSure™, Dolphin Tip Sealer/Divider, on liver dissection in swine model
Published in
BMC Research Notes, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1316-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoichi Toyama, Seiya Yoshida, Ryota Saito, Ryota Iwase, Koichiro Haruki, Norimitsu Okui, Jun-ichi Shimada, Hiroaki Kitamura, Michinori Matsumoto, Katsuhiko Yanaga

Abstract

Recently, a lot of energy devices in the surgical field, especially in the liver surgery, have been developed, and a fine tip LigaSure™, Dolphin Tip Sealer/Divider (DT-SD) also has been used frequently to dissect liver parenchyma as well as ultrasonically activated device (USAD). However, the utility of this instrument for liver dissection (LD) is still unknown. Moreover, to reduce bleeding during LD, a half-grip technique (HGT) was contrived. We herein report an experimental study in swine model to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of HGT using DT-SD for LD. The swine model experiment was carried out under general anesthesia by veterinarians. LD was performed repeatedly by DT-SD with the HGT (Group A, n = 6), or the conventional clamp-crush technique (CCT) (Group B, n = 6), and by variable mode USAD (Group C, n = 6). The dissection length and depth (cm) as well as bleeding volume (g) were measured carefully, and the dissection area (cm(2)) and speed (cm(2)/min) were calculated precisely. Histological examinations of the dissection surfaces were also executed. Mann-Whitney's U test was used for Statistical analyses with variance at a significance level of 0.05. Among the three groups, the three averages of dissection lengths were unexpectedly equalized to 8.3 cm. The dissection area (cm(2)) was 9.9 ± 5.1 in Group A, 9.8 ± 4.7 in Group B, and 9.9 ± 4.5 in Group C. The mean blood loss during LD was 10.6 ± 14.8 g in Group A, 41.4 ± 39.2 g in Group B, and 34.3 ± 39.2 g in Group C. For Group A, the bleeding rate was the least, 0.9 ± 1.0 g/cm(2), and the average depth of coagulation was the thickest, 1.47 ± 0.29 mm, among the three groups (p < 0.05). The dissection speed in Group A (1.3 ± 0.3 cm(2)/min) was slower, than that in Group C (p < 0.05). This report indicates firstly that the HGT using DT-SD bring the least blood loss when compared with CCT or USAD. Although the HGT is feasible and useful for LD, to popularize the HGT, further clinical studies will be needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 20%
Researcher 1 20%
Other 1 20%
Student > Postgraduate 1 20%
Unknown 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 40%
Unknown 3 60%

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 18 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,449,840
of 8,610,582 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,734
of 2,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,000
of 232,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#98
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,610,582 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 2,131 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. 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 232,360 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 132 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.