| Title |
A randomized controlled study comparing a vessel sealing system with the conventional technique in axillary lymph node dissection for primary breast cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-2710-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tomoko Seki, Tetsu Hayashida, Maiko Takahashi, Hiromitsu Jinno, Yuko Kitagawa |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the newest bipolar vessel sealing system (BVSS; LigaSure™ Small Jaw) to that of conventional technique in axillary dissection. Sixty-one patients with breast cancer were randomized to a conventional dissection surgical technique (CONV group; n = 30) by scalpel and monopolar cautery or that using a vessel sealing system (BVSS group; n = 31). There was a significant difference between both groups in the mean number of days until drain removal (6.4 ± 2.9 vs. 8.2 ± 3.8 days; P value = 0.033), and the mean total volume of drainage fluid (365.3 ± 242.2 vs. 625.1 ± 446.6 mL; P value = 0.009). The incidence of seroma was similar in both groups (43.3 vs. 37.9 %; P value = 0.673). There was no statistically significant difference in axillary dissection operating time (66 vs. 70 min; P value = 0.371), or the mean volume of blood loss (18.2 ± 31.1 vs. 20.6 ± 26.3 mL; P value = 0.663). Our results suggest that BVSS is a more effective device when compared to the conventional techniques in axillary dissection. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 21% |
| Researcher | 1 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 29% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 7% |
| Engineering | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 50% |
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 12 July 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,241
of 1,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,107
of 371,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#160
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 371,013 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.