Harmonic Scalpel Compared to Conventional Hemostasis in Thyroid Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The study's aim was to determine whether conventional hemostasis (CH) or the Harmonic Scalpel (HS) results in shorter operative times for thyroidectomy and to evaluate the incidence of postoperative complications with each approach. Methods. A literature search was conducted from study inception to September 30, 2008. Included studies randomized thyroidectomy patients to either CH or HS and reported the incidence of postoperative transient recurrent laryngeal nerve dysfunction (RLND) and hypocalcemia. Results. Nine RCTs were included. Use of the HS reduced operative time by 23.1 minutes (95% CI = 13.8, 32.33). There was no difference in the incidence of transient RLND (RR = 1.25, 95% CI = .56, 2.76), but a lower rate of transient hypocalcemia with the use of the HS (RR = .69, 95% CI = .51, .92). Conclusions. The use of HS in thyroidectomy significantly reduces operative time and is associated with a reduction in postoperative hypocalcemia compared to CH.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".