This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Anthony J. Reino, MD, MS; William Lawson, MD, DDS

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995;121(6):627-633.

Abstract
Objective
To compare the hemostatic effectiveness of a new electrosurgical unit, the argon beam coagulator, with current methods of electrocoagulation.

Design
A nonrandomized control trial of 20 patients undergoing rhytidectomy.

Setting
Two academic tertiary referral medical centers.

Participants
Twenty male patients having moderate to major degrees of facial ptosis.

Intervention
All 20 patients underwent a standard rhytidectomy with hemostasis provided by the argon beam coagulator on the right side and conventional electrocoagulation on the left side.

Outcome Measures
Improved hemostasis with minimal depth of injury, length of procedure, decreased blood loss, edema, and ecchymosis, and the ability to coagulate indiscriminately around and over neural tissue without damage (all listed in the literature as advantages of the argon beam coagulator).

Results
Poor hemostatic ability was observed with concomitant increased incidence of blood loss, edema and ecchymosis, major hematoma, and length of surgery. Also noted were increased rates of flap compromise and the potential for damage to vital neural structures.

Conclusion
Our results do not agree with the list of advantages attributed to the argon beam coagulator in the literature.

(Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995;121:627-633)

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Otolaryngology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?