Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.

 

Contact Us >>

WhatsApp  +86 18163351462(WhatsApp)
   
Paper Publishing WeChat
Book Publishing WeChat
(or Email:book@scirp.org)

Article citations

More>>

Weizsaecker, M., Deen, D.F., Rosenblum, M.L., Hoshino, T., Gutin, P.H. and Barker, M. (1981) The 9L Rat Brain Tumor: Description and Application of an Animal Model. Journal of Neurology, 224, 183-192.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00313280

has been cited by the following article:

  • TITLE: Ferromagnetic Dissection in a Rat Glioma Model

    AUTHORS: Sina Tok, Marian C. Neidert, Momen Sharab, I-Mei Siu, Jeanine P. Reyes, Vanessa Charubhumi, Robert T. Wicks, Charles Eberhart, George I. Jallo, Betty M. Tyler

    KEYWORDS: CO2 Laser, Ferromagnetic, FMwand, Glioma, Monopolar

    JOURNAL NAME: Journal of Cancer Therapy, Vol.6 No.7, July 24, 2015

    ABSTRACT: Background: We compared cutting and coagulation of a novel ferromagnetic tool (FMwand) with modalities currently used in the clinical setting. Methods: 24 F344 rats with 9L gliosarcoma flank tumours were randomized into 2 groups (n = 12): 1) Five parallel incisions were made into the tumor of each rat using monopolar electrosurgery (MES) cut mode, MES coagulation (coag) mode, FMwand, carbon dioxide (CO2) laser and cold scalpel. 2) Two parallel incisions were made comparing the MES and the FMwand, both with resecting loop tips. The study was then repeated by a second surgeon. The surgeons applied a grading scale (1 = worst, 5 = best) based on their observations. Results: Average scores for FMwand were superior in ease of tissue dissection (3.58), distortion upon tissues (3.67), and smoke production (2.87). CO2 laser led in effectiveness of hemostasis (4.32). MES cut mode had the highest scores for ease of cleaning of tip (3.17) and speed of dissection (3.92). The FMwand loop device led in all attributes except for ease of cleaning. Conclusions: The FMwand outperformed CO2 laser significantly in ease and speed. It was superior compared to MES cut mode for hemostasis and superior compared to coag mode in ease and speed, distortion upon tissues and smoke production. The FMwand loop was significantly better compared to MES loop for hemostasis, distortion, ease and speed. The FMwand was shown to be safe and effective for hemostatic soft tissue cutting and coagulation.