Comparison of two different electrosurgical devices in reduction mammoplasty: Monopolar electrocautery versus plasmakinetic cautery

Abstract

BackgroundMany devices are used for dissection and hemostasis during reduction mammoplasty. While one of the most common methods is monopolar electrocautery, tissue damage due to thermal spread remains a controversial topic. New devices have been designed to minimize this effect. In this study, plasmakinetic cautery was hypothesized to reduce sensation loss, drainage, and wound‐healing problems in reduction mammoplasty because it is less harmful to the surrounding tissues.MethodsSixty‐eight patients were evaluated in a matched pair design, with random (blinded) assignment of 34 patients with conventional monopolar electrocautery (Group A) and 34 patients with plasmakinetic cautery (group B). Postoperative drainage volume, drain duration, nipple‐areolar complex (NAC) sensation, and complications (dehiscence, seroma, ischemia, and nipple circulatory problems) were compared by the researcher, who was blinded to the device used for the patient.ResultsThe groups were comparable in terms of age, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, and medications (p > 0.05). The mean age of the patients were 38.50 ± 9.14 years in group A and 37.54 ± 8.17 in group B. The mean BMI was 25.19 ± 3.22 kg/m2 in group A and 25.65 ± 2.96 kg/m2 in group B. No differences were detected between the groups in terms of drain duration time, NAC sensation, or complications, but the drainage volume was statistically lower with plasmakinetic cautery (p < 0.05).ConclusionThe study findings indicate that the main advantage of plasmakinetic cautery in reduction mammoplasty was a decrease in drainage volume when compared with monopolar electrocautery.