Randomized, Clinical Trial on Diathermy and Scalpel Incisions in Elective General Surgery

Talpur, Altaf Ahmed; Khaskheli, Abdul Basir; Kella, Nandlal; Jamal, Akmal

doi:10.5812/ircmj.14078

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There were no significant differences in wound infection rates between the groups (5 of 30 versus 5 of 32; P=1•000). 7 In our study wound infections were found in 3 patients (9.4 %) in Group I (D) and 5 patients (15.6 %) in Group II (S). The difference between the two groups in terms of wound infection was not significant (p=0.708).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 47%

Clinical Outcome of Surgical Diathermy in Elective Surgery-Prospective Randomized Controlled Tria

Mahmud¹,

Faisal²,

Mahmud³

et al. 2019

KYAMC j.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Recent studies suggest that surgical diathermy shows better clinical outcome in the context of incision time, wound related postoperative pain, postoperative wound infections, and length of postoperative hospital stay and cosmetic outcome of scar in cases of elective surgical patients. Objectives: Compare the efficacy and safety of surgical diathermy versus conventional surgical blade for making skin incisions in elective mid-line laparotomy and to evaluate weather cutting diathermy is an effective and better alternative to surgical blade incision. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was carried out in the department of surgery at BSMMU, Dhaka over a period of one year. Sample size was 64 with a follow up duration for 6 month. In Group I (D), skin incision was taken with diathermy, and in Group II (S), incision was taken with surgical blade. Results: Compared with a scalpel incision, cutting diathermy resulted in significantly shorter incision times and reduced post-operative wound related pain (P = <0·001), shorter duration of postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.003) with no differences in the wound complication rate and cosmetic outcome of scar. Conclusions: The study has demonstrated that surgical cutting diathermy is a safe and effective method to make skin incisions in elective surgery KYAMC Journal Vol. 10, No.-3, October 2019, Page 143-146

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 47%

Clinical Outcome of Surgical Diathermy in Elective Surgery-Prospective Randomized Controlled Tria

Mahmud¹,

Faisal²,

Mahmud³

et al. 2019

KYAMC j.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5 According to study done by Talpur AA et al mean incision time was 8.9025sec/cm 2 for scalpel group and 7.3057sec/cm 2 for cautery group patients (statistically significant). 6 Mean blood loss during incision making was 1.8262ml/cm 2 and 1.1346ml/cm 2 for scalpel group and cautery group patients respectively (statistically significant), but In present study, electrocautery mode of skin incision took less time i.e.13.34±6.34sec/cm 2 but p value 0.07 which is not statistically significant and it led to less loss of blood i.e. 0.23±0.12ml/cm 2 (P value 0.02, statistically significant) compared to scalpel incisions 0.28±0.10ml/cm 2 .These parameters different from other studies in terms of statistically non-significant incision time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[9][10][11] Among wound complications, in present study 10 (19.6%) patients from group A and 10 (20.4%) patients from group B developed wound complications which is comparable with study done by Talpur AA et al in which rate of wound complications were 18.18% patients of group A and 15.71% patients of group B, which is not statistically significant. 6 Eren et al From Istanbul compared wound complications associated with scalpel and electrocautery in patients operated for gastrointestinal malignancies with different incision methods. 12 Their study revealed no significant statistical difference in wound infection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Observational study of scalpel versus electrocautery for subcutaneous incision in elective gynaecological surgeries

Patil

Mule

Raval

et al. 2017

Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Considering higher rate of postoperative wound complications in Government set up hospitals, this study was an attempt to compare incision time, incisional blood loss, hospital stay, post-operative pain and postoperative wound complications when subcutaneous tissue is opened with either scalpel or electrocautery in elective gynaecological surgeries after keeping all other clinical and surgical variables same i.e. age, BMI, haemoglobin, incision depth and hospital stay.Methods: This was a prospective observational comparative study conducted in one of the tertiary teaching hospital in Western Maharashtra, India over 12 months. All patients (n=100) were divided into 2 groups. Group A in which skin and subcutaneous tissue was dissected by using scalpel and Group B in which after skin, anterior abdominal wall was opened by using electrocautery. Data analyzed for indication, incisional blood loss, incision time, postoperative pain, wound complications and hospital stay.Results: There were no significant association between preoperative diagnosis and the development of a post-operative wound complications. Mean incision blood loss was found to be significantly higher in group A compared to group B patients. Postoperative pain was significantly higher in group A (P value <0.05). Among wound complications, no statistically significant differences were seen regarding wound complications for the two groups.Conclusions: Electrosurgical dissection for abdominal incision is safe, less time consuming and with less blood loss during subcutaneous incision and produces less postoperative pain. We conclude that the method of subcutaneous tissue incision was unrelated to the development of postoperative abdominal incision problems.

show abstract

“…Chrysos et al in their prospective study comparing electrosurgery and scalpel incisions in tension free inguinal hernioplasty with regard to parenteral analgesic requirements noted reduced postoperative pain in the electrosurgery group as compared to scalpel group in the initial two postoperative days [17].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using current to cut the sensory cutaneous nerves fibers and to subsequently disrupt the pain transmission, causes on histological level cell vaporization and immediate nerve tissue necrosis without significantly affecting adjoining structures, thus leaving the rest of the tissue's architectonics intact. Therefore, the application of a pure sinusoidal current produces total or partial injury to the sensitive nerves fibers in the excised wound area, securing less bleeding and distortion of the surrounding connective tissue, and reducing postoperative pain in patients who had electrosurgical skin facial incision or excision [17,19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Pain Following the Use of Scalpel Versus Electrosurgery for Skin Incisions in the Facial Regions

Peneva

Gjorgjeska

Gjorgova

et al. 2018

Prilozi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Postoperative pain presents a significant medical problem. It can create a considerable discomfort in the immediate postoperative period and thus increase patient’s morbidity. Multiple mechanisms are involved in its’ etiology, one of them being the method of tissue incision. The aim of this study is to compare the early postoperative pain following incision with two different methods, scalpel and electrosurgery in the facial regions. Material and methods: Eighty patients with both benign and malignant skin lesions in the facial regions undergoing surgery were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomized in two groups. In group A, comprising 40 patients, cold steel surgical scalpel №15 was used for the surgical procedure. Electrosurgical microneedle with 0.06mm tip radius and generator unit KLS Martin Electrosurgical Unit ME MB 2 set on cutting mode, power 12 W was used for performing the surgery in group B including the same number of patients. After the surgery patients were given analgesics on their demand. The total number of on demand analgesics requirements was calculated. The patients were also asked to note the oral analgesics they were taking after being released from the hospital. Results: Results of this study showed a statistically significant difference between the groups in the analgesics demand on the day of the operation (p=0.041). On the day of the operation 52.5% patients in the scalpel group and only 30% of the patents of the electrosurgery group received analgesics on demand. In all other analysed time points, the patients in the scalpel group received analgesics more often than the patients in the microneedle group, but with no statistically confirmed difference between the groups (p>0.05). Even more significant is the fact that patients treated with electrosurgery that needed analgesics, had significantly bigger excision area median 471 (rank 283-589) compared to the patients treated with the conventional method 289 (rank 177-432) (p=0.016). Conclusion: In accordance with previous studies our results suggested a significantly reduced postoperative pain in the electrosurgery group.

show abstract

Randomized, Clinical Trial on Diathermy and Scalpel Incisions in Elective General Surgery

Cited by 12 publications

References 17 publications

Clinical Outcome of Surgical Diathermy in Elective Surgery-Prospective Randomized Controlled Tria

Clinical Outcome of Surgical Diathermy in Elective Surgery-Prospective Randomized Controlled Tria

Observational study of scalpel versus electrocautery for subcutaneous incision in elective gynaecological surgeries

Evaluation of Pain Following the Use of Scalpel Versus Electrosurgery for Skin Incisions in the Facial Regions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About