Safety of colorado microdissection needle (Stryker) for skin opening in craniomaxillofacial surgery

Sharma, Maneesha

doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2011.07.125

Cited by 2 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…15,16 Similar to the results reported in the general surgery literature, Sheikh 15 found that using microneedle electrocautery for 117 neurosurgical procedures, including 85 cranial incisions, resulted in decreased blood loss and incision time. He recommends the use of microneedle electrocautery not only for pediatric cases in which strict control of hemostasis is particularly important but also for all neurosurgical procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…No significant differences in wound complication rates were reported for incisions made with the 2 modalities for head and neck cancer: craniomaxillofacial surgery and neurosurgery. 6,[15][16][17] This is especially important for the hair-bearing scalp because wound-healing problems often result in scar widening with clinically evident alopecia. Sharma 16 evaluated the use of a microdissection electrocautery needle in making 117 incisions in craniomaxillofacial surgery, including 10 scalp incisions, and found no increased risk from the use of electrocautery in wound infection or alopecia rates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Craniosynostosis Incision

Wood¹,

Kittinger²,

Perry³

et al. 2014

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an ongoing debate regarding the optimal instrument for scalp incisions: the scalpel or electrocautery. The argument generally focuses on improved healing after an incision made with a knife and decreased bleeding when using electrocautery. This study compares the use of scalpel and electrocautery in making coronal incisions for patients undergoing surgical correction of craniosynostosis. The outcome metric used is wound healing within 6 months after surgery. All patients presenting to the University of North Carolina Children's Hospital with craniosynostosis between July 1, 2007 and January 1, 2010 requiring a coronal incision for surgical correction were prospectively enrolled. In all of these patients, half of the coronal incision was made with knife; the other half, with needle tip cautery. Side of the incision was specified at the time of surgery in the operative report. Patients were excluded from the study if the instrument for incision was not specified or if only 1 modality was used for the entire incision. Sixty-eight patients underwent cranial vault reconstruction, of which 58 met inclusion criteria. Of the 58 matched pairs, 55 were analyzed statistically. The 3 excluded cases were those who had midline complications. There were 17 wound complications (15%): 8 in the knife group, 6 in the cautery group, and 3 at midline (with indeterminate side for the problem). We found no statistically significant difference in wound healing between incisions made with a knife or with electrocautery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Craniosynostosis Incision

Wood¹,

Kittinger²,

Perry³

et al. 2014

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The general surgical use of electrocautery had been mainly reserved for incising and dissecting the subcutaneous tissue and deeper layers. The use of the electrocautery scalpel to open skin has been rejected or reserved in past for fear of delayed wound healing or infection [4]. Currently there is enough literature and evidence to support favorable use of electro-cautery as a complete or partial substitution to cold steel, in terms of operative blood loss, post-operative pain and surgical scar [4][5][6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of the electrocautery scalpel to open skin has been rejected or reserved in past for fear of delayed wound healing or infection [4]. Currently there is enough literature and evidence to support favorable use of electro-cautery as a complete or partial substitution to cold steel, in terms of operative blood loss, post-operative pain and surgical scar [4][5][6]. The electrocautery knife has been used widely by general surgeons to create abdominal and thoracic incisions, with excellent results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the concerns regarding electrosurgery was the theoretical risk of increased wound complications due to the heat production which results in a zone of tissue necrosis adjacent to the incision [4,7,11]. There are no reports which suggest that the wound infection rates have increased by use of the electrocauteries (Colorado micro dissection needle) in neurosurgical cases [7].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparative Study of Colorado Micro Dissection Needle Versus Scalpel in Maxillofacial Surgery

Modi¹,

Me²,

Menon³

et al. 2021

SJO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Current advances in equipment technology have offered us with tremendous advantage in performing various surgeries. Among these is the Colorado electro micro-dissection needle. Although use of electro surgery dates back to 1909 when it was first used to fulgratetumors, to 1926 when "Cushing" first introduced it in neurosurgery. Its use to open skin has been rejected or reserved in past for fear of delayed wound healing or infection. Currently there is enough literature and evidence to support favorable use of electro-cautery as a complete or partial substitution to cold steel, in terms of operative blood loss, post-operative pain and surgical scar. Materials and Method:This study clinically evaluated the safety and efficacy of Colorado micro dissection needle over cold steel in skin incisions in 60 patients undergoing various maxillofacial procedures. The study was done to compare the efficacy of Colorado micro-dissection needle and cold steel (Scalpel) in oral and maxillofacial surgeries; for post-operative scar (3 rd /6 th months), incisional blood loss, post-operative pain and total time taken to complete the length of incision. Result:The study sample contained 60 patients with ages ranging from 18-60years. Thirty patients were included for Colorado micro dissection needle group (group I) and 30 for cold steel (Scalpel) group (group II).The average time taken for incision with the Colorado micro dissection needle was 18.40seconds, as compared to the cold Steel which was 39.63 seconds. The time taken for incision with Colorado micro dissection needle was less than Cold Steel. Post-operative pain was less when using Colorado micro dissection needle. In the Colorado micro dissection needle group, mean width of the scar was 1.68 mm per incision at 3rd month interval and 1.20 mm at 6 th month interval per incision. In the Cold Steel group, mean width of the scar was 2.48 mm per incision at 3 rd month interval and 2.23 mm per incision at 6th month interval. It was noted that, a Colorado micro dissection needle gives less width and better scar than Cold steel. Conclusion:The findings of this study recommend the use of the Colorado micro dissection needle in all maxillofacial procedures.

show abstract

Safety of colorado microdissection needle (Stryker) for skin opening in craniomaxillofacial surgery

Cited by 2 publications

References 9 publications

Craniosynostosis Incision

Craniosynostosis Incision

A Comparative Study of Colorado Micro Dissection Needle Versus Scalpel in Maxillofacial Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About