A Prospective Study Comparing Diathermy and Scalpel Incisions in Tension-Free Inguinal Hernioplasty

PlasmaBlade versus Electrocautery for Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Harvesting in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Comparative Clinical Outcome Study

(1) Background: DIEP-based breast reconstruction necessitates wide undermining at the abdominal donor site, creating large wound areas. Flap harvesting is usually conducted using electrosurgical dissection devices. This study sought to compare the clinical outcomes in patients after using the PEAK PlasmaBlade (PPB) versus monopolar electrocautery (MPE). (2) Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 128 patients with DIEP-based breast reconstruction. Patient characteristics and information on the postoperative course were collected and a comparative evaluation was conducted. (3) Results: The MPE group exhibited significantly (p* = 0.0324) higher abdominal drainage volume (351.11 ± 185.96 mL) compared to the PPB group (279.38 ± 183.38 mL). A subgroup analysis demonstrated that PPB significantly reduced postoperative wound fluid in patients with BMI > 30 kg/m2 (p* = 0.0284), without prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p** = 0.0041), and among non-smokers (p = 0.0046). Furthermore, postoperative pain was significantly (p**** < 0.0001) lower in the PPB cohort. (4) Conclusions: This study confirms the non-inferiority of the PEAK PlasmaBlade to conventional electrocautery for abdominal flap harvesting. The PPB demonstrated advantages, notably reduced drainage volume and lower postoperative pain levels. Recognizing patient subsets that benefit more from the PPB highlights the importance of personalized device selection based on patient characteristics.

Needle-tip electrocautery versus steel scalpel incision in neurosurgery: study protocol for a prospective single-centre randomised controlled double-blind trial

INTRODUCTION

Electrocautery is used widely in surgical procedures, but making skin incision has routinely been performed with scalpel rather than electrocautery, for fear that electrocautery may cause poor incision healing, excessive scarring and increased wound complication rates. More and more studies on general surgery support the use of electrocautery for skin incision, but research comparing the two modalities for scalp incision in neurosurgery remains inadequate. This trial aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of needle-tip monopolar for scalp incision in supratentorial neurosurgery compared with steel scalpel.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this prospective, randomised, double-blind trial, 120 eligible patients who are planned to undergo supratentorial neurosurgery will be enrolled. Patients will be randomly assigned to two groups. In controlled group scalp incision will be made with a scalpel from the epidermis to the galea aponeurotica, while in intervention group scalp will be first incised with a steel scalpel from the epidermis to the dermis, and then the subcutaneous tissue and galea aponeurotica will be incised with needle-tip monopolar on cutting mode. The primary outcomes are scar score (at 90 days). The secondary outcomes include incision pain (at 1 day, on discharge, at 90 days) and alopecia around the incision (at 90 days), incision blood loss and incision-related operation time (during operation), incision infection and incision healing (on discharge, at 2 weeks, 90 days).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial will be performed according to the principles of Declaration of Helsinki and good clinical practice guidelines. This study has been validated by the ethics committee of West China Hospital. Informed consent will be obtained from each included patient and/or their designated representative. Final results from this trial will be promulgated through publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2200063243.

Comparing the intraoperative and postoperative complications of the scalpel and electrocautery techniques for severing the inner layers of the lumbar disc during discectomy surgery

Background

Due to the sensitivity of the surgical site and a higher probability of injury, the use of a scalpel and electrocautery to create an incision in the spine is discussed. In this study, we will compare the intraoperative and postoperative complications of the scalpel and electrocautery techniques for severing the inner layers of the lumbar disc during discectomy surgery.

Materials and methods

This study was conducted in Iran as a randomized controlled trial with double-blinding (1,401). Sixty candidates for spine surgery were randomly divided into two groups of 30 using electrocautery (A) and a scalpel (B) based on available sampling. The VAS scale was used to assess postoperative pain. The duration of the incision and intraoperative blood loss were recorded. The infection and fluid secretions were determined using the Southampton scoring scale. Utilizing the Manchester scar scale, the wound healing status was evaluated. The SPSS version 16 software was used for data analysis (t-test, Mann-Whitney U, ANOVA).

Results

The electrocautery group had substantially lower bleeding, pain, and wound healing rates than the scalpel group (P > 0.05). However, the electrocautery group had significantly longer surgical times, more secretions, and a higher infection rate than the scalpel group (P > 0.05). In terms of demographic and clinical characteristics, there was no significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Electrocautery reduces postoperative hemorrhage and, potentially, postoperative pain in patients. However, as the duration of surgery increases, so does the duration of anesthesia, and patient safety decreases. Additionally, the risk of infection increases in the electrocautery group compared to the scalpel group, and the rate of wound healing decreases.

Clinical Trial Registration

https://www.irct.ir/, identifier (IRCT20230222057496N1).

Scalpel versus Electrocautery for Surgical Skin Incision in Open Carpal Tunnel Release

Background: Electrocautery is an option for skin incision for the neck, abdominal or inguinal surgery, but is not generally used for hand surgery. The aim of this study was to clarify whether electrocautery skin incision would be beneficial in open carpal tunnel release (OCTR). Methods: A total of 16 patients with carpal tunnel syndrome underwent skin incision for OCTR using either a scalpel (n = 9) or a microdissection diathermy needle (n = 7). Postoperative pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS 0-100 mm) daily from postoperative days 1 till 7. Results: The diathermy group reported higher VAS scores (mean 80 mm) on the first postoperative day versus the scalpel group mean of 35 mm (p < 0.001). We continued measuring pain for 7 days after the surgery and found higher VAS scores for the diathermy group in the first 6 days. Conclusions: The use of electrocautery is associated with greater pain score in the first postoperative 6 days following OCTR. Level of Evidence: Level III (Therapeutic).

Diathermy versus scalpel for skin incision in patients undergoing open inguinal hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare outcomes of diathermy and scalpel for skin incision in patients undergoing open inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards. We conducted a search of electronic information sources to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing use of diathermy and scalpel for skin incision in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Surgical site infection (SSI) was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures included haematoma, seroma, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score at 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h, and incision time. We used Cochrane risk of bias tool and ROBINS-I tool to assess the risk of bias of randomised and non-randomised studies. Fixed-effect model was applied to calculate pooled outcome data.

RESULTS

We identified 9 studies, 4 randomised controlled trials and 5 prospective cohort studies, enrolling a total of 830 patients. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed no difference between the diathermy and scalpel groups in terms of surgical site infection (OR: 0.77, 95% CI 0.34, 1.75, P = 0.53), seroma (OR: 0.86, 95% CI 0.29, 2.55, P = 0.78), VAS pain score at 6 h (MD: -0.10, 95% CI -0.31, 0.11, P = 0.34), 12 h (MD: -0.10, 95% CI -0.13, 0.33, P = 0.40), and 24 h (MD: 0.03, 95% CI -0.16, 0.21, P = 0.79). Use of diathermy for skin incision was associated with shorter incision time (MD: -36.00, 95% CI -47.92, -24.08, P < 0.00001) and lower risk of haematoma (OR: 0.14, 95% CI 0.03, 0.65, P = 0.01). Meta-analysis of observational studies showed no difference between the diathermy and scalpel groups in terms of surgical site infection (OR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.54, 1.39, P = 0.55), haematoma (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-1.23, P = 0.08), seroma (OR: 0.86, 95% CI 0.29, 2.55, P = 0.78), VAS pain score at 6 h (MD: -0.10, 95% CI -0.44, 0.24, P = 0.56), 12 h (MD: -0.10, 95% CI -0.26, 0.46, P = 0.58), and 24 h (MD: 0.10, 95% CI -0.27, 0.47, P = 0.59). Use of diathermy for skin incision was associated with shorter incision time (MD: -39.40, 95% CI -41.02, -37.78, P < 0.00001). The results remained consistent through sensitivity analyses. The between-study heterogeneity was low and the quality of the available evidence was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference between use of diathermy and scalpel for skin incision in patients undergoing open inguinal hernia repair in terms of surgical site infection, seroma and postoperative pain. Use of diathermy for skin incision may be associated with shorter incision time and may reduce the risk of haematoma formation.

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

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.

Electrosurgical microneedle versus scalpel skin incisions in the facial region

Objective: Electrosurgery is widely used in surgical procedures, but mainly for subcutaneous and deep layer dissections. The aim of this study was to clinically evaluate the results of routine use of electrosurgical microneedle in performing skin incisions 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. In group A comprising 40 patients, cold steel surgical scalpel N° 15 was used for the surgical procedure. Electrosurgical microneedle with 0.06 mm 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. Differences between incision time, excision time, blood loss and the wound related complications were evaluated. Results: The two groups did not significantly differ in the speed of incision and speed of excision although both the speed of incision and the speed of excision were found to be slightly faster in the electrosurgery group. There was significantly less blood loss in the electrosurgery group compared with the scalpel group.Statistical analysis did not confirm as significant the difference in complications between the two groups although most of the complications were associated with the patients operated with scalpel. Conclusion: Electrosurgery presents safe and effective way of work. In that manner, it is very important to choose the right generator unit's settings and the right type of electrode.

Cutting electrocautery versus scalpel for surgical incisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although cutting electrocautery can be superior to the scalpel in reducing blood loss and incisional time, several reports associated electrocautery with higher rates of wound infection, impaired healing, and worse cosmesis. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare cutting electrocautery versus scalpel for surgical incisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a computerized literature search of five electronic databases and included all published original studies comparing cutting electrocautery and scalpel surgical incisions. Relevant data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled as odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean difference (SMD) values in a meta-analysis model, using RevMan and Comprehensive Meta-analysis software.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies (36 randomized trials, four observational, and one quasirandom study) were included in the pooled analysis (6422 participants). Compared with the scalpel incision, cutting electrocautery resulted in significantly less blood loss (SMD = -1.16, 95% CI [-1.60 to -0.72]), shorter incisional (SMD = -0.63, 95% CI [-0.96 to -0.29]) and operative times (SMD = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.12 to -0.05]), and lower pain scores (SMD = -0.91, 95% CI [-1.27 to -0.55]) with no significant differences in terms of wound infection rates (OR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.74-1.15]) or overall subjective scar score (SMD = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.72 to 0.75]).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical incision using electrocautery can be quicker with less blood loss and postoperative pain scores than the scalpel incision. No statistically significant difference was found between both techniques in terms of postoperative wound complications, hospital stay duration, and wound cosmetic characteristics. Therefore, we recommend routine use of cutting electrocautery for surgical incisions.

Healing comparison of porcine cutaneous incisions made with cold steel scalpel, standard electrosurgical blade, and a novel tissue dissector

Background:

Standard electrosurgery provides superior hemostasis compared to a cold steel scalpel, but inferior tissue healing. A novel electrosurgical blade with an advanced waveform, the MEGADYNE ACE BLADE™ 700 Soft Tissue Dissector (ACE), was designed to provide both excellent hemostasis and wound healing. This study compared ACE to scalpel and standard electrosurgery in a porcine model of wound healing.

Methods:

Skin incisions from six pigs were evaluated at time points of 0, 1, 2, 3 and 6 weeks after application of the three devices. Histopathology was performed on samples from each time point. For each non-initial time point, the healing incisions were photographed for later evaluation by expert graders, and excised for wound strength testing.

Results:

Time 0 photomicrographs showed a gradient of thermal tissue damage by initial incision, ranging from no damage made by the scalpel, minimal damage made by ACE, and twice the ACE damage made by a nonstick PTFE-coated electrosurgical blade. Histopathologic analysis at 6 weeks showed comparable dermal scar width measurements for scalpel and ACE incisions. Scars were wider for incisions made by standard electrosurgical blade. Wound strength was greater for scalpel and ACE than for standard electrosurgery. Cosmetic results at 6 weeks were not significantly different between scalpel and ACE incisions, while standard electrosurgical blade incisions were significantly inferior to ACE (odds ratio: 53.4, p<0.001).

Conclusion:

The MEGADYNE ACE BLADE™ 700 Soft Tissue Dissector represents a significant improvement in electrosurgical technology for skin incisions and dispels the traditional concerns of delayed healing and poor cosmetic result that have been attributed to using conventional electrosurgical blades for skin incisions.

Scalpel versus electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions

BACKGROUND

Scalpels or electrosurgery can be used to make abdominal incisions. The potential benefits of electrosurgery may include reduced blood loss, dry and rapid separation of tissue, and reduced risk of cutting injury to surgeons. Postsurgery risks possibly associated with electrosurgery may include poor wound healing and complications such as surgical site infection.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of electrosurgery compared with scalpel for major abdominal incisions.

SEARCH METHODS

The first version of this review included studies published up to February 2012. In October 2016, for this first update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, and the registry for ongoing trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov). We did not apply date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies considered in this analysis were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared electrosurgery to scalpel for creating abdominal incisions during major open abdominal surgery. Incisions could be any orientation (vertical, oblique, or transverse) and surgical setting (elective or emergency). Electrosurgical incisions were made through major layers of the abdominal wall, including subcutaneous tissue and the musculoaponeurosis (a sheet of connective tissue that attaches muscles), regardless of the technique used to incise the skin and peritoneum. Scalpel incisions were made through major layers of abdominal wall including skin, subcutaneous tissue, and musculoaponeurosis, regardless of the technique used to incise the abdominal peritoneum. Primary outcomes analysed were wound infection, time to wound healing, and wound dehiscence. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, wound incision time, wound-related blood loss, and adhesion or scar formation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. When necessary, we contacted trial authors for missing data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MD) and 95% CI for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

The updated search found seven additional RCTs making a total of 16 included studies (2769 participants). All studies compared electrosurgery to scalpel and were considered in one comparison. Eleven studies, analysing 2178 participants, reported on wound infection. There was no clear difference in wound infections between electrosurgery and scalpel (7.7% for electrosurgery versus 7.4% for scalpel; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.54; low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and serious imprecision). None of the included studies reported time to wound healing.It is uncertain whether electrosurgery decreases wound dehiscence compared to scalpel (2.7% for electrosurgery versus 2.4% for scalpel; RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.50; 1064 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and very serious imprecision).There was no clinically important difference in incision time between electrosurgery and scalpel (MD -45.74 seconds, 95% CI -88.41 to -3.07; 325 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for serious imprecision). There was no clear difference in incision time per wound area between electrosurgery and scalpel (MD -0.58 seconds/cm2, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.09; 282 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence downgraded for very serious imprecision).There was no clinically important difference in mean blood loss between electrosurgery and scalpel (MD -20.10 mL, 95% CI -28.16 to -12.05; 241 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for serious imprecision). Two studies reported on mean wound-related blood loss per wound area; however, we were unable to pool the studies due to considerable heterogeneity. It was uncertain whether electrosurgery decreased wound-related blood loss per wound area. We could not reach a conclusion on the effects of the two interventions on pain and appearance of scars for various reasons such as small number of studies, insufficient data, the presence of conflicting data, and different measurement methods.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of evidence was moderate to very low due to risk of bias and imprecise results. Low-certainty evidence shows no clear difference in wound infection between the scalpel and electrosurgery. There is a need for more research to determine the relative effectiveness of scalpel compared with electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions.

Diathermy versus scalpel in transverse abdominal incision in women undergoing repeated cesarean section: A randomized controlled trial

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the volume of blood loss, wound incision time and wound complication according to use of scalpel or electrosurgery during the creation of transverse abdominal incisions during repeated cesarean section (CS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was carried out at Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital. We recruited 130 women with a history of one previous CS at the time of their planned lower-segment CS. Participants were randomized to anterior abdominal wall opening from subcutaneous tissue till the peritoneum by either the use of scalpel with disposable blade (No. 22) or diathermy using the standard diathermy pen electrode. The main outcome measures were the volume of blood loss from skin incision to the end of the peritoneal incision, the operative time and wound complication.

RESULTS

We observed a highly significant difference between the two groups in blood loss (median [interquartile range], 11 [8-15.25] g for the diathermy group vs 20 [18-23] g for the scalpel group, P < 0.001) and skin-to-peritoneum incision time (median [interquartile range], 7 [5-7.25] min for the diathermy group vs 10 [7-11] min for the scalpel group, P < 0.001). The postoperative pain was less in the diathermy group but wound complications showed no statistical difference.

CONCLUSION

The use of diathermy in the opening of anterior abdominal wall during CS decreases blood loss and operative time but has no impact on postoperative pain or wound complications.

Craniosynostosis incision: scalpel or cautery?

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.

Diathermy versus Scalpel Incision in a Heterogeneous Cohort of General Surgery Patients in a Nigerian Teaching Hospital

Background:

The anecdotal fear of using cautery for surgical incisions is still common in surgical practice despite recent evidences. The aim of this study is to compare the results of electrocautery and the scalpel in skin incisions.

Materials and Methods:

This is a prospective randomized double blind study conducted in the Department of Surgery, of a teaching hospital in Ibadan. Patients were randomized to have either scalpel or electrocautery incisions. The duration used in making the skin incision; the incisional blood loss and the ensuing length and depth of the wound were noted. Postoperative pain; duration of wound healing and the occurrence of surgical site infection were also noted.

Results:

There were 197 patients consisting of the scalpel group (n = 98) and the electrocautery group (n = 99). The ages ranged from 16 to 73 years. The demography, case distribution and body mass index were similar in both groups. The mode of presentation was predominantly elective. The incision time was shorter in the electrocautery group (P < 0.001). The blood loss was less with the diathermy compared to the scalpel (6.53 ± 3.84 ml vs. 18.16 ± 7.36 ml, P < 0.001). The cumulative numerical rating scale score for pain was 12.65 (standard deviation [SD] 8.06) and 17.12 (SD 9.49) in the diathermy and scalpel groups respectively (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in wound infection and wound closure (epithelialization time) (P = 0.206).

Conclusion:

The use of electrocautery in making skin incision is associated with reduced incision time, incisional blood loss, and postoperative pain.

Randomized, clinical trial on diathermy and scalpel incisions in elective general surgery

BACKGROUND

Since a long time skin incisions have routinely been made with scalpels. Now a day there is a shift in trend from this method to electrosurgical skin incisions. However, fear of bad scars and improper wound healing has prevented its wide spread use. This Study aimed to compare both methods of skin incisions for different variables.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine incisional time, blood loss during incision and postoperative wound complications and pain with both methods of skin incision.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective, comparative and randomized study was conducted at different hospitals of Hyderabad and Nawabshah, Pakistan from 1(st) of December 2009 to 30(th) of November 2011. The study included patients of either sex above the age of five years with general surgical pathology who were to undergo surgery. these candidates were randomly put into two groups. In Group A patients incision was made with a scalpel and in group B with diathermy. Data was analyzed for age, sex, comorbid illness, incisional time, blood loss during incision making and postoperative pain and wound complications.

RESULTS

A total of 283 patients completed the follow-up and were included in the final analysis. Group A comprised of 143 (50.53%) patients; 83 (58%) males and 60 (42%) females with a mean age of 36.03 years. Amongst the 140 patients of group B, there were 85 (60.7%) males and 55 (39.3%) females with a mean age of 36.52 years. Twenty-five (17.48%) patients of group A and 27 (19.28%) of group B had comorbid illnesses. Mean incision time was 8.9025-sec/cm(2) for group A and 7.3057 sec/cm(2) for group B patients. Mean blood loss during incision making was 1.8262 mL/cm(2) and 1.1346 mL/cm(2) for group A and B patients, respectively. Pain was 5.2957 for group A patients on day one and 3.1181 for group B patients. Pain score was 2.1049 and 1.6206 on day two and 0.8191 and 0.7192 on day five, for group A and B patients, respectively. Postoperative wound complications were noticed in 26 (18.18%) patients of group A and 22 (15.71%) patients of group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Diathermy incision is a safe and expedient technique. It takes less time than scalpel incision and loss of blood is also lower during incision. Diathermy is associated with lesser post-operative pain and complications than the scalpel incision. Diathermy should be method of choice in general elective surgery.

Advanced Cutting Effect System versus Cold Steel Scalpel: Comparative Wound Healing and Scar Formation in Targeted Surgical Applications

Background:

Use of electrosurgery for skin incisions has been controversial due to concerns of delayed healing, excessive scarring, and increased infection. Recent studies using modern electrosurgical generators that produce pure sinusoidal “CUT” waveforms have shown reductions in thermal damage along incisions made with these devices compared with their predecessors. This study compares scar formation in incisions made using a cold steel scalpel (CSS) or the ACE Blade and Mega Power Generator (ACE system, Megadyne Medical Products, Draper, Utah) from patient and blinded observer perspectives.

Methods:

Subjects seeking plastic surgery were enrolled in the study. Incisions on one side of each subject’s body were made with a CSS while equivalent incisions on the contralateral side were made with the ACE system. Differences between incision methods were evaluated by assessment of scar formation by observers and assessment of patient satisfaction relating to scar formation at 120 days postsurgery.

Results:

Observers rated incision vascularization, pigmentation, thickness, and relief. The mean observer score (± SD) of incisions made with the ACE system was 11.1 ± 4.4 while that of incisions made with the CSS was 10.8 ± 3.7 (P < 0.0001). Patients rated incision pain, itching, discoloration, stiffness, thickness, and irregularity. The mean patient score of incisions made with the ACE system was 9.4 ± 9.2 while that of incisions made with the CSS was 9.3 ± 8.5 (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions:

Results showed noninferior wound healing/scar formation in skin incisions made with the ACE system compared with incisions made with a CSS.

Surgical incision by high frequency cautery

Traditionally, the knife has been used to make surgical incisions on the skin, but recent data suggest that diathermy blade allows the incision to be made more quickly, with less blood loss, less postoperative pain and no adverse effects on wound healing or cosmetic effect.

Scalpel versus electrosurgery for abdominal incisions

BACKGROUND

Scalpels or electrosurgery can be used to make abdominal incisions. The potential benefits of electrosurgery include reduced blood loss, dry and rapid separation of tissue, and reduced risk of cutting injury to surgeons, though there are concerns about poor wound healing, excessive scarring, and adhesion formation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects on wound complications of scalpel and electrosurgery for making abdominal incisions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 February 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to February Week 3 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 23 February 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 07); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 February 2012). We did not apply date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects on wound complications of electrosurgery with scalpel use for the creation of abdominal incisions. The study participants were patients undergoing major open abdominal surgery, regardless of the orientation of the incision (vertical, oblique, or transverse) and surgical setting (elective or emergency). Electrosurgical incisions included those in which the major layers of abdominal wall, including subcutaneous tissue and musculoaponeurosis (a strong sheet of fibrous connective tissue that serves as a tendon to attach muscles), were made by electrosurgery, regardless of the techniques used to incise the abdominal skin and peritoneum. Scalpel incisions included those in which all major layers of abdominal wall including skin, subcutaneous tissue, and musculoaponeurosis, were incised by a scalpel, regardless of the techniques used on the abdominal peritoneum.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias. One review author extracted data which were checked by a second review author. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data, and difference in means (MD) and 95% CI for continuous data. We examined heterogeneity between studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (1901 participants) which were mainly at unclear risk of bias due to poor reporting. There was no statistically significant difference in overall wound complication rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.18), nor in rates of wound dehiscence (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.98), however both these comparisons are underpowered and a treatment effect cannot be excluded. There is insufficient reliable evidence regarding the effects of electrosurgery compared with scalpel incisions on blood loss, pain, and incision time.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that making an abdominal incision with electrosurgery may be as safe as using a scalpel. However, these conclusions are based on relatively few events and more research is needed. The relative effects of scalpels and electrosurgery are unclear for the outcomes of blood loss, pain, and incision time.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cutting diathermy versus scalpel for skin incision

Background

Skin incisions have traditionally been made using a scalpel. Cutting diathermy, a more recent alternative, is thought to increase the risk of infection, impair healing and decrease cosmesis. Recent studies suggest otherwise, claiming that diathermy may offer potential advantages with respect to blood loss, incision time and postoperative pain. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare skin incisions made by either scalpel or cutting diathermy.

Methods

A systematic literature search and review was performed for studies published from January 1980 until June 2011. Randomized clinical trials comparing scalpel and cutting diathermy for skin incisions of any operation were included. Primary outcomes included wound complication rate, blood loss, incision times and pain scores.

Results

Fourteen randomized trials met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, providing outcome data for a total of 2541 patients (1267 undergoing skin incision by cutting diathermy and 1274 by scalpel). The median length of follow-up across all studies was 6 weeks (range 4 days to 19 months). Compared with a scalpel incision, cutting diathermy resulted in significantly less blood loss (mean difference 0·72 ml/cm2; P &lt; 0·001) and shorter incision times (mean difference 36 s; P &lt; 0·001), with no differences in the wound complication rate (odds ratio 0·87; P = 0·29) or pain score at 24 h (mean difference 0·89; P = 0·05).

Conclusion

Skin incisions made by cutting diathermy are quicker and associated with less blood loss than those made by scalpel, and there are no differences in the rate of wound complications or postoperative pain.

Trends in surgical wound healing

The understanding of acute and chronic wound pathophysiology has progressed considerably over the past decades. Unfortunately, improvement in clinical practice has not followed suit, although new trends and developments have improved the outcome of wound treatment in many ways. This review focuses on promising clinical development in major wound problems in general and on postoperative infections in particular.

Healing of abdominal wall aponeurosis of rats after incision with either cold scalpel or electrocautery

PURPOSE: To compare the healing of abdominal wall aponeurosis of rats after incision with either cold scalpel or electrocautery. METHODS: Twelve male adults Wistar inbreed rats weightin 258-362g entered the experiment. They were randomly divided in two groups, control group (N= 6) and experimental group (N= 6). All animals underwent anesthesia followed abdominal wall incision with either cold scalpel (controls) or electrocautery (experimental group). The animals were killed on the 10th day and necropsied. Tissue samples containig the abdominal wall aponeurosis were sent for both histological study and hydroxyproline content assay. RESULTS: The histological study showed no significant difference between the two groups. Hydroxiproline content in experimenral group (128,56 [78,98-198,92] µg /100m) was not significantly different from control group (140,27 [116,20-166,59] mg /100ml; p = 0.53). CONCLUSION: Healing of abdominal wall after dieresis with either cold scalpel or electrocautery are equivalent and do not differ.

Chirurgische Durchtrennung und Verschluss der Bauchdecke

Access to the abdominal cavity must be performed in such a way that surgical treatment procedures can be performed safely. For skin incision, scalpel and electrocautery are equivalent. Subcutaneous tissue and fascias must be divided by electrocautery to minimize blood loss. The best way to close the abdominal cavity is by an all layer, slowly absorbable, running suture with a suture: wound length ratio of at least 4:1. Closing the peritoneal layer is not necessary. Subcutaneous sutures and drains do not reduce the risk of wound complications. Staples should be used for closing the skin.

Facilitating benefit, minimising risk: Responsibilities of the surgical practitioner during electrosurgery

This article will explore the role of the surgical practitioner in providing best care for the patient, by discussing electrosurgical intervention (ESI). It will exemplify the technological aspect of the role. Management of ESI equipment, and its inherent risks, will be shown to relate directly to the practitioner's role. Some safety claims for ESI equipment will be analysed, demonstrating the need for a theatre practitioner to establish the validity of sources that inform practice. The roles of circulating practitioner and scrubbed practitioner will be elucidated, with exploration of professional and ethical responsibilities to the patient, themselves and colleagues.