IMEMR
EMRO
66.92
Index Copernicus
ICICICICICICICIC
Volume 4, Issue 2 (2023)
J Clinic Care Skill 2023, 4(2): 77-82 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2023/04/10 | Accepted: 2023/06/26 | Published: 2023/07/2
Received: 2023/04/10 | Accepted: 2023/06/26 | Published: 2023/07/2
How to cite this article
Ghaffari P, Mardani S, Malekzade J M, Aramesh S. Comparison of Electrocautery and Scalpel Methods in Surgical Incisions of Hysterectomy Surgery. J Clinic Care Skill 2023; 4 (2) :77-82
URL: http://jccs.yums.ac.ir/article-1-184-en.html
URL: http://jccs.yums.ac.ir/article-1-184-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Department of gynecology and obstetrics, School of Medicine Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran
2- Department of Nutrition, School of Health and Nutrition Science, Yasuj University of Medical sciences, Yasuj, Iran
3- Department of gynecology and obstetrics, School of Medicine Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran ,ARAMESH@YAHOO.COM
2- Department of Nutrition, School of Health and Nutrition Science, Yasuj University of Medical sciences, Yasuj, Iran
3- Department of gynecology and obstetrics, School of Medicine Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran ,
Abstract (1077 Views)
Aims: Surgical incisions have been performed by a scalpel for many years, and today, the use of an alternative method, catheter incision, is increasing daily. This study aimed to evaluate the complications of using electrocautery and scalpel in surgical abdominal wall incisions in hysterectomy surgery.
Materials & Methods: The present single-blind study was performed on 92 eligible women undergoing hysterectomy surgery with a transverse incision in Imam Sajjad Hospital, Yasuj, Iran. Patients were randomly divided into hysterectomy with a scalpel (46 samples) and electrocautery (46 samples). Then, post-surgery infection after the surgery, the extent of wound separation after a month, pain intensity in the first, second, and eighth days after the surgery, blood loss (weighting consumed blood gauzes before and after surgery), in both groups of scalpel and electrocautery were measured and compared. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics in SPSS 19 software.
Findings: The two groups were similar in age, cause of hysterectomy, and type of delivery. There were no significant differences between the two groups in postoperative infection rate, incision time, and wound separation rate. However, a significant difference was indicated in the distribution of pain intensity in the electrocautery group on the first (p<0.001), second (p<0.001), and eighth day after surgery (p=0.03), and blood loss (p=0.017), which were reported significantly lower than in the scalpel group.
Conclusion: The electrocautery method causes less pain intensity and blood loss than the scalpel method.
Materials & Methods: The present single-blind study was performed on 92 eligible women undergoing hysterectomy surgery with a transverse incision in Imam Sajjad Hospital, Yasuj, Iran. Patients were randomly divided into hysterectomy with a scalpel (46 samples) and electrocautery (46 samples). Then, post-surgery infection after the surgery, the extent of wound separation after a month, pain intensity in the first, second, and eighth days after the surgery, blood loss (weighting consumed blood gauzes before and after surgery), in both groups of scalpel and electrocautery were measured and compared. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics in SPSS 19 software.
Findings: The two groups were similar in age, cause of hysterectomy, and type of delivery. There were no significant differences between the two groups in postoperative infection rate, incision time, and wound separation rate. However, a significant difference was indicated in the distribution of pain intensity in the electrocautery group on the first (p<0.001), second (p<0.001), and eighth day after surgery (p=0.03), and blood loss (p=0.017), which were reported significantly lower than in the scalpel group.
Conclusion: The electrocautery method causes less pain intensity and blood loss than the scalpel method.
Keywords:
References
1. Hakkarainen J, Nevala A, Tomás E, Nieminen K, Malila N, Pitkäniemi J, et al. Decreasing trend and changing indications of hysterectomy in Finland. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100(9):1722-9. [DOI:10.1111/aogs.14159] [PMID]
2. Charoenkwan K, Iheozor‐Ejiofor Z, Rerkasem K, Matovinovic E. Scalpel versus electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions. Cochrane Database of Sys Rev. 2017;6(6):CD005987. [DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD005987.pub3]
3. Zarei F, Shahmoradi MK. Scalpel versus electrocautery for herniorrhaphy incision: A randomized controlled trail. Int J Surg Open. 2021;28:33-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijso.2020.12.005]
4. Chiappa C, Fachinetti A, Boeri C, Arlant V, Rausei S, Dionigi G, et al. Wound healing and postsurgical complications in breast cancer surgery: A comparison between PEAK PlasmaBlade and conventional electrosurgery-a preliminary report of a case series. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2018;95(3):129-34. [DOI:10.4174/astr.2018.95.3.129] [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Anderson T, Thomassee M. Principles of electrosurgery and laser energy applied to gynecologic surgery. 11th Edition. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer. 2015. p. 249-64. [link]
6. Pimentel AM, Kliemann LM, Brum DdS, Leivas FG, Sanches PRS, Capp E, et al. Adequacy of ovarian diathermy under ultrasound control: An experimental model. J Ovarian Res. 2013;6(1):54. [DOI:10.1186/1757-2215-6-54] [PMID] [PMCID]
7. Pimentel AM, Kobayashi D, Kliemann LM, Franjdlich R, Capp E, Corleta HV. Transvaginal ultrasound ovarian diathermy: Sheep as an experimental model. J Ovarian Res. 2012;5:1. [DOI:10.1186/1757-2215-5-1] [PMID] [PMCID]
8. Li YC, Chao A, Yang LY, Huang HY, Huang YT, Kuo HH, et al. Electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing device (LigaSure™) versus conventional diathermy in laparoscopic myomectomy: A propensity-matched analysis. PloS One. 2018;13(3):e0193611. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0193611] [PMID] [PMCID]
9. Memon E, Batool K, Samina M, Ashfaq S, Naqvi Kz. Abdominal wound problem after hysterectomy using scalpel versus electrocautery for skin and subcutaneous dissection. PJMHS. 2021;15(9):2870-2. [DOI:10.53350/pjmhs211592870]
10. Shinohara S, Sakamoto I, Numata M, Ikegami A, Teramoto K. Risk of spilling cancer cells during total laparoscopic hysterectomy in low-risk endometrial cancer. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2017;6(3):113-5. [DOI:10.1016/j.gmit.2016.10.002] [PMID] [PMCID]
11. Choi HJ, Kim HS, Kim TJ, Song SY, Paik ES, Heo EJ, et al. Effective thermal destruction of residual tubal epithelium using an advanced sealing device in opportunistic salpingectomy: A randomized trial. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2017;6(3):108-12. [DOI:10.1016/j.gmit.2016.12.005] [PMID] [PMCID]
12. Salvador ES, Haladjian MC, Bradbury M, Cubo-Abert M, Barrachina LM, Escude EV, et al. Laparoscopic isthmocele repair with hysteroscopic assistance. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25(4):576-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2017.10.005] [PMID]
13. Steinberg BJ, Mapp T, Mama S, Echols KT. Surgical treatment of persistent vaginal granulation tissue using CO2 laser vaporization under colposcopic and laparoscopic guidance. JSLS. 2012;16(3):488. [DOI:10.4293/108680812X13462882736619] [PMID] [PMCID]
14. Prakash LD, Balaji N, Kumar SS, Kate V. Comparison of electrocautery incision with scalpel incision in midline abdominal surgery- a double blind randomized controlled trial. Int J Surg. 2015;19:78-82. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.04.085] [PMID]
15. Talpur AA, Khaskheli AB, Kella N, Jamal A. Randomized, clinical trial on diathermy and scalpel incisions in elective general surgery. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2015;17(2):e14078. [DOI:10.5812/ircmj.14078] [PMID] [PMCID]
16. Tunceli K, Li K, Williams LK. Long‐term effects of obesity on employment and work limitations among US adults, 1986 to 1999. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006;14(9):1637-46. [DOI:10.1038/oby.2006.188] [PMID]
17. Malik N. Review of one hundred consecutive abdominal hysterectomies: Their suitability for vaginal hysterectomy. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2015;27(2):415-20. [link]
18. Acharya S, Shrestha S, Pal M. A retrospective review of abdominal hysterectomy in a teaching hospital. J Univers Coll Med Sci. 2015;3(2):16-9. [DOI:10.3126/jucms.v3i2.14285]
19. Yadav A, Agarwal L, Jain SA, Kumawat S, Sharma S. Comparison between scalpel incision and electrocautery incision in midline abdominal surgery: A comparative study. Int Surg J. 2021;8(5):1507-11. [DOI:10.18203/2349-2902.isj20211817]
20. Patil VB, Mule VD, Raval RM, Kulkarni AA. Observational study of scalpel versus electrocautery for subcutaneous incision in elective gynaecological surgeries. Int J Reproduction Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6(3):950-5. [DOI:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20170562]
21. Hasabe RA, Hivre M, Khapre S. Comparison between three instruments for total laparoscopic hysterectomy: Harmonic scalpel, ligasure, and bipolar shearer. Int J Acad Med Pharm. 2023;5(3):445-8. [link]
22. Ismail A, Abushouk AI, Elmaraezy A, Menshawy A, Menshawy E, Ismail M, et al. Cutting electrocautery versus scalpel for surgical incisions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Surg Res. 2017;220:147-63. [DOI:10.1016/j.jss.2017.06.093] [PMID]
23. Chrysos E, Athanasakis E, Antonakakis S, Xynos E, Zoras O. A prospective study comparing diathermy and scalpel incisions in tension-free inguinal hernioplasty. Am Surg. 2005;71(4):326-9. [DOI:10.1177/000313480507100410] [PMID]
24. Lin W, Dai Y, Niu J, Yang G, Li M, Wang F. Scalpel can achieve better clinical outcomes compared with electric cautery in primary total knee arthroplasty: A comparison study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disord. 2020;21(1):409. [DOI:10.1186/s12891-020-03457-1] [PMID] [PMCID]
25. Ozkaya E, Korkmaz V, Kucukozkan T. Clamping compared to cauterization for subcutaneous hemostasis in Pfannenstiel incision. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90(4):405-7. [DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01077.x] [PMID]
26. Prassas D, Schumacher FJ. Electric cauterization of the hernia sac in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair reduces the incidence of postoperative seroma: A propensity score-matched analysis. Hernia. 2018;22(5):747-50. [DOI:10.1007/s10029-018-1790-4] [PMID]
27. Novotny NM, Puentes MC, Leopold R, Ortega M, Godoy-Lenz J. The burnia: Laparoscopic sutureless inguinal hernia repair in girls. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017;27(4):430-3. [DOI:10.1089/lap.2016.0234] [PMID]
28. Saremi A, Pooladi A. Endometriosis management; A survey on medical and laparoscopic treatment. Sarem J Med Res. 2018;3(3):147-51. [DOI:10.29252/sjrm.2.4.147]
29. Pandey S, Choubey RP, Narain IT. Diathermy versus conventional scalpel in making an abdominal incision: A prospective study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2019;13(10):PC09-11. [DOI:10.7860/JCDR/2019/42093.13219]
30. Li D, Kou Y, Huang S, Wang Z, Ning C, Zhao T. The harmonic scalpel versus electrocautery for parotidectomy: A meta-analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Sur. 2019;47(6):915-21. [DOI:10.1016/j.jcms.2019.01.008] [PMID]