Scalpel versus diathermy skin incision: a randomised clinical trial
Keywords:Scalpel skin incision, Diathermy incision, Post operative wound infections, Hypertrophied scar, Keloid, Intestinal obstruction
Background: Scalpel skin incision produces a clean, incised wound with minimal tissue destruction. Cutting diathermy also produces an incised wound that heals as well as the one that is created by cold scalpel but with an added advantage of achieving quick hemostasis and saving operative time. The main thing of the present study is to verify and compare the usefulness of diathermy skin incision vs. scalpel skin incision in general surgical patients.
Methods: The study was conducted in Medical College and Hospital, in 60 patients randomly selected for diathermy and scalpel incision, between 14-65 years age group, between January 2011-June 2012. Post operative pain, seroma, hematoma, discharge were observed and results were analyzed and compared for the two groups using Mann-Whitney U Test.
Results: Diathermy group, with incision related time of 6.20±0.97 sec/cm, was significantly quicker (p=0.003) than scalpel incision, with incision time of 6.76±0.84 sec/cm. Postoperative pain scores, recorded daily over five days, showed insignificant difference between the two groups.
Conclusions: We demonstrate that the diathermy provides efficient cutting of skin, with no superior wound-healing profile, comparable to that of the traditional scalpel blade.
Dixon AR, Watkin DFL. Electrosurgical skin incision versus conventional scalpel: a prospective trial. F R Coll Surg Edinb. 1990;35:299-301.
Chowdri NA, Wani NA, Ganai AA, Naqash SH, Peer GQ, Wani QA. Comparative study of electrosurgical and scalpel incision in general surgery. IJS. 2002;63:308-10.
Kerans SR,Connoly EM,Namara DA, Deasy J. Randomised clinical trial of diathermy versus scalpel incision in elective mid linelaprotomy. BJS. 2001;88:41-4.
Ly J, Mittal A, Windsor J. Systematic review and meta-analysis of cutting diathermyversus scalpel for skin incision. Br J Surg. 2012;99(5):613-20.
Chrysos E, Athanasakis E, Antnakakis S, Xynos E, Zoros O. A prospective study comparing diathermy and scalpel incision in tension free inguinal hernioplasy. Am Surg. 2005;71(4):326-9.
Pollinger HS, Mostafa G, Horold KL, Austin CE, Kercher KW, Mattews BD. Comparison of wound healing characteristics with feedback circuitelectrosurgical generators in a porcine model. Am Surg. 2003;(12):1054-60.
Kearns SR, Connolly EM, McNally S, McNamara DA, Deasy J. Randomized clinical trial of diathermy versus scalpel incision in elective midline laparotomy. Br J Surg. 2001;88:41-4.
Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Benedetti-Panici PL, Melpignano M, Fallo L, Tateo S, et al. A multicentre collaborative study on the use of cold scalpel and electrocautery for midline abdominal incision. Am J Surg. 2001;181:128-32.
Groot G, Chappell W. Electrocautery used to create incisions does not increase wound infection rates. Am J Surg 1994;167:601-3.
Siraj A, Farooq M, Shah AA. Elective Midline Laparotomy: Comparison of Scalpel and Diathermy Incisions. Professional Med J. 2011;18(1):106-11.
Mehmet O, Bora K, Cihangir O, Ahmet G, Özlem G, Eren E, et al. Scalpel Versus Electrocautery Dissections: The Effect on Wound Complications and Pro-inflaammatory Cytokine Levels in Wound Fluid. Turk J Med Sci. 2008;38 (2):111-6.
Byrne FJ, Kearns SR, Mulhall KJ, McCabe JP, Kaar K, Gilmore M, et al. Diathermy versus scalpel incisions for hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture: a randomised prospective trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2007.