A Comparative Analysis of Cutting Electrocautery and Scalpel for Performing Cutaneous Incisions Over the Neck
- A Prospective, Randomized, Single Blind Study
Gaurav A Thakare*, Nitin Bhola, Anchal Agarwal and Chinmay Ghavat
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, India
*Corresponding Author: Gaurav A Thakare, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, India.
Received: December 28, 2021; Published: February 11, 2022
Aim: The aim of the study was to assess the outcome of patients following use of scalpel and Cutting Electrocautery over Neck incisions in patients undergoing Neck Dissection.
Materials And Methods: A total of 80 patients undergoing Maxillofacial surgical procedures requiring Neck incisions were analyzed prospectively from Jan 2018 to May 2020 and divided into two groups using the Even-Odd randomization method. Patients requiring cutaneous neck incisions were divided into two groups, Group A comprised the patients in whom incisions were given using electrocautery, whereas, Group B comprised of patients in whom incisions were given using Scalpel. Incision time, Blood loss, Postoperative pain, healing of wound and cosmetic assessments of the scar were compared in both the groups.
Results: Our study found that there was statistically significant lesser blood loss (ml) in Group A, (Electrocautery) (5.17 + 0.33) as compared to Group B, (scalpel group) (10.94 + 0.59) (p < 0.001) and shorter incision time in Group A (Electrocautery) (3.14 + 0.25) as compared to Group B (scalpel group) (5.20 + 0.23) (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of Postoperative pain, healing of wound and cosmetic assessments of the scar between two groups.
Conclusion: Cutaneous incisions designed by the cutting electrocautery unit require less time and were found to be superior to scalpel in terms of minimizing blood loss during the incision design, whereas no statistically significant difference in healing, postoperative pain and cosmetic outcome was noted.
Keywords: Electrocautery; Scalpel; Scar; Neck incision; REEDA
- WHO Regional Office for the South-East Asia Region. Health Situation in the South-East Asia Region: 2001-2007.
- Agarwal SP and Rao YN. “FIFTY YEARS OF CANCER CONTROL IN INDIA (2008).
- Ochsner J. “Surgical Knife”. Texas Heart Institute Journal5 (2009): 441-443.
- Allan SN., et al. “A comparative study of scalpel and electrosurgical incision on subsequent wound healing”. Journal of Pediatric Surgery1 (1982): 52-54.
- Chrysos E., et al. “A prospective study comparing diathermy and scalpel incisions in tension-free inguinal hernioplasty”. The American Surgeon - SAGE Journals4 (2005): 326-329.
- Vitello DJ., et al. “Blood Density Is Nearly Equal to Water Density: A Validation Study of the Gravimetric Method of Measuring Intraoperative Blood Loss”. Journal of Veterinary Science (2015).
- Delgado DA., et al. “Validation of Digital Visual Analog Scale Pain Scoring With a Traditional Paper-based Visual Analog Scale in Adults”. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (2018).
- Alvarenga MB., et al. “Episiotomy healing assessment: Redness, Oedema, Ecchymosis, Discharge, Approximation (REEDA) scale reliability1”. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem 1 (2015): 162-168.
- Bianchi FA., et al. “Use of Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale for evaluation of facial scars treated with self-drying silicone gel”. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 3 (2010): 719-723.
- Ismail A., et al. “Cutting electrocautery versus scalpel for surgical incisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Journal of Surgical Research 220 (2017): 147-163.
- Kearns SR., et al. “Randomized clinical trial of diathermy versus scalpel incision in elective midline laparotomy”. British Journal of Surgery 1 (2001): 41-44.
- Chau JKM., et al. “Steel scalpel versus electrocautery blade: comparison of cosmetic and patient satisfaction outcomes of different incision methods”. Journal of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery 4 (2009): 427-433.
- Byrne FJ., et al. “Diathermy versus scalpel incisions for hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture: a randomised prospective trial”. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology 5 (2007): 445-448.
- Kumar V., et al. “A comparative study of scalpel and surgical diathermy incision in elective operations of head and neck cancer”. Indian Journal of Cancer 2 (2011): 216-219.
- Ly J., et al. “Systematic review and meta-analysis of cutting diathermy versus scalpel for skin incision”. British Journal of Surgery 99 (2012): 613-620.
- Shivagouda P., et al. “Prospective randomized control trial comparing the efficacy of diathermy incision versus scalpel incision over skin in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair”. The Recent Research in Science and Technology (2010).
- Siraj A., et al. “Elective midline laparotomy: Comparison of Diathermy and scalpel incisions”. The Professional Medical Journal 18 (2011): 106-111.
- Hussain SA and Hussain S. “Incisions with knife or diathermy and postoperative pain”. British Journal of Surgery 12 (1988): 1179‐1180.
- Pearlman NW., et al. “A prospective study of incisional time, blood loss, pain, and healing with carbon dioxide laser, scalpel, and electrosurgery”. Archives of Surgery8 (1991): 1018‐1020.