Advertisement

Indian Journal of Surgery

, Volume 81, Issue 1, pp 32–36 | Cite as

Comparison of the Outcome of Diathermy Versus Scalpel Skin Incision in Surgical Cases

  • M. R. PattnaikEmail author
  • K. G. Prasad
  • Madhusudan Dey
  • Ashish Vadhera
Original Article
  • 97 Downloads

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the outcome of cutting diathermy incisions versus surgical scalpel incisions in three different sites of elective surgery. This study was a prospective observational study conducted at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Pune, India, over a period of 2 years from June 2014 to June 2016 including a 1-year follow-up period. Inclusion criteria were patients of both sexes who were admitted for elective surgeries of the thyroid, breast, and abdomen. Data including demographic details, infection rate, and cosmetic appearance were recorded in both groups to compare the final surgical outcome. A total of 135 patients were finally analyzed in the study. A total of 68 patients (group A) underwent operation via diathermy skin incision and 67 patients (group B) underwent operation via scalpel skin incision. In diathermy (group A), a total 18% (n = 12) patients developed complications and in scalpel (group B), a total 21% (n = 14) patients developed complications (chi-square = 2.386, p value = 0.801). In diathermy (group A), 56 cases (82%) had excellent scar, 12 cases (17%) had fair scar, and 1 case (1.5%) had poor scar. In scalpel group (group B), 53 cases (79%) had excellent scar, 12 cases (18%) had fair scar, and 2 cases (3%) developed poor scar (f = 2.56, p = 0.112). No significant difference was noted in wound healing and the rate of wound complication in skin incision made by cutting diathermy as compared to the conventional scalpel skin incision in our present study. We also conclude that there is no difference in cosmetic outcome in both groups after 1 year of follow-up.

Keywords

Diathermy Scalpel Skin incision Wound complications Cosmesis 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Shamim M (2009) Diathermy vs. scalpel skin incisions in general surgery: double-blind, randomized, clinical trial. World J Surg 33(8):1594–1599.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0064-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Silverman EB, Read RW, Boyle CR, Cooper R, Miller W, McLaughlin RM (2007) Histologic comparison of canine skin biopsies collected using monopolar electrosurgery, Co2 laser, radiowave radiosurgery, skin biopsy punch, and scalpel. Vet Surg 1:50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stavroulaki P, Skoulakis C, Theos E, Kokalis N, Valagianis D (2007) Thermal welding versus cold dissection tonsillectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study in adult patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 116(8):565–570.  https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940711600802 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brent M, Luba N, Rhonda E, Kyle F et al (2008) Ultrasonic and nonultrasonic instrumentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Surg 143(6):592–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ji GW, Wu YZ, Wang X, Pan HX, Li P, Du WY, Qi Z, Huang A, Zhang LW, Zhang L, Chen W, Liu GH, Xu H, Li Q, Yuan AH, He XP, Mei GH (2006) Experimental and clinical study of influence of high-frequency electric surgical knives on healing of abdominal incision. World J Gastroenterol 12(25):4082–4085.  https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v12.i25.4082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Singer AJ, Arora B, Dagum A, Valentine S, Hollander JE (2007) Development and validation of a novel scar evaluation scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(7):1892–1897.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000287275.15511.10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vercelli S, Ferriero G, Santorio F et al (2009) How to assess postsurgical scars: a review of outcome measures. Disabil Rehabil 31(25):2055–2063.  https://doi.org/10.3109/09638280902874196a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sivaj A, Farooq-Dar M, Gilani AB, Raziq S (2011) Elective midline laparotomy: comparison of diathermy and scalpel incisions professional. Med J 18(1):106–111Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shivagouda P, Gogeri BV, Godhi AS, Metgud SC (2010) Prospective randomised control trial comparing the efficacy of diathermy incision versus scalpel incision over skin in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Recent Res Sci Technol 2(8):44–44Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kearns SR, Connolly EM, McNally S, McNamara DA, Deasy J (2001) Randomized clinical trial of diathermy versus scalpel incision in elective midline laparotomy. Br J Surg 88(1):41–44.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2001.01625.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chrysos E, Athanasakis E, Antonakakis S, Xynos E, Zoras O (2005) A prospective study comparing diathermy and scalpel incisions in tension-free inguinal hernioplasty. Am Surg 71(4):326–329Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stolz AJ, Schitzner J, Lischke R, Simonek J, Pafko P (2004) Is a scalpel required to perform a thoracotomy? Rozhl Chir 83(4):185–188Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Benedetti-Panici PL, Melpignano M, Fallo L, Tateo S, Maggi R, Scambia G, Mangili G, Buttarelli M (2001) A multicentrecollaborativestudy on the use of cold scalpel and electrocautery for midline abdominal incision. Am J Surg 181(2):128–132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(00)00561-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Groot G, Chappell EW (1994) Electrocautery used to create incisions does not increase wound infections rates. Am J Surg 167(6):601–603.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9610(94)90106-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dixon AR, Watkin DF (1990) Electrosurgical skin incision versus conventional scalpel: a prospective trial. J R Coll Surg Edinb 35(5):299–301Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ly J, Mittal A, Windsor J (2012) Systemic review and meta-analysis of cutting diathermy versus scalpel skin incision. Br J Surg 99(5):613–620.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.8708 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chau JK, Dzigielewski P, Mlynarek A, Cote DW, Allen H, Harris JR, Seikaly HR (2009) Steel scalpel versus electrocautery blade: comparison of cosmetic and patient satisfaction outcomes of different incisions methods. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 38(4):427–433Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kumar V, Tewari M, Shukla HS (2011) A comparative study of scalpel and surgical diathermy incision in elective operations of head and neck cancer. Indian J Cancer 48(2):216–219.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-509X.82904 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Surgeons of India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. R. Pattnaik
    • 1
    Email author
  • K. G. Prasad
    • 2
  • Madhusudan Dey
    • 3
  • Ashish Vadhera
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryMilitary Hospital, KhadakwaslaPuneIndia
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryINHS KalyaniVishakhapatnamIndia
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyAFMCPuneIndia
  4. 4.Department of AnaesthesiologyMilitary Hospital, AmbalaAmbalaIndia

Personalised recommendations