Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial of Scalpel Versus Diathermy for Abdominal Skin Incisions

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the early twentieth century, diathermy has been increasingly used for tissue dissection and haemostasis, but the surgeons, however, are reluctant to use surgical diathermy for making skin incisions. This reluctance is now being challenged by multiple studies suggesting diathermy to be a safer option. This was a randomised, clinical study conducted in the department of General and Gastrointestinal Surgery at Calcutta Medical Research Institute, Kolkata in 2017. The study was done to evaluate the diathermy as an effective alternative to scalpel blade in making skin incisions in elective abdominal surgeries. A total of 72 patients undergoing abdominal surgeries were included and randomly divided into diathermy and scalpel groups. Both groups were compared based on incisional blood loss, early postoperative pain, wound complication rates, and cosmetic outcome of scar by Patient-Observer Scar Assessment Scale. After exclusion, a total of 72 patients, 36 each from the two groups, were analysed based on the above mentioned parameters. We found that the incisional blood loss is significantly lesser in the diathermy group in comparison to that of the scalpel group (p < 0.001). Also, the early postoperative pain was significantly lesser in the diathermy group (p < 0.001). Postoperative wound complication rates were comparable between the two groups, and postoperative scar cosmesis is significantly better with the use of diathermy (p < 0.001). In our study, we found that the diathermy is an effective and safe alternative to the steel scalpel blade for making abdominal skin incisions in elective procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Johnson C, Serpell J (1990) Wound infection after abdominal incision with scalpel or diathermy. Br J Surg 77(6):626–627

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Shivagouda P et al (2010) Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of diathermy incision versus scalpel incision over skin in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Recent Res Sci Technol 2:44–47

    Google Scholar 

  3. Neumayer L (2017) NasrinGhalyaie. Principles of preoperative and operative surgery. Sabiston Textbook Surg 20:235–236

    Google Scholar 

  4. Siraj A et al (2011) Elective midline laparotomy: a comparison of diathermy and scalpel incisions. Prof Med J 18:106–111

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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 48:216–219

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rappaport WD, Hunter GC, Allen R, Lick S, Halldorsson A, Chvapil T, Holcomb M, Chvapil M (1990) Effect of electrocautery on wound healing in midline laparotomy incisions. Am J Surg 160:618–620

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Keenan KM, Rodeheaver GT, Kenney JG, Edlich RF (1984) Surgical cautery revisited. Am J Surg 147:818–821

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Papay FA, Stein J, Luciano M, Zins JE (1998) The microdissection cautery needle versus the cold scalpel in bi-coronal incisions. J Craniofac Surg 9:344–347

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Peter W et al (1998) Electric cautery lowers the contamination threshold for infection of laparotomies. Am J Surg 175:263–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ly J, Mittal A, Windsor J (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of cutting diathermy versus scalpel for skin incision. Br J Surg 99:613–620

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cuschieri A et al (1995) Surgical craft and technology. Essent Surg Pract 1:37–68

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cushing H (1989) Electrosurgery as an aid to the removal of intracranial tumors with a preliminary note on a new surgical current generator. Surg Gynecol Obstet 64:751–784

    Google Scholar 

  13. Laughlin SA, Dudley DK (1992) Electrosurg Clin Dermatol 10:285–290

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sigel B, Dunn MR (1965) The mechanism of blood vessel closure by high-frequency electrocoagulation. Surg Gynecol Obstet 121:823–833

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Talpur AA et al (2015) Randomized, clinical trial on diathermy and scalpel incisions in elective general surgery. IRCMJ. 17:14–21

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lee BJ et al (2014) Advanced cutting effect system versus cold steel scalpel: a comparative wound healing and scar formation in targeted surgical applications. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2:23–34

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hjermstad MJ (2011) Studies comparing Numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manag 41:1073–1093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FRH, Botman YAM, Tuinebreijer WE, Middelkoop E, Kreis RW, van Zuijlen PPM (2004) The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1960–1965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lalgudi DP, NiteshBalaji et al (2015) Comparison of electrocautery incision with scalpel incision in midline abdominal surgery – a double blind randomized controlled trial. Int J Surg 19:78–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. O’Connor JL, Bloom DA (1996) William T. Bovie and electrosurgery. Surgery. 119:390–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Parker EO 3rd. (1984) Electrosurgical burn at the site of an oesophageal temperature probe. Anaesthesiology. 61:93–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chalya PL, Mchembe MD, Mabula JB et al (2013) Diathermy versus Scalpel incision in elective midline laparotomy: a prospective randomized controlled clinical study. East Centr Afr j Surg 18:71–77

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kearns SR, Connolly EM, McNally S, McNamara D, Deasy J (2001) Randomized clinical trial of diathermy versus scalpel incision in elective midline laparotomy. Br J Surg 88:41–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Aird LN, Bristol SG et al (2015) Randomized double-blind trial comparing the cosmetic outcome of cutting diathermy versus scalpel for skin incisions. Br J Surg 102:489–494

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Stupart DA, Sim FW et al (2016) Cautery versus scalpel for abdominal skin incisions: a double blind, randomized crossover trial of scar cosmesis. ANZ J Surg 86:303–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

This is an original article with significant contributions from all the above authors.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Karthik Shetty is the first author and principal investigator.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shetty, K., Shetty, D. & Nemani, P.K. Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial of Scalpel Versus Diathermy for Abdominal Skin Incisions. Indian J Surg 83, 1464–1469 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-021-02734-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-021-02734-0

Keywords

Navigation