COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW

Scalpel versus electrosurgery for abdominal incisions

Kittipat Charoenkwan, Narain Chotirosniramit, Kittipan Rerkasem
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012 June 13, (6): CD005987
22696355

BACKGROUND: Scalpels or electrosurgery can be used to make abdominal incisions. The potential benefits of electrosurgery include reduced blood loss, dry and rapid separation of tissue, and reduced risk of cutting injury to surgeons, though there are concerns about poor wound healing, excessive scarring, and adhesion formation.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects on wound complications of scalpel and electrosurgery for making abdominal incisions.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 February 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to February Week 3 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 23 February 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 07); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 February 2012). We did not apply date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects on wound complications of electrosurgery with scalpel use for the creation of abdominal incisions. The study participants were patients undergoing major open abdominal surgery, regardless of the orientation of the incision (vertical, oblique, or transverse) and surgical setting (elective or emergency). Electrosurgical incisions included those in which the major layers of abdominal wall, including subcutaneous tissue and musculoaponeurosis (a strong sheet of fibrous connective tissue that serves as a tendon to attach muscles), were made by electrosurgery, regardless of the techniques used to incise the abdominal skin and peritoneum. Scalpel incisions included those in which all major layers of abdominal wall including skin, subcutaneous tissue, and musculoaponeurosis, were incised by a scalpel, regardless of the techniques used on the abdominal peritoneum.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias. One review author extracted data which were checked by a second review author. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data, and difference in means (MD) and 95% CI for continuous data. We examined heterogeneity between studies.

MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs (1901 participants) which were mainly at unclear risk of bias due to poor reporting. There was no statistically significant difference in overall wound complication rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.18), nor in rates of wound dehiscence (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.98), however both these comparisons are underpowered and a treatment effect cannot be excluded. There is insufficient reliable evidence regarding the effects of electrosurgery compared with scalpel incisions on blood loss, pain, and incision time.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that making an abdominal incision with electrosurgery may be as safe as using a scalpel. However, these conclusions are based on relatively few events and more research is needed. The relative effects of scalpels and electrosurgery are unclear for the outcomes of blood loss, pain, and incision time.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
22696355
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"