A comparative study between electrocautery and steel scalpel in making abdominal wall incision in caesarean section

Gupta, Sonika; Mehta, A. C.; Gupta, Vikrant

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20172295

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results indicated that the duration of surgery in the electrosurgery group was shorter than in the scalpel group (P < 0.05). This result was consistent with the results of the study by AbdElaal et al (12) and Gupta et al, (13) which indicates the positive effect of electrosurgery on reducing surgery time. However, it was not in line with the results of the study by Isci Bostanci et al (14).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

The Outcomes of Using Scalpel and Electrosurgery Methods for Anterior Abdominal Wall Incision During Cesarean Section

Akbari,

Mahmoudian,

Mousavi Nasab

et al. 2023

Ann Mil Health Sci Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There are different ways to make a surgical incision. The most widely used ones are the use of scalpel and electrosurgery. Each of these methods has advantages and disadvantages that affect its use. Objectives: This study aimed to compare scalpel and electrosurgery methods in cutting the anterior abdominal wall during Cesarean section. Methods: This double-blind clinical trial manner was conducted by permuted block randomization. The participants were placed in two groups. In the scalpel group, incisions were made with a scalpel, and in the electrosurgery group, incisions were made with an electrosurgical pencil. This clinical trial was conducted on 86 pregnant women who were candidates for Cesarean section with spinal anesthesia. The inclusion criteria were an age range of 18 - 45 years, gestational age of 37 - 41 weeks, Pfannenstiel skin incision, and willingness to participate. The exclusion criteria were emergency Cesarean section, vertical skin incisions, incomplete medical files, chronic skin diseases, allergy to antibiotics, consuming anticoagulants, cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and underlying diseases. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of intraoperative bleeding, newborn Apgar score, postoperative pain, and wound complications. However, the duration of surgery (P = 0.012), incision time (P = 0.049), and hemodynamic status showed a significant difference (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The use of electrosurgery to make a surgical incision does not pose a risk to the patient if safety points are followed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

The Outcomes of Using Scalpel and Electrosurgery Methods for Anterior Abdominal Wall Incision During Cesarean Section

Akbari,

Mahmoudian,

Mousavi Nasab

et al. 2023

Ann Mil Health Sci Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the current study, the median operation time in the diathermygroup was 44 minutes (range 37 to 52 minutes) which was slightly shorter as in comparison to the scalpel-group (median duration was 46 minutes with range between 40 and 56 seconds), but it didn't achieve a statistically significant difference. This was in agreement with Gupta et al (15) who reported that the mean operating time was found to be less in the electrocautery group in comparison with scalpel-group, the difference is statistically insignificant with a P value of <0.0001. Also, AbdElaal et al (11) showed that the surgical period in their work revealed a significant change among diathermy and scalpel being shorter in diathermy.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Comparison between Cutting Diathermy and Surgical Scalpel for Skin Incision during Cesarean Section

Shaaban¹,

Elshorbagy

Rashed

2022

SJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction and aim: Caesarean section (C-section) is one of the commonest surgeries accomplished all over the world, and it has several surgical methods. This work aimed to study the safety and efficacy of cutting diathermy for skin incision during C-section in comparison to surgical scalpel. Methodology: This was a prospective randomized comparative study that was performed in the Obstetrics and Gynecology department, Al-Azhar university hospitals (New Damietta) in the interval between September 2019 to October 2020. Results: The visual analogue scale (VAS) score in the diathermy-group was statistically significantly lower as in comparison to the scalpel-group at 2, 6, 12 and 24 h post-operative. Also, there was an increase in the VAS score in the two groups at 2, 6, and 12 hours’ post-operative as in comparison to the first hour post-operative. This difference didn’t achieve a statistically significant difference except at 12 hours (0.005 and 0.001) in the diathermy-group and scalpel-group respectively. Conclusion: The utilization of diathermy for skin incision in C-section in this work was accompanying with decreased incisional bleeding, incisional period, surgical period and post-operative pains. It had no impact on wound closures (epithelialization) and wasn’t accompanied with any postponement in wounds healing. It was pronounced safely in this work if performed in the suitable way and method with slight or no side-effects.

show abstract

“…A later randomized controlled trial by Elbohoty et al [23] found significantly reduced skin-to-peritoneum incision time, blood loss, and postoperative pain but no significant difference in wound complications when electrocautery incision was used in repeat CD. Gupta et al [24] used electrocautery for the skin incision and subcutaneous incisions and found reduced operating time with comparable wound complications in the two groups. Rodriguez and Reyes [25] limited the use of electrocautery to the skin incision followed up by standard protocols for the subsequent incisions and found no significant difference regarding wound infection postoperative pain at 24th hour or 72nd hour.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Earlier studies reported no significant difference between the two methods regarding blood loss or overall wound complications in women undergoing elective CD [21,22]. However, some of the more recent randomized controlled trials indicated advantages for electrocautery incision in skin-toperitoneum incision time, blood loss, and postoperative pain compared to the cold-scalpel incision in women undergoing CD [23][24][25]. Here we present our randomized controlled trial comparing the use of cold-steel scalpel or electrocautery blade for subcutaneous incisions in women undergoing repeat CD in terms of blood loss and postoperative pain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Comparison of electrocautery and scalpel for blood loss and postoperative pain in Pfannenstiel incisions in recurrent cesarean sections: a randomized controlled trial

2021

Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Limited data is available on the use of cold-scalpel and electrocautery blades in Cesarean delivery (CD) operations. This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare their use for subcutaneous incisions in terms of blood loss and postoperative pain in women undergoing repeat CD. Methods: A total of 149 women scheduled for elective CD underwent spinal anesthesia, Pfannenstiel transverse skin incision with a cold-scalpel blade, and subsequent subcutaneous incisions until the peritoneum with a cold-scalpel or electrocautery blade. Perioperative blood loss and postoperative pain were evaluated. Results: The groups were similar in terms of maternal age, physical characteristics, and gestational age. The electrocautery group recorded significantly less blood loss and pain at the postoperative 6th and 12th hours. No significant correlation was found between blood loss or pain and women's physical characteristics or gestational age. Discussion: Perioperative and postoperative pain associated with CD is one of the predominant causes of anxiety in mothers. This study demonstrated that the use of electrocautery for subcutaneous incisions was associated with lower blood loss and lower postoperative pain compared to the cold-scalpel incisions in pregnant women undergoing repeat C-sections with Pfannenstiel incision. The study supports the recently shifting trend regarding the use of electrocautery instead of the scalpel.

show abstract

A comparative study between electrocautery and steel scalpel in making abdominal wall incision in caesarean section

Cited by 4 publications

References 7 publications

The Outcomes of Using Scalpel and Electrosurgery Methods for Anterior Abdominal Wall Incision During Cesarean Section

The Outcomes of Using Scalpel and Electrosurgery Methods for Anterior Abdominal Wall Incision During Cesarean Section

Comparison between Cutting Diathermy and Surgical Scalpel for Skin Incision during Cesarean Section

Comparison of electrocautery and scalpel for blood loss and postoperative pain in Pfannenstiel incisions in recurrent cesarean sections: a randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About