Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2003
A randomised trial of knife versus diathermy in pilonidal disease.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Duxbury M S, Blake S M, Dashfield A, Lambert A W
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pilonidal disease is a common debilitating condition. This prospective randomised study compared excision of pilonidal disease with a scalpel or diathermy with respect to operation time, postoperative pain, functional recovery and wound healing.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for pilonidal disease were randomised to excision by scalpel (group 1) or diathermy (group 2). Patients received regular peri-operative oral analgesia and a standardised general anaesthetic technique. Duration of operation was recorded. Following surgery, pain, analgesic requirements, sedation, nausea and vomiting scores and time to mobilise and time to complete healing were compared.
RESULTS: Statistical significance between groups was obtained for five outcomes after 32 patients had been recruited; of these, 81% were admitted as emergencies with an abscess. The duration of surgery in group 2 was significantly less, postoperative pain scores and morphine requirements were lower and mobility was regained sooner.
CONCLUSIONS: We advocate the use of diathermy needle rather than scalpel blade when undertaking excision of pilonidal disease in both acute and chronic patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for pilonidal disease were randomised to excision by scalpel (group 1) or diathermy (group 2). Patients received regular peri-operative oral analgesia and a standardised general anaesthetic technique. Duration of operation was recorded. Following surgery, pain, analgesic requirements, sedation, nausea and vomiting scores and time to mobilise and time to complete healing were compared.
RESULTS: Statistical significance between groups was obtained for five outcomes after 32 patients had been recruited; of these, 81% were admitted as emergencies with an abscess. The duration of surgery in group 2 was significantly less, postoperative pain scores and morphine requirements were lower and mobility was regained sooner.
CONCLUSIONS: We advocate the use of diathermy needle rather than scalpel blade when undertaking excision of pilonidal disease in both acute and chronic patients.