Actas dermo-sifiliograficas · 2026
Use of Electrosurgery for Skin Incision and Dissection: Randomized Comparative Study in 85 Patients.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное 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.
Ortega-Berbel L A, Eiris N, Tirado-Pérez P, López-Millán J M, Fernández-Orland A, Moreno-Ramírez D
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The use of electrosurgery for skin incision has been evaluated in other surgical fields outside dermatology, without finding differences in cosmetic outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the healing outcomes obtained with a Colorado microdissection needle or a conventional cold scalpel for skin incision and subcutaneous tissue dissection.
METHODS: Longitudinal, randomized, comparative, parallel-group study in patients requiring simple excisions on the trunk or extremities, randomly assigned to undergo surgery with a Colorado microdissection needle or a conventional cold scalpel. Three months after surgery, scars were assessed using the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS) and the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS).
RESULTS: The study included a total of 85 patients. No statistically significant differences were found in mean PSAS and OSAS scores or in local scar characteristics according to the assessments of independent observers. The complication rate was 4.7% (n=4), with no differences across groups.
LIMITATIONS: Its single-center design and the exclusion of anatomic locations with greater cosmetic impact.
CONCLUSIONS: The Colorado microdissection needle for skin incisions and tissue dissection in dermatologic surgery is not inferior to the cold scalpel in terms of healing and cosmetic scar outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the healing outcomes obtained with a Colorado microdissection needle or a conventional cold scalpel for skin incision and subcutaneous tissue dissection.
METHODS: Longitudinal, randomized, comparative, parallel-group study in patients requiring simple excisions on the trunk or extremities, randomly assigned to undergo surgery with a Colorado microdissection needle or a conventional cold scalpel. Three months after surgery, scars were assessed using the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS) and the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS).
RESULTS: The study included a total of 85 patients. No statistically significant differences were found in mean PSAS and OSAS scores or in local scar characteristics according to the assessments of independent observers. The complication rate was 4.7% (n=4), with no differences across groups.
LIMITATIONS: Its single-center design and the exclusion of anatomic locations with greater cosmetic impact.
CONCLUSIONS: The Colorado microdissection needle for skin incisions and tissue dissection in dermatologic surgery is not inferior to the cold scalpel in terms of healing and cosmetic scar outcomes.