The British journal of surgery · 2015
Randomized double-blind trial comparing the cosmetic outcome of cutting diathermy versus scalpel for skin incisions.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Aird L N F, Bristol S G, Phang P T, Raval M J, Brown C J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists about whether cutting diathermy for skin incisions leads to a cosmetically inferior scar. Cosmetic outcomes were compared between skin incisions created with cutting diathermy versus scalpel. Wound infection rates and postoperative incisional pain were also compared.
METHODS: This was a randomized double-blind trial comparing cutting diathermy and scalpel in patients undergoing bowel resection. Scar cosmesis was assessed at 6 months after surgery by a plastic surgeon and a research associate using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Patients also used POSAS to self-evaluate their scars. Wound infections within 30 days were recorded, and incision pain scores were measured on the first 5 days after operation.
RESULTS: A total of 66 patients were randomized to cutting diathermy (31) or scalpel (35). At 6 months, there was no significant difference between the diathermy and scalpel groups in mean(s.d.) VSS scores (4·9(2·6) versus 5·0(1·9); P = 0·837), mean POSAS total scores (19·2(8·0) versus 20·0(7·4); P = 0·684) or subjective POSAS total scores (20·2(12·1) versus 21·3(10·4); P = 0·725). Neither were there significant differences in wound infection rates between the groups (5 of 30 versus 5 of 32; P = 1·000). Pain scores on day 1 after operation were significantly lower in the diathermy group (mean 1·68 versus 3·13; P = 0·018), but were not significantly different on days 2-5.
CONCLUSION: Cutting diathermy is a cosmetically acceptable technique for abdominal skin incisions. There is no increased risk of wound infection, and diathermy may convey benefit in terms of early postoperative wound pain.
REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01496404 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
METHODS: This was a randomized double-blind trial comparing cutting diathermy and scalpel in patients undergoing bowel resection. Scar cosmesis was assessed at 6 months after surgery by a plastic surgeon and a research associate using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Patients also used POSAS to self-evaluate their scars. Wound infections within 30 days were recorded, and incision pain scores were measured on the first 5 days after operation.
RESULTS: A total of 66 patients were randomized to cutting diathermy (31) or scalpel (35). At 6 months, there was no significant difference between the diathermy and scalpel groups in mean(s.d.) VSS scores (4·9(2·6) versus 5·0(1·9); P = 0·837), mean POSAS total scores (19·2(8·0) versus 20·0(7·4); P = 0·684) or subjective POSAS total scores (20·2(12·1) versus 21·3(10·4); P = 0·725). Neither were there significant differences in wound infection rates between the groups (5 of 30 versus 5 of 32; P = 1·000). Pain scores on day 1 after operation were significantly lower in the diathermy group (mean 1·68 versus 3·13; P = 0·018), but were not significantly different on days 2-5.
CONCLUSION: Cutting diathermy is a cosmetically acceptable technique for abdominal skin incisions. There is no increased risk of wound infection, and diathermy may convey benefit in terms of early postoperative wound pain.
REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01496404 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).