-
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Mar 2022Background and Objectives: Excisional hemorrhoidectomy is considered as a mainstay operation for high-grade hemorrhoids and complicated hemorrhoids. However,... (Review)
Review
Background and Objectives: Excisional hemorrhoidectomy is considered as a mainstay operation for high-grade hemorrhoids and complicated hemorrhoids. However, postoperative pain remains a challenging problem after hemorrhoidectomy. This systematic review aims to identify pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for reducing post-hemorrhoidectomy pain. Materials and Methods: The databases of Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched for randomized controlled trails (published in English language with full-text from 1981 to 30 September 2021) to include comparative studies examining post-hemorrhoidectomy pain as their primary outcomes between an intervention and another intervention (or a sham or placebo). Results: Some 157 studies were included in this review with additional information from 15 meta-analyses. Fundamentally, strategies to reduce post-hemorrhoidectomy pain were categorized into four groups: anesthetic methods, surgical techniques, intraoperative adjuncts, and postoperative interventions. In brief, local anesthesia-alone or combined with intravenous sedation was the most effective anesthetic method for excisional hemorrhoidectomy. Regarding surgical techniques, closed (Ferguson) hemorrhoidectomy performed with a vascular sealing device or an ultrasonic scalpel was recommended. Lateral internal anal sphincterotomy may be performed as a surgical adjunct to reduce post-hemorrhoidectomy pain, although it increased risks of anal incontinence. Chemical sphincterotomy (botulinum toxin, topical calcium channel blockers, and topical glyceryl trinitrate) was also efficacious in reducing postoperative pain. So were other topical agents such as anesthetic cream, 10% metronidazole ointment, and 10% sucralfate ointment. Postoperative administration of oral metronidazole, flavonoids, and laxatives was associated with a significant reduction in post-hemorrhoidectomy pain. Conclusions: This systematic review comprehensively covers evidence-based strategies to reduce pain after excisional hemorrhoidectomy. Areas for future research on this topic are also addressed at the end of this article.
Topics: Hemorrhoidectomy; Hemorrhoids; Humans; Ointments; Pain, Postoperative; Vascular Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 35334594
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58030418 -
Cutting electrocautery versus scalpel for surgical incisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Journal of Surgical Research Dec 2017Although cutting electrocautery can be superior to the scalpel in reducing blood loss and incisional time, several reports associated electrocautery with higher rates of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although cutting electrocautery can be superior to the scalpel in reducing blood loss and incisional time, several reports associated electrocautery with higher rates of wound infection, impaired healing, and worse cosmesis. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare cutting electrocautery versus scalpel for surgical incisions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We conducted a computerized literature search of five electronic databases and included all published original studies comparing cutting electrocautery and scalpel surgical incisions. Relevant data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled as odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean difference (SMD) values in a meta-analysis model, using RevMan and Comprehensive Meta-analysis software.
RESULTS
Forty-one studies (36 randomized trials, four observational, and one quasirandom study) were included in the pooled analysis (6422 participants). Compared with the scalpel incision, cutting electrocautery resulted in significantly less blood loss (SMD = -1.16, 95% CI [-1.60 to -0.72]), shorter incisional (SMD = -0.63, 95% CI [-0.96 to -0.29]) and operative times (SMD = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.12 to -0.05]), and lower pain scores (SMD = -0.91, 95% CI [-1.27 to -0.55]) with no significant differences in terms of wound infection rates (OR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.74-1.15]) or overall subjective scar score (SMD = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.72 to 0.75]).
CONCLUSIONS
Surgical incision using electrocautery can be quicker with less blood loss and postoperative pain scores than the scalpel incision. No statistically significant difference was found between both techniques in terms of postoperative wound complications, hospital stay duration, and wound cosmetic characteristics. Therefore, we recommend routine use of cutting electrocautery for surgical incisions.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Cicatrix; Electrocoagulation; Humans; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Pain, Postoperative; Surgical Instruments; Surgical Wound; Surgical Wound Infection; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 29180177
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.06.093 -
Cureus Sep 2022Acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly encountered surgical emergencies worldwide. The laparoscopic approach for managing acute appendicitis is gaining... (Review)
Review
Acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly encountered surgical emergencies worldwide. The laparoscopic approach for managing acute appendicitis is gaining popularity over open appendicectomy in the current surgical practice. The advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy are early recovery, fewer wound complications, less pain and better cosmesis. One of the most critical steps in laparoscopic appendicectomy is a secure appendicular stump closure. Life-threatening postoperative complications are often encountered following the breakdown of appendicular stump closure. There are several methods to achieve appendicular stump closure such as intra-corporeal knotting, endoloops, external corporeal knotting and pushing knot inside, endoscopic linear cutting stapler (endo GIA), and endoclips. A meta-analysis on the technique of appendicular stump closure in laparoscopic appendicectomy failed to demonstrate the superiority of one method over the other. In the last few years, many authors have evaluated the outcome of sutureless appendicectomy performed using devices like a harmonic scalpel. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed to summarise the current evidence regarding the utility and safety of harmonic scalpel in sutureless appendicectomy. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted as per the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic, detailed search was carried out by the authors in the electronic database, including Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, Google scholar and clinical trial registry. Studies were selected and compared based on outcomes such as operative time, hospital stay, postoperative paralytic ileus, wound infection, and total complications. Statistical analysis was performed using the random effect model, fixed-effect model, pooled risk ratio, pooled mean difference and I heterogeneity. Four comparative studies with a total of 642 patients (376 male and 266 females) were included in the analysis. There were 359 patients in the conventional technique of appendicular stump closure group and 283 patients in the harmonic scalpel for appendicular stump closure group. Pooled analysis of the outcome measure of total complications showed that the use of harmonic scalpel for closure of appendiceal stump does not result in an increased incidence of complications as compared to the conventional technology of appendiceal stump closure. Pooled analysis of the outcome measure of mean operative time revealed a statistically significant reduction in the operative time in the patients where harmonic scalpel has been used for the management of appendiceal stump as compared to conventional methods (pooled mean difference of -12.96 with 95% CI -15.42, -10.50). Appendiceal stump closure during laparoscopic appendectomy by harmonic scalpel (HS) is comparable with the conventional techniques in terms of hospital stay, wound infection, postoperative paralytic ileus, and total complications. The use of a harmonic scalpel for closure of appendicular stump is associated with a reduction of the mean operative time of laparoscopic appendicectomy.
PubMed: 36159348
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28759 -
Cureus Dec 2022Percutaneous scalpel tenotomy is frequently performed as part of congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV) to correct the equinus deformity. The use of a scalpel is... (Review)
Review
Percutaneous scalpel tenotomy is frequently performed as part of congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV) to correct the equinus deformity. The use of a scalpel is associated with complications such as neurovascular bundle damage and pseudoaneurysms. In the literature, a percutaneous large-bore needle has been found to be a safer alternative to a scalpel for performing tenotomies. The goal of this study was to conduct a systematic review and report a single-center case series on the use of percutaneous needle tenotomy in the treatment of CTEV. A Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA)-compliant literature search was conducted to identify studies describing the use of a percutaneous needle tenotomy in the treatment of idiopathic CTEV. A retrospective case series of patients with idiopathic CTEV treated with percutaneous needle tenotomy over a seven-year period from a single center were also conducted. The patients' demographics, the location of the clubfoot, and the Pirani score were all recorded. An analysis of descriptive statistics was carried out. Continuous data were expressed as mean and SD, whereas categorical variables were expressed as absolute numbers and percentages (%). The systematic review included eight papers with a total of 1026 feet and a mean age of 10.4 weeks (SD 5.9). There were 47 (0.04%) complications across all studies, with a pooled success rate of 95%. Eleven patients (16 feet) were included in the single-center case study. The patients' initial Pirani score was 4.8 (SD 1.5), with a final score of 0. (SD 0). Four complications occurred in the patient's cohort - one minor bleeding and three recurrences as a result of poor compliance with the post-tenotomy foot abduction brace. In conclusion, the percutaneous Achilles tenotomy of a CTEV foot with a large bore needle is a safe and effective alternative.
PubMed: 36694491
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.32812 -
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and... Dec 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of coblation versus harmonic scalpel...
AIM
This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of coblation versus harmonic scalpel methods among patients undergoing tonsillectomy.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were systematically screened from inception until October 2022. The outcomes were summarized as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference/standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Six RCTs were analyzed, encompassing a sum of 461 patients (harmonic scalpel = 233 patients and coblation = 228 patients). The overall quality assessment was low risk of bias in two RCTs, some concerns of bias in three RCTs, and high risk of bias in one RCT. There was no significant difference between harmonic scalpel and coblation groups regarding the mean operative time (n = 6 RCTs, MD=-7.45 min, 95% CI [-15.26, 0.01], p = 0.06) mean intraoperative blood loss (n = 5 RCTs, MD=-36.03 ml, 95% CI [-77.46, 5.41], p = 0.09), and rate of postoperative hemorrhage (n = 5 RCTs, RR = 0.59, 95% CI [0.25, 1.39], p = 0.23). The overall postoperative pain score was significantly reduced in favor of the coblation group compared with the harmonic scalpel group (n = 5 RCTs, MD = 0.40, 95% CI [0.10, 0.69], p = 0.009)".
CONCLUSIONS
The harmonic scalpel and coblation techniques share equal efficacy among patients undergoing tonsillectomy. The reduction in postoperative pain score provided by the coblation method is not clinically meaningful in clinical practice. Additional RCTs are needed to consolidate the power and quality of the presented evidence.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12070-023-04022-7.
PubMed: 37974790
DOI: 10.1007/s12070-023-04022-7 -
World Journal of Surgical Oncology Jan 2018We performed an umbrella review of systematic reviews summarizing the evidence on the Harmonic scalpel (HS) compared with conventional techniques in surgical oncology... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
We performed an umbrella review of systematic reviews summarizing the evidence on the Harmonic scalpel (HS) compared with conventional techniques in surgical oncology (including lymph node dissection).
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to end of March of 2017 for meta-analyses or systematic reviews of randomized trials comparing HS to conventional techniques in surgical oncology. We assessed the quality of included systematic reviews with AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) and assessed the certainty in evidence for each pooled outcome using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation).
RESULTS
We identified ten systematic reviews on breast cancer (n = 3), gastric cancers (n = 3), oral, head, and neck cancers (n = 1), and colon cancers (n = 3). Most reviews received a higher rating using AMSTAR. For operative time, systematic reviews reported a reduction of 25 to 29 min for HS compared with conventional methods across oncology types, with the exception of breast cancer where little differences were observed (very low to moderate quality of evidence (GRADE)). For blood loss and drainage volume, the majority of reviews reported statistically significant reductions with HS, and reductions ranged from 42 to 141 mL, and from 42 to 292 mL, respectively (very low to moderate quality of evidence). Hospitalization days were reported to decrease with use of HS by 0.2 to 3.2 days; however, reductions were only statistically significant for half of the included reviews (low to moderate quality of evidence). Regarding perioperative complications, two of six reviews reported a significantly reduced risk with HS use (breast cancer surgery) (moderate to high quality evidence)).
CONCLUSION
Across surgical oncology types, the majority of included systematic reviews showed a statistically significant or numerical improvement in surgical outcomes with use of the HS compared with conventional methods. Well-designed randomized studies with large sample sizes will help to provide more precise estimates and reduce the risk of heterogeneity.
Topics: Humans; Neoplasms; Operative Time; Prognosis; Surgical Instruments; Surgical Oncology
PubMed: 29301552
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-017-1298-x -
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons... May 2022Transient or permanent damage to the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) during thyroidectomy is of paramount importance for patient quality of life. The aim of this study... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Transient or permanent damage to the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) during thyroidectomy is of paramount importance for patient quality of life. The aim of this study is to systematically review the literature concerning the role of the most popular energy-based vessel-sealing devices (LigaSure™ (LS) and Harmonic Scalpel (HS)) in preservation of the RLN during thyroidectomy. The safety and inferiority or superiority of LS and HS compared with conventional haemostatic techniques are highlighted.
METHODS
A systematic search of the literature was performed. Clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies that significantly compared the use of LS and HS with conventional haemostasis regarding the postoperative incidence of RLN palsy were included.
FINDINGS
The search resulted in 43 studies, including 17,953 patients treated using energy-based devices or conventional haemostatic methods. Concerning the incidence of RLN palsy, 40 studies showed no significant difference between the energy-based device and conventional groups, whereas two studies demonstrated a significant superiority in performance for LS and HS compared with conventional haemostasis. Only one study exhibited significant inferiority of LS and HS compared with conventional methods. No statistical relationship was observed between energy-based devices and conventional techniques regarding permanent damage to the RLN.
CONCLUSION
The performance of both LS and HS shows no inferiority compared with conventional haemostatic techniques, regarding damage to the laryngeal nerve. Further well-designed studies are needed to investigate their potential benefit in preservation of the RLN.
Topics: Humans; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve; Retrospective Studies; Thyroidectomy; Vocal Cord Paralysis
PubMed: 34415202
DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2021.0125 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Scalpels or electrosurgery can be used to make abdominal incisions. The potential benefits of electrosurgery may include reduced blood loss, dry and rapid separation of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Scalpels or electrosurgery can be used to make abdominal incisions. The potential benefits of electrosurgery may include reduced blood loss, dry and rapid separation of tissue, and reduced risk of cutting injury to surgeons. Postsurgery risks possibly associated with electrosurgery may include poor wound healing and complications such as surgical site infection.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of electrosurgery compared with scalpel for major abdominal incisions.
SEARCH METHODS
The first version of this review included studies published up to February 2012. In October 2016, for this first update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, and the registry for ongoing trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov). We did not apply date or language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies considered in this analysis were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared electrosurgery to scalpel for creating abdominal incisions during major open abdominal surgery. Incisions could be any orientation (vertical, oblique, or transverse) and surgical setting (elective or emergency). Electrosurgical incisions were made through major layers of the abdominal wall, including subcutaneous tissue and the musculoaponeurosis (a sheet of connective tissue that attaches muscles), regardless of the technique used to incise the skin and peritoneum. Scalpel incisions were made through major layers of abdominal wall including skin, subcutaneous tissue, and musculoaponeurosis, regardless of the technique used to incise the abdominal peritoneum. Primary outcomes analysed were wound infection, time to wound healing, and wound dehiscence. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, wound incision time, wound-related blood loss, and adhesion or scar formation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. When necessary, we contacted trial authors for missing data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MD) and 95% CI for continuous data.
MAIN RESULTS
The updated search found seven additional RCTs making a total of 16 included studies (2769 participants). All studies compared electrosurgery to scalpel and were considered in one comparison. Eleven studies, analysing 2178 participants, reported on wound infection. There was no clear difference in wound infections between electrosurgery and scalpel (7.7% for electrosurgery versus 7.4% for scalpel; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.54; low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and serious imprecision). None of the included studies reported time to wound healing.It is uncertain whether electrosurgery decreases wound dehiscence compared to scalpel (2.7% for electrosurgery versus 2.4% for scalpel; RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.50; 1064 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and very serious imprecision).There was no clinically important difference in incision time between electrosurgery and scalpel (MD -45.74 seconds, 95% CI -88.41 to -3.07; 325 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for serious imprecision). There was no clear difference in incision time per wound area between electrosurgery and scalpel (MD -0.58 seconds/cm, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.09; 282 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence downgraded for very serious imprecision).There was no clinically important difference in mean blood loss between electrosurgery and scalpel (MD -20.10 mL, 95% CI -28.16 to -12.05; 241 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for serious imprecision). Two studies reported on mean wound-related blood loss per wound area; however, we were unable to pool the studies due to considerable heterogeneity. It was uncertain whether electrosurgery decreased wound-related blood loss per wound area. We could not reach a conclusion on the effects of the two interventions on pain and appearance of scars for various reasons such as small number of studies, insufficient data, the presence of conflicting data, and different measurement methods.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The certainty of evidence was moderate to very low due to risk of bias and imprecise results. Low-certainty evidence shows no clear difference in wound infection between the scalpel and electrosurgery. There is a need for more research to determine the relative effectiveness of scalpel compared with electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions.
Topics: Abdominal Wall; Blood Loss, Surgical; Cicatrix; Electrosurgery; Humans; Operative Time; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Instruments; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection; Tissue Adhesions; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28931203
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005987.pub3 -
Head & Neck Oct 2016The purpose of this review was to compare the efficacy and surgical outcomes of total thyroidectomy between the Focus Harmonic scalpel (Ethicon, Cincinnati, OH) and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this review was to compare the efficacy and surgical outcomes of total thyroidectomy between the Focus Harmonic scalpel (Ethicon, Cincinnati, OH) and other hemostatic procedures.
METHODS
An extensive search was conducted using the PubMed and Cochrane databases from January 2008 to October 2014. Operating time, blood loss, pain, complications, and hospital stay were evaluated.
RESULTS
When compared with conventional techniques or LigaSure Precise Vessel Sealing System (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN), the use of the Focus Harmonic scalpel reduced operative time by 22,428 minutes and blood loss by 13,914 mL. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the Focus Harmonic scalpel group with a mean reduction of 0.410 days.
CONCLUSION
According to our meta-analysis, when comparing the Focus Harmonic scalpel versus conventional techniques, it seems evident that the use of this device in thyroid surgery is associated with a mean reduction in operating time, blood loss, and hospital stay, without any increase in pain and complications. There was no appreciable difference between the Focus Harmonic scalpel and the LigaSure Precise Vessel Sealing System. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: First-1578, 2016.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Hemostasis, Surgical; Humans; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Surgical Instruments; Thyroidectomy
PubMed: 27224745
DOI: 10.1002/hed.24449 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Oct 2022Background and Objectives: While laparoscopic appendectomy is standardized, techniques for appendiceal stump closure and mesoappendix division remain variable. Novel... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background and Objectives: While laparoscopic appendectomy is standardized, techniques for appendiceal stump closure and mesoappendix division remain variable. Novel vessel sealing techniques are increasingly utilized ubiquitously. We sought to systematically summarize all relevant data and to define the current evidence on the safety and utility of energy devices for clipless−sutureless laparoscopic appendectomy in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: This review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Inclusion criteria included studies with laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis. The intervention included patients undergoing division of mesoappendix and/or securing of the appendicular base using diathermy (Monopolar or Bipolar or LigaSure Sealing Device) or Harmonic Scalpel (Group A) compared to patients undergoing division of mesoappendix and/or securing of the appendicular base using endoclip or Hem-o-lok or ligature (Group B). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Downs and Black scale. The outcomes of surgical site infection (SSI) or intra-abdominal collection, postoperative ileus, average operative duration, and length of hospital stay (LHS) were compared. Results: Six comparative studies were included; three were retrospective, two were prospective, and one was ambispective. Meta-analysis revealed a shorter operative duration in Group A with respect to appendicular base ligation (MD −12.34, 95% CI −16.57 to −8.11, p < 0.00001) and mesoappendix division (MD −8.06, 95% CI −14.03 to −2.09, p = 0.008). The pooled risk ratios showed no difference in SSI between groups. Additionally, no difference was observed in LHS. The risk of postoperative ileus was higher in group B regarding mesoappendix division (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93, p = 0.02), but no difference was found concerning appendicular base ligation. The included studies showed a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Conclusions: Clipless−sutureless laparoscopic appendectomy is safe and fast. Postoperative ileus seems less common with energy devices for mesoappendix division. However, the studies included have a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Further studies addressing the individual devices with surgeons of similar levels are needed.
Topics: Humans; Appendectomy; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Laparoscopy; Appendicitis; Length of Stay; Ileus; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36363491
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58111535