-
World Journal of Pediatric Surgery 2022The purpose of the study is to compare the labial frenectomy between the laser surgery (erbium yttrium aluminum garnet and neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet...
AIM
The purpose of the study is to compare the labial frenectomy between the laser surgery (erbium yttrium aluminum garnet and neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG and Nd:YAG)) and the scalpel method.
METHODS
The trial was a randomized controlled test. Thirty four patients aged from 5 to 10 years requiring the frenectomy were included in this study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: group A: Er:YAG and Nd:YAG laser group and group B: scalpel group. In addition, this comparison considered the following factors: surgical time and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score, which includes intraoperative pain, postoperative pain and complications, such as speaking and chewing, for 1 day and 7 days following labial frenectomy. After 3 months, we recorded the healing outcome by photos.
RESULTS
There was a statistically significant difference in mean surgical time between laser surgery (mean=224±59 s) and scalpel surgery (mean=740±168 s). According to VAS scores of the intraoperative period (3 hours after the operation and 1st postoperative day of pain), chewing and speaking were statistically higher in group B than those in group A; but in the 7th postoperative day of pain, there was no significant difference in speaking and chewing. After 1 month, all of the patient results were recorded, including the healing of wound and scar. Except for one patient in group B who had a scar, all patients achieved good results.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that Nd:YAG laser is an efficient and more comfortable alternative to the scalpel for a frenectomy in upper lip frenulum.
PubMed: 36474628
DOI: 10.1136/wjps-2021-000363 -
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 -
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) Sep 2022Augmented reality surgery systems are playing an increasing role in the operating room, but applying such systems to neurosurgery presents particular challenges. In...
Augmented reality surgery systems are playing an increasing role in the operating room, but applying such systems to neurosurgery presents particular challenges. In addition to using augmented reality technology to display the position of the surgical target position in 3D in real time, the application must also display the scalpel entry point and scalpel orientation, with accurate superposition on the patient. To improve the intuitiveness, efficiency, and accuracy of extra-ventricular drain surgery, this paper proposes an augmented reality surgical navigation system which accurately superimposes the surgical target position, scalpel entry point, and scalpel direction on a patient's head and displays this data on a tablet. The accuracy of the optical measurement system (NDI Polaris Vicra) was first independently tested, and then complemented by the design of functions to help the surgeon quickly identify the surgical target position and determine the preferred entry point. A tablet PC was used to display the superimposed images of the surgical target, entry point, and scalpel on top of the patient, allowing for correct scalpel orientation. Digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) results for the patient's computed tomography were used to create a phantom and its associated AR model. This model was then imported into the application, which was then executed on the tablet. In the preoperative phase, the technician first spent 5-7 min to superimpose the virtual image of the head and the scalpel. The surgeon then took 2 min to identify the intended target position and entry point position on the tablet, which then dynamically displayed the superimposed image of the head, target position, entry point position, and scalpel (including the scalpel tip and scalpel orientation). Multiple experiments were successfully conducted on the phantom, along with six practical trials of clinical neurosurgical EVD. In the 2D-plane-superposition model, the optical measurement system (NDI Polaris Vicra) provided highly accurate visualization (2.01 ± 1.12 mm). In hospital-based clinical trials, the average technician preparation time was 6 min, while the surgeon required an average of 3.5 min to set the target and entry-point positions and accurately overlay the orientation with an NDI surgical stick. In the preparation phase, the average time required for the DICOM-formatted image processing and program import was 120 ± 30 min. The accuracy of the designed augmented reality optical surgical navigation system met clinical requirements, and can provide a visual and intuitive guide for neurosurgeons. The surgeon can use the tablet application to obtain real-time DICOM-formatted images of the patient, change the position of the surgical entry point, and instantly obtain an updated surgical path and surgical angle. The proposed design can be used as the basis for various augmented reality brain surgery navigation systems in the future.
PubMed: 36292263
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10101815 -
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 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Nov 2014Haemorrhoidectomy is the most effective and definitive treatment for grade 3 or 4 haemorrhoids despite being associated with considerable pain. The aim of this study was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Haemorrhoidectomy is the most effective and definitive treatment for grade 3 or 4 haemorrhoids despite being associated with considerable pain. The aim of this study was to search the literature, which compares outcomes of harmonic scalpel haemorrhoidectomy and traditional surgical procedures, and conduct a quantitative meta-analysis of the randomized trials.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the major electronic databases using the keywords "harmonic scalpel haemorrhoidectomy" and "haemorrhoidectomy" and a quantitative meta-analysis conducted. The eight trials that met the inclusion criteria included 468 patients (233 in the harmonic scalpel group). Pain was the primary outcome measure, and other parameters assessed included duration of operation, length of hospital stay, time to return to work, and complications.
RESULTS
Significantly, more patients returned to work in the first post-operative week, and pain scores were an average of one unit lower following harmonic scalpel haemorrhoidectomy. Generally, the incidence of complications in the harmonic scalpel group was less than half that found in conventional haemorrhoidectomy. There was no significant difference between the groups as regards operating time or length of hospital stay. Recurrence was not reported in any of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analysis showed that harmonic scalpel haemorrhoidectomy is a safe and effective modality associated with less post-operative pain and a more rapid return to work than traditional surgery for haemorrhoids. Statistical heterogeneity was high; thus, it may be too early to place complete confidence in these results. Further RCTs are required.
Topics: Hemorrhoidectomy; Hemorrhoids; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24925353
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-014-1169-1 -
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and... Dec 2023Thyroidectomy is one of the most frequently performed surgeries. Conventional techniques using electrocautery carry the risk of tissue injury. Recently, there has been...
Thyroidectomy is one of the most frequently performed surgeries. Conventional techniques using electrocautery carry the risk of tissue injury. Recently, there has been increased use of harmonic scalpels in thyroid surgery. The harmonic scalpel utilizes ultrasonic shears for cutting and coagulation, thus minimizing thermal injury. The objective of our study was to determine differences in operative duration, hypocalcemia, and RLN palsy. This single-center retrospective comparative study included consecutive patients undergoing hemithyroidectomies using the harmonic scalpel and conventional technique in the past one year (n = 64, harmonic group = 28 and conventional group = 36). The mean operative duration for the harmonic scalpel group was 70.4 min, vs. 81.31 min for the conventional technique group, and the difference in mean duration was found to be 10.84 min ( = 0.027). There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of hypocalcemia ( = 0.751) or RLN palsy ( = 0.121). None of the patients in either group developed permanent hypocalcemia or RLN palsy. The use of a harmonic scalpel during thyroidectomy is safe. The overall surgical duration was reduced when the harmonic scalpel was used, and the complication rates were comparable to those of the conventional technique, making it a non-inferior technique for surgical intervention in thyroidectomy and warranting harmonic scalpel consideration as a valuable addition to the armamentarium of thyroid surgeons.
PubMed: 37974807
DOI: 10.1007/s12070-023-04002-x -
Cureus Jun 2021Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has replaced conventional open cholecystectomy and has become the gold standard surgery for gall bladder pathologies. The harmonic scalpel... (Review)
Review
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has replaced conventional open cholecystectomy and has become the gold standard surgery for gall bladder pathologies. The harmonic scalpel is one of the instruments used to dissect and coagulate. Most surgeons accept the usage of the harmonic scalpel in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The other standard method is electrocoagulation by electrocautery. The harmonic scalpel cholecystectomy has several advantages over other methods of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Electrocoagulation by electrocautery produces smoke which can result in damage to lateral tissues, including the gall bladder. The clips are used along with electrocoagulation to seal cystic duct and cystic artery before dissection. There are various studies about bile leakage in the case of clip application. The harmonic scalpel uses ultrasonic energy to achieve hemostasis without bleeding, dissection, and gallbladder removal from the liver bed during laparoscopic surgery by causing coagulation of proteins. The patient outcome variables such as postoperative pain, duration of hospital stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting, surgical site infections, and other complications have not been compared in review articles. In this review, we collected the information from previously published studies and reviewed the outcomes of patients undergoing harmonic scalpel cholecystectomy. Harmonic scalpel cholecystectomy reduces the duration of hospital stay, duration of operation, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and postoperative pain. Thus the harmonic scalpel can be used instead of other instruments as it has better patient outcomes.
PubMed: 34277239
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.15622 -
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 -
The Journal of Laryngology and Otology Oct 2021The Harmonic Scalpel and Ligasure (Covidien) devices are commonly used in head and neck surgery. Parotidectomy is a complex and intricate surgery that requires careful...
OBJECTIVE
The Harmonic Scalpel and Ligasure (Covidien) devices are commonly used in head and neck surgery. Parotidectomy is a complex and intricate surgery that requires careful dissection of the facial nerve. This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes in parotidectomy using these haemostatic devices with traditional scalpel and cautery.
METHOD
A systematic review of the literature was performed with subsequent meta-analysis of seven studies that compared the use of haemostatic devices to traditional scalpel and cautery in parotidectomy. Outcome measures included: temporary facial paresis, operating time, intra-operative blood loss, post-operative drain output and length of hospital stay.
RESULTS
A total of 7 studies representing 675 patients were identified: 372 patients were treated with haemostatic devices, and 303 patients were treated with scalpel and cautery. Statistically significant outcomes favouring the use of haemostatic devices included operating time, intra-operative blood loss and post-operative drain output. Outcome measures that did not favour either treatment included facial nerve paresis and length of hospital stay.
CONCLUSION
Overall, haemostatic devices were found to reduce operating time, intra-operative blood loss and post-operative drain output.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Dissection; Drainage; Electrocoagulation; Facial Nerve; Facial Paralysis; Female; Hemostasis, Surgical; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Middle Aged; Operative Time; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Parotid Gland; Postoperative Period; Surgical Instruments
PubMed: 34423755
DOI: 10.1017/S0022215121001973 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Jun 2015
Topics: Blogging; Humans; Physicians; Social Media
PubMed: 25744139
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-015-0353-8