Nicole Dos Santos Pimenta, Ana Clara Felix de Farias Santos, João Pedro Costa Esteves Almuinha Salles, Juliana Millani de Oliveira, Pedro Henrique Costa Matos da Silva, Renan Carlo Colombari
{"title":"Diathermy Versus Scalpel in Midline Abdominal Incision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Nicole Dos Santos Pimenta, Ana Clara Felix de Farias Santos, João Pedro Costa Esteves Almuinha Salles, Juliana Millani de Oliveira, Pedro Henrique Costa Matos da Silva, Renan Carlo Colombari","doi":"10.1016/j.cireng.2024.09.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Our study aimed to compare the midline abdominal incision with scalpel and diathermy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched through January 2024 following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO, ID: CRD42024516771), and only randomized controlled trials were included. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I<sup>2</sup> heterogeneity index. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six randomized controlled trials were included, from which 469 patients (51.5%) received diathermy incision and 442 patients (48.5%) underwent the scalpel technique. Patients treated with the electrocautery approach had less incision blood loss (MD -17.57 mL; P < .01). No statistically significant differences were found between groups regarding wound infection incidence, incision time, incision area or first-day postoperative pain.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Diathermy use in midline abdominal incision may be advocated as it demonstrated a significant reduction in incision-related blood loss, with no differences in wound infection or early postoperative pain incidences compared to the scalpel.</p>","PeriodicalId":93935,"journal":{"name":"Cirugia espanola","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cirugia espanola","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cireng.2024.09.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Our study aimed to compare the midline abdominal incision with scalpel and diathermy.
Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched through January 2024 following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO, ID: CRD42024516771), and only randomized controlled trials were included. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I2 heterogeneity index. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software.
Results: Six randomized controlled trials were included, from which 469 patients (51.5%) received diathermy incision and 442 patients (48.5%) underwent the scalpel technique. Patients treated with the electrocautery approach had less incision blood loss (MD -17.57 mL; P < .01). No statistically significant differences were found between groups regarding wound infection incidence, incision time, incision area or first-day postoperative pain.
Conclusion: Diathermy use in midline abdominal incision may be advocated as it demonstrated a significant reduction in incision-related blood loss, with no differences in wound infection or early postoperative pain incidences compared to the scalpel.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
