Comparison of Colorado Needle Electrocautery and Traditional Scalpel for Lower Eyelid Blepharoplasty Incision: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 1.5 Q3 SURGERY Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open Pub Date : 2024-11-22 eCollection Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1097/GOX.0000000000006325
Chatchai Pruksapong, Suttisun Jankajorn, Chairat Burusapat, Akaradech Attainsee, Nutthapong Wanichjaroen, Nuttadon Wongprakob, Kolid Siriwattana
{"title":"Comparison of Colorado Needle Electrocautery and Traditional Scalpel for Lower Eyelid Blepharoplasty Incision: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Chatchai Pruksapong, Suttisun Jankajorn, Chairat Burusapat, Akaradech Attainsee, Nutthapong Wanichjaroen, Nuttadon Wongprakob, Kolid Siriwattana","doi":"10.1097/GOX.0000000000006325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lower eyelid blepharoplasty is one of the most popular aesthetic procedures. Electrocautery provides a hemostatic benefit for skin incision; however, its effect on scar cosmesis remains unclear, particularly in Asian skin types. We compared the Colorado needle electrocautery (pure-cutting mode) versus the traditional scalpel in terms of efficacy, complications, and cosmetic outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective intraindividual randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of Colorado needle electrocautery and scalpel in lower blepharoplasty. The study outcomes were scar quality at different times until 1 year postoperatively, bleeding during incision, and postoperative ecchymosis. Scar quality was evaluated using 3 standard scar ratings: the Vancouver Scar Scale, Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and Hollander wound evaluation scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 25 patients, and the electrocautery side had less blood loss during incision than the scalpel side (2.6 ± 0.65 versus 5.28 ± 0.68 sticks; <i>P</i> < 0.001). The electrocautery side had less postoperative ecchymosis (<i>P</i> < 0.001); however, 1-year scar quality was not statistically significant between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Colorado needle electrocautery pure-cutting mode can be an alternative to the traditional scalpel for lower eyelid blepharoplasty skin incision because of long-term scar quality. Electrocautery also has hemostatic benefits, leading to a decrease in intraoperative and postoperative bleeding.</p>","PeriodicalId":20149,"journal":{"name":"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open","volume":"12 11","pages":"e6325"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11596443/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000006325","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Lower eyelid blepharoplasty is one of the most popular aesthetic procedures. Electrocautery provides a hemostatic benefit for skin incision; however, its effect on scar cosmesis remains unclear, particularly in Asian skin types. We compared the Colorado needle electrocautery (pure-cutting mode) versus the traditional scalpel in terms of efficacy, complications, and cosmetic outcomes.

Methods: A prospective intraindividual randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of Colorado needle electrocautery and scalpel in lower blepharoplasty. The study outcomes were scar quality at different times until 1 year postoperatively, bleeding during incision, and postoperative ecchymosis. Scar quality was evaluated using 3 standard scar ratings: the Vancouver Scar Scale, Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and Hollander wound evaluation scale.

Results: The study included 25 patients, and the electrocautery side had less blood loss during incision than the scalpel side (2.6 ± 0.65 versus 5.28 ± 0.68 sticks; P < 0.001). The electrocautery side had less postoperative ecchymosis (P < 0.001); however, 1-year scar quality was not statistically significant between the groups.

Conclusions: Colorado needle electrocautery pure-cutting mode can be an alternative to the traditional scalpel for lower eyelid blepharoplasty skin incision because of long-term scar quality. Electrocautery also has hemostatic benefits, leading to a decrease in intraoperative and postoperative bleeding.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
下眼睑眼睑成形术切口的科罗拉多针式电烧与传统手术刀的比较:随机对照试验。
背景介绍下眼睑重睑术是最受欢迎的美容手术之一。电烧可为皮肤切口止血,但其对疤痕美观的影响仍不明确,尤其是在亚洲皮肤类型中。我们比较了科罗拉多针式电烧(纯切割模式)与传统手术刀在疗效、并发症和美容效果方面的差异:方法:我们进行了一项前瞻性个体内随机对照试验,以比较科罗拉多针式电烧术和手术刀在下睑成形术中的疗效。研究结果为术后 1 年前不同时间的瘢痕质量、切口出血和术后瘀斑。疤痕质量采用三种标准疤痕评分标准进行评估:温哥华疤痕评分标准、患者和观察者疤痕评估标准以及霍兰德伤口评估标准:该研究包括 25 名患者,电灼侧在切口时的失血量少于手术刀侧(2.6 ± 0.65 对 5.28 ± 0.68 支;P P 结论:电灼侧在切口时的失血量少于手术刀侧(2.6 ± 0.65 对 5.28 ± 0.68 支):科罗拉多针式电烧纯切割模式可替代传统的手术刀,用于下眼睑重睑成形术皮肤切口,因为疤痕质量长期保持不变。电烧还具有止血功效,可减少术中和术后出血。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
13.30%
发文量
1584
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open is an open access, peer reviewed, international journal focusing on global plastic and reconstructive surgery.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open publishes on all areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including basic science/experimental studies pertinent to the field and also clinical articles on such topics as: breast reconstruction, head and neck surgery, pediatric and craniofacial surgery, hand and microsurgery, wound healing, and cosmetic and aesthetic surgery. Clinical studies, experimental articles, ideas and innovations, and techniques and case reports are all welcome article types. Manuscript submission is open to all surgeons, researchers, and other health care providers world-wide who wish to communicate their research results on topics related to plastic and reconstructive surgery. Furthermore, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open, a complimentary journal to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, provides an open access venue for the publication of those research studies sponsored by private and public funding agencies that require open access publication of study results. Its mission is to disseminate high quality, peer reviewed research in plastic and reconstructive surgery to the widest possible global audience, through an open access platform. As an open access journal, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open offers its content for free to any viewer. Authors of articles retain their copyright to the materials published. Additionally, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open provides rapid review and publication of accepted papers.
期刊最新文献
Reconstruction of Back Defect from Giant Congenital Melanocytic Nevus Using Dermal Substitute Matrix. Shifting Paradigms: A Deep Dive Into Public Perceptions of Gender-affirming Surgery. Surgical Management of Gestational Gigantomastia: A Case Report Highlighting Therapeutic Intervention. Utility of Free Fibula Flap With an Extended Banana-shaped Skin Paddle for Oro-mandibular Reconstructions. Words to Avoid During Wide-awake Local Anesthesia No Tourniquet Surgery to Enhance Patient Experience.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1