Healing comparison of porcine cutaneous incisions made with cold steel scalpel, standard electrosurgical blade, and a novel tissue dissector.

Medical research and innovations Pub Date : 2017-10-01 Epub Date: 2017-10-27 DOI:10.15761/MRI.1000124
Albert Y Wu, Thomas J Baldwin, Bhupendra C Patel, Jeffrey W Clymer, Ryan D Lewis
{"title":"Healing comparison of porcine cutaneous incisions made with cold steel scalpel, standard electrosurgical blade, and a novel tissue dissector.","authors":"Albert Y Wu,&nbsp;Thomas J Baldwin,&nbsp;Bhupendra C Patel,&nbsp;Jeffrey W Clymer,&nbsp;Ryan D Lewis","doi":"10.15761/MRI.1000124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Standard electrosurgery provides superior hemostasis compared to a cold steel scalpel, but inferior tissue healing. A novel electrosurgical blade with an advanced waveform, the MEGADYNE ACE BLADE™ 700 Soft Tissue Dissector (ACE), was designed to provide both excellent hemostasis and wound healing. This study compared ACE to scalpel and standard electrosurgery in a porcine model of wound healing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Skin incisions from six pigs were evaluated at time points of 0, 1, 2, 3 and 6 weeks after application of the three devices. Histopathology was performed on samples from each time point. For each non-initial time point, the healing incisions were photographed for later evaluation by expert graders, and excised for wound strength testing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Time 0 photomicrographs showed a gradient of thermal tissue damage by initial incision, ranging from no damage made by the scalpel, minimal damage made by ACE, and twice the ACE damage made by a nonstick PTFE-coated electrosurgical blade. Histopathologic analysis at 6 weeks showed comparable dermal scar width measurements for scalpel and ACE incisions. Scars were wider for incisions made by standard electrosurgical blade. Wound strength was greater for scalpel and ACE than for standard electrosurgery. Cosmetic results at 6 weeks were not significantly different between scalpel and ACE incisions, while standard electrosurgical blade incisions were significantly inferior to ACE (odds ratio: 53.4, p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The MEGADYNE ACE BLADE™ 700 Soft Tissue Dissector represents a significant improvement in electrosurgical technology for skin incisions and dispels the traditional concerns of delayed healing and poor cosmetic result that have been attributed to using conventional electrosurgical blades for skin incisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":93126,"journal":{"name":"Medical research and innovations","volume":"1 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7561048/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical research and innovations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15761/MRI.1000124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/10/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Standard electrosurgery provides superior hemostasis compared to a cold steel scalpel, but inferior tissue healing. A novel electrosurgical blade with an advanced waveform, the MEGADYNE ACE BLADE™ 700 Soft Tissue Dissector (ACE), was designed to provide both excellent hemostasis and wound healing. This study compared ACE to scalpel and standard electrosurgery in a porcine model of wound healing.

Methods: Skin incisions from six pigs were evaluated at time points of 0, 1, 2, 3 and 6 weeks after application of the three devices. Histopathology was performed on samples from each time point. For each non-initial time point, the healing incisions were photographed for later evaluation by expert graders, and excised for wound strength testing.

Results: Time 0 photomicrographs showed a gradient of thermal tissue damage by initial incision, ranging from no damage made by the scalpel, minimal damage made by ACE, and twice the ACE damage made by a nonstick PTFE-coated electrosurgical blade. Histopathologic analysis at 6 weeks showed comparable dermal scar width measurements for scalpel and ACE incisions. Scars were wider for incisions made by standard electrosurgical blade. Wound strength was greater for scalpel and ACE than for standard electrosurgery. Cosmetic results at 6 weeks were not significantly different between scalpel and ACE incisions, while standard electrosurgical blade incisions were significantly inferior to ACE (odds ratio: 53.4, p<0.001).

Conclusion: The MEGADYNE ACE BLADE™ 700 Soft Tissue Dissector represents a significant improvement in electrosurgical technology for skin incisions and dispels the traditional concerns of delayed healing and poor cosmetic result that have been attributed to using conventional electrosurgical blades for skin incisions.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
冷钢手术刀、标准电刀和新型组织解剖刀对猪皮肤切口愈合的比较。
背景:与冷钢手术刀相比,标准电手术止血效果更好,但组织愈合效果较差。MEGADYNE ACE blade™700软组织解剖刀(ACE)是一种具有先进波形的新型电刀,旨在提供出色的止血和伤口愈合。本研究比较了ACE与手术刀和标准电手术在猪伤口愈合模型中的应用。方法:分别在使用三种器械后0、1、2、3和6周的时间点对6头猪的皮肤切口进行评估。对每个时间点的样本进行组织病理学检查。对于每个非初始时间点,对愈合切口进行拍照,供专家评分者稍后评估,并切除进行伤口强度测试。结果:Time 0显微照片显示初始切口对热组织的损伤有梯度,从手术刀无损伤到ACE损伤最小,到不粘ptfe涂层电刀对ACE损伤的两倍。6周的组织病理学分析显示,手术刀切口和ACE切口的皮肤疤痕宽度测量值相当。标准电刀切口的疤痕较宽。手术刀和ACE的伤口强度大于标准电手术。手术刀切口与ACE切口6周美容效果无显著差异,而标准电刀切口明显低于ACE切口(优势比:53.4,p)。MEGADYNE ACE BLADE™700软组织解剖器代表了皮肤切口电刀技术的重大改进,消除了传统电刀治疗皮肤切口所带来的延迟愈合和美容效果差的担忧。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Development of a novel dental thermal imaging application Catatonic stupor and seizures after open-heart surgery: Case report Parameter study of the J-integral over a craze line in a root-channelled tooth Covid-19 and Human Health The durable socio-economic status in the COVID-19 outbreak in Bangladesh
×
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