腹部手术中使用透热电疗法和手术刀切开皮肤:一项比较研究。

Mopuri Rajesh, Pulak Kumar Das, K. Bhuyan
{"title":"腹部手术中使用透热电疗法和手术刀切开皮肤:一项比较研究。","authors":"Mopuri Rajesh, Pulak Kumar Das, K. Bhuyan","doi":"10.36106/ijsr/6500201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Skin incisions are made traditionally with scalpel. The cutting diathermy for making surgical incision has\nmet with scepticism because of possible excessive scarring, impaired wound healing, higher risk of SSI.\nThis study was undertaken to compare the outcomes of diathermy and scalpel skin incisions in patients undergoing varied\nabdominal surgery in terms of incision time, blood loss, postoperative pain, wound healing, postoperative wound\ncomplications and patient's compliance. Patients and methods: One hundred patients of either sexes were considered in this\nprospective, comparative study in patients undergoing abdominal surgeries. The study population was divided into two groups\nof 50 patients each to compare the outcomes of diathermy and scalpel skin incisions in patients undergoing varied abdominal\nsurgery in terms of incision time, blood loss, postoperative pain, wound healing, postoperative wound complications and\npatient's compliance. Results and observations: The Mean duration of Incision in the Diathermy group was 13.34±5 62 secs\nand that of Scalpel group was 20.71±6.87 secs with 95% condence interval of 4.74 – 9.74. Incision time was less in\nelectrocautery group (P <0.001). The mean value of incision related blood loss in electrocautery group was 3.66± 2.15 and\nscalpel group was 11.58±4.83ml( P <0.001). Post operative pain, complications, scar compliance are comparable in both\ngroups. Conclusions: The diathermy is the ideal method of incision in high-risk patients, where both the blood loss and\noperating time are at a premium. Diathermy incisions heal like that of scalpel incisions and is comparable to each other.","PeriodicalId":12664,"journal":{"name":"Global journal for research analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"SKIN INCISIONS WITH DIATHERMY AND SCALPEL IN ABDOMINAL SURGERY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY.\",\"authors\":\"Mopuri Rajesh, Pulak Kumar Das, K. Bhuyan\",\"doi\":\"10.36106/ijsr/6500201\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Skin incisions are made traditionally with scalpel. The cutting diathermy for making surgical incision has\\nmet with scepticism because of possible excessive scarring, impaired wound healing, higher risk of SSI.\\nThis study was undertaken to compare the outcomes of diathermy and scalpel skin incisions in patients undergoing varied\\nabdominal surgery in terms of incision time, blood loss, postoperative pain, wound healing, postoperative wound\\ncomplications and patient's compliance. Patients and methods: One hundred patients of either sexes were considered in this\\nprospective, comparative study in patients undergoing abdominal surgeries. The study population was divided into two groups\\nof 50 patients each to compare the outcomes of diathermy and scalpel skin incisions in patients undergoing varied abdominal\\nsurgery in terms of incision time, blood loss, postoperative pain, wound healing, postoperative wound complications and\\npatient's compliance. Results and observations: The Mean duration of Incision in the Diathermy group was 13.34±5 62 secs\\nand that of Scalpel group was 20.71±6.87 secs with 95% condence interval of 4.74 – 9.74. Incision time was less in\\nelectrocautery group (P <0.001). The mean value of incision related blood loss in electrocautery group was 3.66± 2.15 and\\nscalpel group was 11.58±4.83ml( P <0.001). Post operative pain, complications, scar compliance are comparable in both\\ngroups. Conclusions: The diathermy is the ideal method of incision in high-risk patients, where both the blood loss and\\noperating time are at a premium. Diathermy incisions heal like that of scalpel incisions and is comparable to each other.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global journal for research analysis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global journal for research analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36106/ijsr/6500201\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global journal for research analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36106/ijsr/6500201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

皮肤切口传统上使用手术刀。本研究旨在比较电热刀和手术刀皮肤切口对接受各种腹部手术的患者在切口时间、失血量、术后疼痛、伤口愈合、术后伤口并发症和患者依从性等方面的效果。患者和方法这项前瞻性比较研究的对象是 100 名接受腹部手术的男女患者。研究对象分为两组,每组 50 名患者,分别从切口时间、失血量、术后疼痛、伤口愈合、术后伤口并发症和患者依从性等方面比较电疗和手术刀皮肤切口对不同腹部手术患者的效果。结果和观察结果:电疗组的平均切口时间为(13.34±5.62)秒,手术刀组为(20.71±6.87)秒,95%的一致性区间为(4.74-9.74)。电灼组的切口时间较短(P <0.001)。电灼组切口相关失血量平均值为 3.66±2.15 毫升,电刀组为 11.58±4.83 毫升(P <0.001)。两组术后疼痛、并发症、疤痕顺应性相当。结论:对于失血量和手术时间都非常宝贵的高危患者,电刀是理想的切口方法。电热刀切口的愈合效果与手术刀切口相同,两者不相上下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
SKIN INCISIONS WITH DIATHERMY AND SCALPEL IN ABDOMINAL SURGERY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY.
Skin incisions are made traditionally with scalpel. The cutting diathermy for making surgical incision has met with scepticism because of possible excessive scarring, impaired wound healing, higher risk of SSI. This study was undertaken to compare the outcomes of diathermy and scalpel skin incisions in patients undergoing varied abdominal surgery in terms of incision time, blood loss, postoperative pain, wound healing, postoperative wound complications and patient's compliance. Patients and methods: One hundred patients of either sexes were considered in this prospective, comparative study in patients undergoing abdominal surgeries. The study population was divided into two groups of 50 patients each to compare the outcomes of diathermy and scalpel skin incisions in patients undergoing varied abdominal surgery in terms of incision time, blood loss, postoperative pain, wound healing, postoperative wound complications and patient's compliance. Results and observations: The Mean duration of Incision in the Diathermy group was 13.34±5 62 secs and that of Scalpel group was 20.71±6.87 secs with 95% condence interval of 4.74 – 9.74. Incision time was less in electrocautery group (P <0.001). The mean value of incision related blood loss in electrocautery group was 3.66± 2.15 and scalpel group was 11.58±4.83ml( P <0.001). Post operative pain, complications, scar compliance are comparable in both groups. Conclusions: The diathermy is the ideal method of incision in high-risk patients, where both the blood loss and operating time are at a premium. Diathermy incisions heal like that of scalpel incisions and is comparable to each other.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
RELEVANCE OF NURSE PRACTITIONER MIDWIVES IN INDIAN STATES INCLUDING ASSAM PAROXYSMAL SUPRAVENTRICULAR TACHYCARDIAS AND PRE-EXCITATION SYNDROMES: COMPREHENSIVE NARRATIVE REVIEW A CLINICO-HEMATOLOGICAL PROFILE OF MICROCYTIC HYPOCHROMIC ANEMIA IN CHILDREN: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY INSURGENCY AND THE QUESTION OF STABILITY IN ASSAM COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TEAR FILM IN DIGITAL SCREEN USERS VERSUS NON-USERS.
×
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