在择期普外科手术中使用电热疗法和手术刀切口的随机临床试验。

IF 0.4 4区 医学 Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal Pub Date : 2015-02-21 eCollection Date: 2015-02-01 DOI:10.5812/ircmj.14078
Altaf Ahmed Talpur, Abdul Basir Khaskheli, Nandlal Kella, Akmal Jamal
{"title":"在择期普外科手术中使用电热疗法和手术刀切口的随机临床试验。","authors":"Altaf Ahmed Talpur, Abdul Basir Khaskheli, Nandlal Kella, Akmal Jamal","doi":"10.5812/ircmj.14078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Since a long time skin incisions have routinely been made with scalpels. Now a day there is a shift in trend from this method to electrosurgical skin incisions. However, fear of bad scars and improper wound healing has prevented its wide spread use. This Study aimed to compare both methods of skin incisions for different variables.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to examine incisional time, blood loss during incision and postoperative wound complications and pain with both methods of skin incision.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A prospective, comparative and randomized study was conducted at different hospitals of Hyderabad and Nawabshah, Pakistan from 1(st) of December 2009 to 30(th) of November 2011. The study included patients of either sex above the age of five years with general surgical pathology who were to undergo surgery. these candidates were randomly put into two groups. In Group A patients incision was made with a scalpel and in group B with diathermy. Data was analyzed for age, sex, comorbid illness, incisional time, blood loss during incision making and postoperative pain and wound complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 283 patients completed the follow-up and were included in the final analysis. Group A comprised of 143 (50.53%) patients; 83 (58%) males and 60 (42%) females with a mean age of 36.03 years. Amongst the 140 patients of group B, there were 85 (60.7%) males and 55 (39.3%) females with a mean age of 36.52 years. Twenty-five (17.48%) patients of group A and 27 (19.28%) of group B had comorbid illnesses. Mean incision time was 8.9025-sec/cm(2) for group A and 7.3057 sec/cm(2) for group B patients. Mean blood loss during incision making was 1.8262 mL/cm(2) and 1.1346 mL/cm(2) for group A and B patients, respectively. Pain was 5.2957 for group A patients on day one and 3.1181 for group B patients. Pain score was 2.1049 and 1.6206 on day two and 0.8191 and 0.7192 on day five, for group A and B patients, respectively. Postoperative wound complications were noticed in 26 (18.18%) patients of group A and 22 (15.71%) patients of group B.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Diathermy incision is a safe and expedient technique. It takes less time than scalpel incision and loss of blood is also lower during incision. Diathermy is associated with lesser post-operative pain and complications than the scalpel incision. Diathermy should be method of choice in general elective surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":14628,"journal":{"name":"Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2015-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f0/94/ircmj-17-02-14078.PMC4376978.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Randomized, clinical trial on diathermy and scalpel incisions in elective general surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Altaf Ahmed Talpur, Abdul Basir Khaskheli, Nandlal Kella, Akmal Jamal\",\"doi\":\"10.5812/ircmj.14078\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Since a long time skin incisions have routinely been made with scalpels. Now a day there is a shift in trend from this method to electrosurgical skin incisions. However, fear of bad scars and improper wound healing has prevented its wide spread use. This Study aimed to compare both methods of skin incisions for different variables.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to examine incisional time, blood loss during incision and postoperative wound complications and pain with both methods of skin incision.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A prospective, comparative and randomized study was conducted at different hospitals of Hyderabad and Nawabshah, Pakistan from 1(st) of December 2009 to 30(th) of November 2011. The study included patients of either sex above the age of five years with general surgical pathology who were to undergo surgery. these candidates were randomly put into two groups. In Group A patients incision was made with a scalpel and in group B with diathermy. Data was analyzed for age, sex, comorbid illness, incisional time, blood loss during incision making and postoperative pain and wound complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 283 patients completed the follow-up and were included in the final analysis. Group A comprised of 143 (50.53%) patients; 83 (58%) males and 60 (42%) females with a mean age of 36.03 years. Amongst the 140 patients of group B, there were 85 (60.7%) males and 55 (39.3%) females with a mean age of 36.52 years. Twenty-five (17.48%) patients of group A and 27 (19.28%) of group B had comorbid illnesses. Mean incision time was 8.9025-sec/cm(2) for group A and 7.3057 sec/cm(2) for group B patients. Mean blood loss during incision making was 1.8262 mL/cm(2) and 1.1346 mL/cm(2) for group A and B patients, respectively. Pain was 5.2957 for group A patients on day one and 3.1181 for group B patients. Pain score was 2.1049 and 1.6206 on day two and 0.8191 and 0.7192 on day five, for group A and B patients, respectively. Postoperative wound complications were noticed in 26 (18.18%) patients of group A and 22 (15.71%) patients of group B.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Diathermy incision is a safe and expedient technique. It takes less time than scalpel incision and loss of blood is also lower during incision. Diathermy is associated with lesser post-operative pain and complications than the scalpel incision. Diathermy should be method of choice in general elective surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14628,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-02-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f0/94/ircmj-17-02-14078.PMC4376978.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.14078\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2015/2/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.14078","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:长期以来,皮肤切口通常使用手术刀。现在的趋势是从这种方法转向电外科皮肤切口。然而,由于担心留下疤痕和伤口愈合不良,这种方法并未得到广泛应用。本研究旨在比较两种皮肤切割方法的不同变量:本研究旨在考察两种皮肤切开法的切开时间、切开过程中的失血量以及术后伤口并发症和疼痛:2009年12月1日至2011年11月30日,在巴基斯坦海德拉巴和纳瓦布沙赫的不同医院进行了一项前瞻性、对比性和随机研究。研究对象包括五岁以上患有普通外科病理的男女患者,这些患者被随机分为两组。A 组患者使用手术刀,B 组患者使用电疗法。数据分析包括年龄、性别、合并症、切口时间、切口失血量、术后疼痛和伤口并发症:共有 283 名患者完成了随访并被纳入最终分析。A 组有 143 名患者(50.53%),其中男性 83 名(58%),女性 60 名(42%),平均年龄 36.03 岁。B 组 140 名患者中,男性 85 人(60.7%),女性 55 人(39.3%),平均年龄 36.52 岁。A 组中有 25 名(17.48%)和 B 组中有 27 名(19.28%)患者患有合并症。A 组患者的平均切口时间为 8.9025 秒/厘米(2),B 组患者的平均切口时间为 7.3057 秒/厘米(2)。A 组和 B 组患者切口时的平均失血量分别为 1.8262 mL/cm(2) 和 1.1346 mL/cm(2)。第一天,A 组患者的疼痛感为 5.2957,B 组患者为 3.1181。第二天,A 组和 B 组患者的疼痛评分分别为 2.1049 和 1.6206,第五天分别为 0.8191 和 0.7192。术后出现伤口并发症的 A 组患者有 26 人(18.18%),B 组患者有 22 人(15.71%):结论:电疗切口是一种安全、便捷的技术。结论:电热敷切口是一种安全、快捷的技术,它比手术刀切口花费的时间更短,切口时的失血量也更少。与手术刀切口相比,电热疗法的术后疼痛和并发症较少。电热疗法应成为一般择期手术的首选方法。
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
Randomized, clinical trial on diathermy and scalpel incisions in elective general surgery.

Background: Since a long time skin incisions have routinely been made with scalpels. Now a day there is a shift in trend from this method to electrosurgical skin incisions. However, fear of bad scars and improper wound healing has prevented its wide spread use. This Study aimed to compare both methods of skin incisions for different variables.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine incisional time, blood loss during incision and postoperative wound complications and pain with both methods of skin incision.

Patients and methods: A prospective, comparative and randomized study was conducted at different hospitals of Hyderabad and Nawabshah, Pakistan from 1(st) of December 2009 to 30(th) of November 2011. The study included patients of either sex above the age of five years with general surgical pathology who were to undergo surgery. these candidates were randomly put into two groups. In Group A patients incision was made with a scalpel and in group B with diathermy. Data was analyzed for age, sex, comorbid illness, incisional time, blood loss during incision making and postoperative pain and wound complications.

Results: A total of 283 patients completed the follow-up and were included in the final analysis. Group A comprised of 143 (50.53%) patients; 83 (58%) males and 60 (42%) females with a mean age of 36.03 years. Amongst the 140 patients of group B, there were 85 (60.7%) males and 55 (39.3%) females with a mean age of 36.52 years. Twenty-five (17.48%) patients of group A and 27 (19.28%) of group B had comorbid illnesses. Mean incision time was 8.9025-sec/cm(2) for group A and 7.3057 sec/cm(2) for group B patients. Mean blood loss during incision making was 1.8262 mL/cm(2) and 1.1346 mL/cm(2) for group A and B patients, respectively. Pain was 5.2957 for group A patients on day one and 3.1181 for group B patients. Pain score was 2.1049 and 1.6206 on day two and 0.8191 and 0.7192 on day five, for group A and B patients, respectively. Postoperative wound complications were noticed in 26 (18.18%) patients of group A and 22 (15.71%) patients of group B.

Conclusions: Diathermy incision is a safe and expedient technique. It takes less time than scalpel incision and loss of blood is also lower during incision. Diathermy is associated with lesser post-operative pain and complications than the scalpel incision. Diathermy should be method of choice in general elective surgery.

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
Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal
Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal 医学-医学:内科
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The IRANIAN RED CRESCENT MEDICAL JOURNAL is an international, English language, peer-reviewed journal dealing with general Medicine and Surgery, Disaster Medicine and Health Policy. It is an official Journal of the Iranian Hospital Dubai and is published monthly. The Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal aims at publishing the high quality materials, both clinical and scientific, on all aspects of Medicine and Surgery
期刊最新文献
Dexmedetomidine and Bupivacaine Versus Bupivacaine Alone in Ultrasound Guided Fascia Iliaca Compartment Blockade for Femoral Fractures A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Ultrasound Detection of Thyroid Cancer in China Analysis of Differences in FIB, D-D, and Inflammatory Factor Levels between Patients Undergoing Pelvic Fracture Surgery through the Pararectus Abdominis Approach and Traditional Ilioinguinal Approach Management of Post-lumbar-operation Back Pain using Myofascial Trigger Point Injection: A Retrospective Study Perioperative Nursing Influence on Cerebrospinal Fluid Biochemical Markers in Cerebral Hemorrhage Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Intracranial Hematoma Removal Surgery
×
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