A clinical and histological comparison of mucosal incisions produced by scalpel, electrocautery, and diode laser: A pilot study

Anuradha Bhatsange, Ekta Meshram, A. Waghamare, Lalitha B. Shiggaon, Vijay Mehetre, Alkesh Shende
{"title":"A clinical and histological comparison of mucosal incisions produced by scalpel, electrocautery, and diode laser: A pilot study","authors":"Anuradha Bhatsange, Ekta Meshram, A. Waghamare, Lalitha B. Shiggaon, Vijay Mehetre, Alkesh Shende","doi":"10.4103/2321-1385.196962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The aim of this study was to clinically and histologically compare mucosal incisions of oral tissues after surgical procedures with scalpel, electrocautery, and diode laser. Materials and Methods: Nine standardized incisions were performed in oral mucosa by scalpel, electrocautery, and diode laser. Specimens were classified into three groups according to tool used for surgical excision. Group A: Three specimens excised through a Bard-Parker (BP) scalpel blade no. 15c; Groups B and C included three specimens each excised through electrocautery and diode laser, respectively. Cut margins of biopsy specimens, adjacent peripheral mucosa were evaluated using light microscopy and histologic zones were identified, assessed: For epithelial changes, incision morphology, lateral tissue damage. Intra- and post-operative parameters assessed were the duration of surgery, bleeding, postoperative pain and healing. Results: Immediate hemostasis was seen with electrocautery and laser compared to scalpel (P < 0.011), mean time taken by electrocautery and laser was less compared to scalpel (P < 0.001). The analysis of regularity of incision and postoperative pain experienced by patients revealed a statistically significant difference (P < 0.01). Histologic damage was least with scalpel. The extent of degeneration was lowest with scalpel followed by laser or electrocautery (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Laser and electrocautery have upper hand over scalpel in relation to hemostasis, but have demerits such as lateral heat damage, tissue necrosis, delayed wound healing, and high cost. Even with advanced treatment modality, conventional scalpel treatment is better option in terms of precise incision, lower cost and faster reepithelization than laser and electrosurgery. Heat generating devices may not allow reliable histologic interpretations, particularly assessing margins of small biopsy specimens or malignant conditions.","PeriodicalId":345720,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dental Lasers","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dental Lasers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/2321-1385.196962","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to clinically and histologically compare mucosal incisions of oral tissues after surgical procedures with scalpel, electrocautery, and diode laser. Materials and Methods: Nine standardized incisions were performed in oral mucosa by scalpel, electrocautery, and diode laser. Specimens were classified into three groups according to tool used for surgical excision. Group A: Three specimens excised through a Bard-Parker (BP) scalpel blade no. 15c; Groups B and C included three specimens each excised through electrocautery and diode laser, respectively. Cut margins of biopsy specimens, adjacent peripheral mucosa were evaluated using light microscopy and histologic zones were identified, assessed: For epithelial changes, incision morphology, lateral tissue damage. Intra- and post-operative parameters assessed were the duration of surgery, bleeding, postoperative pain and healing. Results: Immediate hemostasis was seen with electrocautery and laser compared to scalpel (P < 0.011), mean time taken by electrocautery and laser was less compared to scalpel (P < 0.001). The analysis of regularity of incision and postoperative pain experienced by patients revealed a statistically significant difference (P < 0.01). Histologic damage was least with scalpel. The extent of degeneration was lowest with scalpel followed by laser or electrocautery (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Laser and electrocautery have upper hand over scalpel in relation to hemostasis, but have demerits such as lateral heat damage, tissue necrosis, delayed wound healing, and high cost. Even with advanced treatment modality, conventional scalpel treatment is better option in terms of precise incision, lower cost and faster reepithelization than laser and electrosurgery. Heat generating devices may not allow reliable histologic interpretations, particularly assessing margins of small biopsy specimens or malignant conditions.
手术刀、电灼和二极管激光造成的粘膜切口的临床和组织学比较:一项初步研究
目的:本研究的目的是在临床和组织学上比较手术刀、电灼和二极管激光手术后口腔组织的粘膜切口。材料与方法:采用手术刀、电灼、二极管激光对口腔黏膜进行9个标准切口。根据手术切除工具将标本分为三组。A组:通过BP手术刀刀片切除3个标本。15 c;B组和C组分别采用电灼和二极管激光切除3例。使用光镜对活检标本的切缘、邻近的周围粘膜进行评估,并确定组织学区域,评估:上皮改变、切口形态、外侧组织损伤。评估术中和术后参数为手术时间、出血、术后疼痛和愈合。结果:与手术刀相比,电灼和激光能立即止血(P < 0.011),电灼和激光的平均止血时间比手术刀短(P < 0.001)。两组患者的切口规律及术后疼痛情况比较,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.01)。手术刀对组织学损害最小。手术刀组退行性变程度最低,其次为激光和电灼组(P < 0.05)。结论:激光和电灼在止血方面比手术刀有优势,但存在外侧热损伤、组织坏死、伤口愈合延迟、费用高等缺点。即使在先进的治疗方式下,传统的手术刀治疗在切口精确、成本低和再上皮化速度方面比激光和电手术更好。发热装置可能不能提供可靠的组织学解释,特别是评估小活检标本的边缘或恶性疾病。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信