Nicole dos Santos Pimenta , Ana Clara Felix de Farias Santos , João Pedro Costa Esteves Almuinha Salles , Juliana Millani de Oliveira , Pedro Henrique Costa Matos da Silva , Renan Carlo Colombari
{"title":"Diathermy versus scalpel in midline abdominal incision: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Nicole dos Santos Pimenta , Ana Clara Felix de Farias Santos , João Pedro Costa Esteves Almuinha Salles , Juliana Millani de Oliveira , Pedro Henrique Costa Matos da Silva , Renan Carlo Colombari","doi":"10.1016/j.cireng.2024.09.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Our study aimed to compare the midline abdominal incision with scalpel and diathermy.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched through January 2024 following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO, ID: CRD42024516771), and only randomized controlled trials were included. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I<sup>2</sup> heterogeneity index. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Six randomized controlled trials were included, from which 469 patients (51.5%) received diathermy incision and 442 patients (48.5%) underwent the scalpel technique. Patients treated with the electrocautery approach had less incision blood loss (MD −17.57 mL; <em>P</em> < .01). No statistically significant differences were found between groups regarding wound infection incidence, incision time, incision area or first-day postoperative pain.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Diathermy use in midline abdominal incision may be advocated as it demonstrated a significant reduction in incision-related blood loss, with no differences in wound infection or early postoperative pain incidences compared to the scalpel.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":93935,"journal":{"name":"Cirugia espanola","volume":"103 1","pages":"Pages 3-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cirugia espanola","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S217350772400200X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Our study aimed to compare the midline abdominal incision with scalpel and diathermy.
Methods
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched through January 2024 following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO, ID: CRD42024516771), and only randomized controlled trials were included. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I2 heterogeneity index. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software.
Results
Six randomized controlled trials were included, from which 469 patients (51.5%) received diathermy incision and 442 patients (48.5%) underwent the scalpel technique. Patients treated with the electrocautery approach had less incision blood loss (MD −17.57 mL; P < .01). No statistically significant differences were found between groups regarding wound infection incidence, incision time, incision area or first-day postoperative pain.
Conclusion
Diathermy use in midline abdominal incision may be advocated as it demonstrated a significant reduction in incision-related blood loss, with no differences in wound infection or early postoperative pain incidences compared to the scalpel.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
