Diathermy versus scalpel in midline abdominal incision: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

IF 1.3 4区医学 Q3 SURGERY

Cirugia Espanola Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ciresp.2024.07.011

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.ciresp.2024.07.011","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":50690,"journal":{"name":"Cirugia Espanola","volume":"103 1","pages":"Pages 3-10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cirugia Espanola","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009739X24002021","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","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.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

透热与手术刀在腹部中线切口中的比较：随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析

我们的研究目的是比较腹部中线切口与手术刀和透热。方法按照PRISMA指南（PROSPERO, ID: CRD42024516771）检索到2024年1月的spubmed、EMBASE和Cochrane，仅纳入随机对照试验。采用Cochran’s Q检验和I2异质性指数评估异质性。采用Review Manager 5.4软件进行统计分析。结果纳入6项随机对照试验，其中469例（51.5%）采用透热切开，442例（48.5%）采用手术刀切开。电灼入路患者切口出血量少(MD - 17.57 mL；P < .01)。两组间伤口感染发生率、切口时间、切口面积及术后第1天疼痛均无统计学差异。结论腹腔中线切口采用透热治疗可显著减少切口相关出血量，与手术刀相比，伤口感染和术后早期疼痛发生率无差异。

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

Cirugia Espanola SURGERY-

CiteScore

1.20

自引率

21.10%

发文量

173

审稿时长

53 days

期刊介绍： Cirugía Española, an official body of the Asociación Española de Cirujanos (Spanish Association of Surgeons), will consider original articles, reviews, editorials, special articles, scientific letters, letters to the editor, and medical images for publication; all of these will be submitted to an anonymous external peer review process. There is also the possibility of accepting book reviews of recent publications related to General and Digestive Surgery.