The short-term outcomes of surgical scars in head and neck surgery comparing between surgical blade and geometric electron modulation electrocautery.

Background: Scar formation after neck surgery is a frequent concern, impacting patients both physically and psychologically. Cosmetic appearance plays a crucial role in assessing surgical success. At present, the evolving medical technologies introduces innovations like Geometric Electron Modulation (GEM) electrocautery. GEM technology offers potential benefits such as reduced thermal injury and consistent heat emission during surgery compared to conventional electrocautery.

Objectives: To compare the difference between postoperative neck scars from the surgical blade as the gold standard and geometric electron modulation electrocautery.

Material and methods: A randomized controlled study was performed on the patients who were diagnosed with surgical conditions requiring neck surgery at the Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, from 2023 to 2024. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale was utilized to assess scar appearance at 1 and 3 months following the surgery, and the amount of blood loss during incision was recorded.

Results: 22 patients were enrolled to this study. At 1-month follow-up, we saw significant difference between GEM (20.32 ± 4.11) and the surgical blade (23.27 ± 4.59) (P = 0.008) from POSAS, patient scale but no significant difference in doctor scale, (GEM 21.55 ± 7.34, surgical blade 24.27 ± 7.88, P = 0.155). At 3-month follow-up, there were no significant difference between the groups both doctor (GEM 16.45 ± 4.62, surgical blade 17.65 ± 4.50, P = 0.411) and patient scale (GEM 13.15 ± 2.96, surgical blade 14.05 ± 3.33, P = 0.328).

Conclusion: GEM electrocautery had a superior scar outcome to a surgical blade at 1 month from the patient perspective. There was also significantly less blood loss in GEM compared with the surgical blade.