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":"腹部中线切开术中的热疗与手术刀：随机对照试验的系统回顾和元分析》。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Diathermy versus scalpel in midline abdominal incision: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
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
