射频与手术刀切割上睑成形术:临床病理和照片比较

Juliana Senna Figueiredo Barbi, Leonardo Diniz, R. O. E. Santo, Ícaro Perez Soares, Magda Pires
{"title":"射频与手术刀切割上睑成形术:临床病理和照片比较","authors":"Juliana Senna Figueiredo Barbi, Leonardo Diniz, R. O. E. Santo, Ícaro Perez Soares, Magda Pires","doi":"10.29328/journal.ijceo.1001024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cosmetic blepharoplasty of the upper eyelids has long been a mainstay of aesthetic surgeons and remains one of the most requested functional and aesthetic procedures. Multiple incisional modalities have been used over the years, including scalpel, scissors, electro surgery, radio wave surgery, and CO2 laser [1-12]. Although conventional surgery with scalpel and scissors (i.e., cold incision) produces aesthetic results, it applies skin stretching during incision and leads to enhanced bleeding and increased postoperative edema, ecchymosis, and discomfort [3]. By contrast, radio wave surgery (also designated radiofrequency [RF] surgery or radiosurgery), provides a pressure less incision with no dragging or bunching of tissue (concomitant with an enhanced precision of incision), and a simultaneous cutting and coagulation mode maintains a bloodless surgical ield, with minor risks of postoperative hematoma. However, it does lead to lateral tissue damage caused by heat production in the tissue1. Surprisingly, only a few studies were found comparing these two incision modalities in the same patient [1,2]. Abstract","PeriodicalId":15372,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology","volume":"138 1","pages":"001-004"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Radiofrequency vs. scalpel incision for upper blepharoplasty: A clinicopathologic and photo comparison\",\"authors\":\"Juliana Senna Figueiredo Barbi, Leonardo Diniz, R. O. E. Santo, Ícaro Perez Soares, Magda Pires\",\"doi\":\"10.29328/journal.ijceo.1001024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Cosmetic blepharoplasty of the upper eyelids has long been a mainstay of aesthetic surgeons and remains one of the most requested functional and aesthetic procedures. Multiple incisional modalities have been used over the years, including scalpel, scissors, electro surgery, radio wave surgery, and CO2 laser [1-12]. Although conventional surgery with scalpel and scissors (i.e., cold incision) produces aesthetic results, it applies skin stretching during incision and leads to enhanced bleeding and increased postoperative edema, ecchymosis, and discomfort [3]. By contrast, radio wave surgery (also designated radiofrequency [RF] surgery or radiosurgery), provides a pressure less incision with no dragging or bunching of tissue (concomitant with an enhanced precision of incision), and a simultaneous cutting and coagulation mode maintains a bloodless surgical ield, with minor risks of postoperative hematoma. However, it does lead to lateral tissue damage caused by heat production in the tissue1. Surprisingly, only a few studies were found comparing these two incision modalities in the same patient [1,2]. Abstract\",\"PeriodicalId\":15372,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\"138 1\",\"pages\":\"001-004\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29328/journal.ijceo.1001024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29328/journal.ijceo.1001024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,上眼睑整容术一直是美容外科医生的支柱,并且仍然是最需要的功能和美学程序之一。多年来使用了多种切口方式,包括手术刀、剪刀、电手术、无线电波手术和CO2激光[1-12]。虽然使用手术刀和剪刀的常规手术(即冷切口)可以达到美观的效果,但它在切口时施加皮肤拉伸,导致出血增加,术后水肿、瘀斑和不适增加。相比之下,无线电波手术(也被称为射频[RF]手术或放射手术)提供了一个无压力的切口,没有组织的拖曳或聚集(伴随着切口精度的提高),同时切割和凝固模式保持了一个无血的手术野,术后血肿的风险很小。然而,它确实会导致组织中产生热量引起的侧向组织损伤。令人惊讶的是,只有少数研究发现在同一患者中比较这两种切口方式[1,2]。摘要
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Radiofrequency vs. scalpel incision for upper blepharoplasty: A clinicopathologic and photo comparison
Cosmetic blepharoplasty of the upper eyelids has long been a mainstay of aesthetic surgeons and remains one of the most requested functional and aesthetic procedures. Multiple incisional modalities have been used over the years, including scalpel, scissors, electro surgery, radio wave surgery, and CO2 laser [1-12]. Although conventional surgery with scalpel and scissors (i.e., cold incision) produces aesthetic results, it applies skin stretching during incision and leads to enhanced bleeding and increased postoperative edema, ecchymosis, and discomfort [3]. By contrast, radio wave surgery (also designated radiofrequency [RF] surgery or radiosurgery), provides a pressure less incision with no dragging or bunching of tissue (concomitant with an enhanced precision of incision), and a simultaneous cutting and coagulation mode maintains a bloodless surgical ield, with minor risks of postoperative hematoma. However, it does lead to lateral tissue damage caused by heat production in the tissue1. Surprisingly, only a few studies were found comparing these two incision modalities in the same patient [1,2]. Abstract
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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