Esra İşçi BOSTANCI
(Etlik Zübeyde Hanım Kadın Sağlığı Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Jinekolojik Onkoloji Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)
İsmail GÜLER
(Gazi Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi Hastanesi, Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)
Funda CEVHER AKDULUM
(Gazi Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi Hastanesi, Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)
Mehmet Anil ONAN
(Gazi Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi Hastanesi, Jinekolojik Onkoloji Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)
Yıl: 2020Cilt: 26Sayı: 3ISSN: 1300-4751 / 2602-4918Sayfa Aralığı: 184 - 187İngilizce

62 0
Electrocautery Versus Scalpel in Women Undergoing Primary Cesarean Section and Neonatal Outcomes
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the postoperative wound infection rate, newborn effect and, the effect of skin to peritoneum incision time between diathermy and scalpel for the operation time during primer cesarean section cases. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study was carried out at Gazi University Hospital. A total of 74 patients met inclusion criteria in this study but 6 patients were excluded in electrocautery group for not to come controls, group I patients, n=37, underwent operation via scalpel incision and group II patients, n=31, underwent operation by diathermy incision. The main outcome measures were the operation time, post-operative wound infection rate, scar character, neonatal Apgar scores, and need of neonatal intensive care unit. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between newborn Apgar scores (1st and 5th minutes), wound infections, and operation times (p=0.35, p=0.69, p=0.32, respectively). CONCLUSION: Related to findings, it could be suggested that diathermy might be an alternative to the scalpel in Pfannenstiel incisions contrary to the old belief about its high infection rates.
DergiAraştırma MakalesiErişime Açık
  • 1. Mathai M, Hofmeyr GJ. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (1):CD004453. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004453.
  • 2. Ly J, Mittal A, Windsor J. Systemic review and meta-analysis of cutting diathermy versus scalpel for skin incision. Br J Surg. 2012;99(5):613-20. doi: 10.1002/bjs.8708.
  • 3. Kadyan B, Chavan S, Mann M, Punia P, Tekade S. A prospective study comparing diathermy and steel scalpel in abdominal incisions. Med J DY Patil Univ. 2014; 7:558-63. doi: 10.4103/0975-2870.140382
  • 4. Johnson CD, Serpell JW. Wound infection after abdominal incision with scalpel or diathermy. Br J Surg. 1990;77(6):626-7. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800770610.
  • 5. Dixon AR, Watkin DF. Electrosurgical skin incision versus conventional scalpel: a prospective trial. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1990;35(5):299-301. PMID: 2283608
  • 6. Bamigboye AA, Hofmeyr GJ. Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4): CD000163. doi: 10.1002/ 14651858.
  • 7. Kearns SR, Connolly EM, McNally S, McNamara DA, Deasy J. Randomized clinical trial of diathermy versus scalpel incision in elective midline laparotomy. Br J Surg. 2001;88(1):41-4. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2001.01882- 7.x.
  • 8. Telfer JRC, Canning G, Galloway DJ. Comparative study of abdominal incision techniques. Br J Surg. 1993;80(2): 233-5. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800800238.
  • 9. Cruse PJE. Some factors determining wound infection. A prospective study of 30000 wounds. In: Polk HC Jr, Stone HH, editors. Hospital-Acquired Infections in Surgery. Baltimore: University Park Press;1977. p. 79-85. PMID: 4892316
  • 10. Cruse PJE, Foord R. The epidemiology of wound infection. A 10-year prospective study of 62,939 wounds. Surg Clin North Am. 1980;60(1):27-40. doi: 10.1016/s0039- 6109(16)42031-1.
  • 11. Mir MA, Khan MN, Aziz I, Ismail A. Randomized comparative study of electrosurgical and conventional scalpel incisions in general surgery. Surgery. 2010;20(25):15-22.
  • 12. Soballe PW, Nimbkar NV, Hayward I, Nielsen TB, Drucker WR. Electric cautery lowers the contamination threshold for infection of laparotomies. Am J Surg. 1998; 175(4):263-6. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9610(98)00020-8.
  • 13. Ahmed NZ, Ahmed A. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of surgical scalpel or diathermy in making abdominal skin incisions. Ann Surg. 2011;253(1):8-13. doi: 10.1097/ SLA.0b013e3181ff461f.
  • 14. Shivagouda P, Gogeri BV, Godhi AS, Metgud SC. Prospective randomized control trial comparing the efficacy of diathermy incision versus scalpel incision over skin in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Recent Res Sci Tech. 2010;2(8):44-7.
  • 15. Hemsell DL, Hemsell PG, Nobles B, Johnson ER, Little BB, Heard M. Abdominal wound problems after hysterectomy with electrocautery vs. scalpel subcutaneous incision. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 1993;1(1):27-31. Doi: 10.1155/S1064744993000079.
  • 16. Upadhyay S, Bansal N. Electrocautery versus scalpel incision in inguinal hernioplasty. RJPBCS. 2013;4(4):499- 503.
  • 17. Elbohoty AE, Gomaa MF, Abdelaleim M, Abd-El-Gawad M, Elmarakby M. Diathermy versus scalpel in transverse abdominal incision in women undergoing repeated cesa rean section: a randomized controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015;41(10):1541-6. doi: 10.1111/jog.127 76.
  • 18. Ismail A, Abushouk AI, Elmaraezy A, Menshawy A, Menshawy E, Ismail M, et al. Cutting electrocautery versus scalpel for surgical incisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Surg Res. 2017;220:147-63. doi: 10.1016 /j.jss.2017.06.093.

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © 2019 Tüm Hakları Saklıdır.